Intelligent design is circular reasoning

[backspace]

My edits are being reversed on Wikipedia here is my last edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tautology_(rhetoric)&oldid=547076224

A rhetorical tautology is defined as a series of statements that form an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed or that, by defining a dissimilar or synonymous term in terms of another self-referentially, the truth of the proposition or explanation cannot be disputed. Consequently, the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable. It is a way of formulating a description such that it masquerades as an explanation when the real reason for the phenomena cannot be independently derived. A rhetorical tautology should not be confused with a tautology in propositional logic, which by the precepts of empiricism is not falsifiable.

The algebraic and numerical constructs in mathematical logic are used in physics to facilitate the ratiocination concerning measurements of matter and energy and assumes apriori truths in propositional logic, which results in confusion between two spheres of inference. In mathematics, 1+2 = 3 isn't a measurement but a tautological necessary truth about numerical and algebraic relationships it doesn't compare actual things. With physics, 1+2 apples = 1 unit of apple juice in a blender, one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms combined is measured to result in one water molecule (1+2 = 1). It is not a logical necessity that the interaction of units of energy and matter will correspond to mathematical numerical and algebraic relationships. Empiricisms are classified in terms of physics equations and not mathematical tautologies, they are of a different syntactic structure.

Rhetorical tautologies state the same thing twice, while attempting to imply that it's saying two or more different things, while logical tautologies state the same thing twice and must do so by logical necessity. The inherent meanings and subsequent conclusions in rhetorical and logical tautologies or logical necessities are very different. Physics equations are not tautologies because they are not logical necessities, "F=ma" doesn't state the same thing twice, it expresses the relationship of force to acceleration and mass. Logical tautologies are neither refutable nor verifiable under any condition by axiomatic necessity. If this were not so, it would raise the question as to how an M�nchhausen infinite regress of tests on the logical validity would be avoided. The M�nchhausen trilemma, one of the Unsolved problems in philosophy, proposes that any world view reduces ultimately to the choice between unprovable axiomatic assumptions or infinite regress of language, reasoning, logic and metaphor. If the univ

erse has an explanation, then such explanation itself must not have an explanation or it would induce infinite regress of explanations. The implication is that if a Deity created the universe and the structure of our language, he in turn must not have an explanation and be unfalsifiable in his essence to avoid Antony Flew's falsification test for him as described in Flew's article "Theology and Falsification". Such a Deity must explain the antonymic structure of our language, the way we understand existence as the opposite of non-existence and why this prevents infinite regress of options, avoiding infinite suspension of judgement. Our antonymic language is reflected in the subjective notion of joy/gloom to the more objective premise of cause/effect in physics and concentrate/uniformity of energy in thermodynamics, but the notions themselves are not falsifiable. Their justification are that the M�nchhausen trilemmian alternative is infinite suspension of reason, a state of nirvanic nothingness. Nirvanism pro

poses that the ultimate state is to reach a dimension where the antonymic structure of our language does not exist, a state of neither perception nor non-perception. But to accept the very proposition and not reject it, we have to assume antonymic language, the Nirvanic world view itself can only be perceived or not perceived. Nirvanism reduces therefore to a Reductio ad absurdum. If God's existence as supreme ruler of the universe could be proven, he would not be God because it would raise the question as to how to prevent proofs Ad infinitum. This Deity would have established the principle of falsifiability and cannot therefore be subject unto it himself. If God exists, he can't be scientific because he would have established science, preventing infinite regress of science(empiricism). Because our thinking is not frozen into a state of infinitism the conclusion is therefore that an unfalsifiable God must exist.

What is significant about the various debates between theists and atheists about the existence of God is that both sides are making the unrealized assumption that our only choices reduces to a contrast: God either exists or he doesn't. This very antonymic notion itself isn't falsifiable. The view that we are to reject God's existence due to the lack of empirical evidence needs to explain where the empirical evidence for the underlying antonymic assumption in the proposition itself is. Only a Deity of supreme intelligence would have had the foresight to turn the most convincing argument against his existence into something which actually implies his existence. Because Irreducible complexity was derived from the self-refuting premise of empiricism/unfalsifiability it led to the erroneous conclusion that the unscientific concept of IC is therefore a fallacy. Evaluated in terms of the M�nchhausen trilemmian unfalsifiability/infinitism premise it is revealed as an expression of our innate antonymic language. The

concept was actually described by D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson in his book "On growth and form" under the rubric of "Composite Integrity" and he traces it back to Kant, Alexander Pope and Aristotle. In the same way we understand light/darkness, premise/conclusion forming a composite integrity so the notion is expressed in our description of key/lock for example. Intelligent design's major premise is the empiricism/unfalsifiability dichotomy and the minor premise that God or a designer's existence is probable, with the conclusion that a Designer such as God must exist. Because the major premise in the syllogism is a Reductio ad absurdum the minor premise is restated as the conclusion which constitutes Circular reasoning. Despite the sophistication and complexity of William Dembski's arguments from design, he merely restates his minor premise. ID must incorporate an element of unfalsifiability such as the M�nchhausen trilemma as its major premise for the logician to determine whether the conclusion derives logica

lly. The antonymic nexus of existence/non-existence was assumed in the conclusion by both Atheist and ID theorists but it did not derive from their respective syllogisms in either the major or minor premises nor in the arguments that bind the conclusion to the syllogism, therefore the conclusion that God exists or does not exist did not derive logically.

The God Delusion on p.114 states ".......A deep understanding of Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance, and teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing complexity......" . Applying Dakwins logic to his very sentence itself reveals its own self-refutational nature. Since design/chance isn't our only dichotomy then on what basis is Dawkins sentence either designed or the result of chance? His sentence could be for some other yet to be determined reason, an infinite number of reasons , inducing infinite regress. Richard Dawkins premise is that God's existence is improbable,but because his arguments induces infinitism, his conclusion that God does not exist, did not derive logically.

Whether God exists or not in reality is not the concern of the logician but whether the respective conclusions from conflicting world views derive logically. The tools of analytic philosophy allows us to not only evaluate world views we consider as irrational but our own world views with the serenity of a contemplating logician, constructing a shield of reason against the declamation from the media, its hyperbole reminiscent of the increased shrillness in the last works of Nietzsche, a premonition of his imminent descent into madness.

Wittgenstein asserted that the conceptual confusion in philosophical problems reduces to that of language and that our investigation is therefore a grammatical one. Grammar is a composite integrity of finite rules that cannot develop gradually but only together constitute the means of generating a natural language. Chomsky's universal grammar theory is predicated on this assumption.

Rhetorical tautologies guarantee the truth of the proposition, where the expectation (premise) was for a testable construct, any conclusion is by the precepts of falsificationism a non sequitur (logic). Circular reasoning differs from tautologies in that the premise is restated as the conclusion in an argument, instead of deriving the conclusion from the premise with arguments, while tautologies states the same thing twice. If the argument that separates the conclusion from the premise is a logical fallacy such as a rhetorical tautology, then the premise is merely restated as the conclusion and did not derive in a logical fashion from the premise. The form the arguments are allowed to take, either falsifiable or unfalsifiable(logical validities) dictates in what way the conclusion can logically derive from the premise, without merely restating the premise. Aristotle's "begging the question", 'begging the premise' or 'requesting the premise' means a conclusion is stated without specifying the premise which is

not the same concept as a circular argument. Without knowledge of the premise it isn't possible to determine if the conclusion derives logically from the premise. To "raise the question" or to "raise the conclusion" means a specified premise raises a question or a series of questions that will determine in what way any conclusion derives logically from the premise. In both the phrases "raising the question" and "begging the question" the same term 'question' is used as a dissimilar reference to premise and conclusion respectively. The phrases derive their meaning by reflectivity to each other in the same way that light is understood as the semantic opposite of darkness. Because the same term - 'question' - is used as a dissimilar reference to two dichotomous concepts it leads to them being confused with one another.

[Burkhard]

On 27 Mar, 13:44, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My edits are being reversed on Wikipedia here is my last edit:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tautology_(rhetoric)&oldid=...

>
> A rhetorical tautology is defined as

by whom, exactly? I know this sound like "you" talking more than me,
but I don't think that "rhetorical tautology" is a term of art. If it
is just your personal definition, then it has most certainly no place
in an encyclopaedia. You'd also need to demonstrate that there is a
need for that sort of term, and that it describes some sort of class
of entities. Doesn't happen in waht follows below, as far as I can
see

>a series of statements that form an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed

Which proposition? If it is the conclusion, then this is simply the
definition of a deductively valid inference.

>or that, by defining a dissimilar or synonymous term in terms of another self-referentially,

that does not make any sense. "Defining a dissimilar or synonymous
term in terms of another " is not self-referential.

> the truth of the proposition or explanation cannot be disputed. Consequently, the statement

Which one? Above you talk about a series of statements. here you talk
about "the" statement.

>conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable.

That does not make any sense. "A series of statements.. that guarantee
the truth of the proposition" is the definition of a valid inference.
While that means that the IF <Prem 1, Prem 2,
OPre...x>....Then..Concl." is a tautology, this does not mean the
conclusion is not falsifiable. Should you be able to falsify the
conclusion, you simply know that one of the premises must have been
wrong.

> It is a way of formulating a description such that it masquerades as an explanation when the real reason for the phenomena >cannot be independently derived. A rhetorical tautology should not be confused with a >tautology in propositional logic, which by the precepts of empiricism is not falsifiable.

As you have defined it so far, rhetorical tautologies woudl be a
subset of logical tautologies.

>
> The algebraic and numerical constructs in mathematical logic are used in physics to facilitate the ratiocination concerning measurements of matter and energy and assumes apriori truths in propositional logic, which >results in confusion between two spheres of inference. In mathematics, 1+2 = 3 isn't a measurement but a tautological necessary truth about numerical and algebraic relationships it doesn't compare actual things. With >physics, 1+2 apples = 1 unit of apple juice in a blender, one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms combined is measured to result in one water molecule (1+2 = 1). It is not a logical necessity that the interaction of units of >energy and matter will correspond to mathematical numerical and algebraic relationships. Empiricisms are classified in terms of physics equations and not mathematical tautologies, they are of a different syntactic >structure.

No idea what this means,

>
> Rhetorical tautologies state the same thing twice, while attempting to imply that it's saying two or more different things, while logical tautologies state the same thing twice and must do so by logical necessity.

That , as I said above, woudl make rhetorical tautologies a subset of
logical tautologies

>The inherent meanings and subsequent conclusions in rhetorical and logical tautologies or logical necessities are very different. Physics equations are not tautologies because they are not logical necessities, "F=ma" >doesn't state the same thing twice, it expresses the relationship of force to acceleration and mass.

That is not correct. Whether F=ma" is an unfalsifiable definition of
force, or a senetcne that has empirical content depends on the role it
plays in the specific theory you are considering. One and the same
syntactic object (sentence) can indeed be a definition, and therefore
tautologically true in on version of the theory, and an empirical
sentence in another. That is something the structuralists
(Stegmueller, Moulines, Balzer, Sneed) have studied in quite some
detail, e.g. here; P. Suppes, Representation and Invariance of
Scientific Structures. CLS Press 2001

that is one of the ways in which theories can change over time, as new
methods of measurement become available - sometimes you have to start
with a definition, and you can then "see" later in an extended theory
that this definition can be changed into a statement with empirical
content, as a special case of the more general theory

>Logical tautologies are neither refutable nor verifiable under any condition by axiomatic necessity. If this were not so, it would raise the question as to how an M�nchhausen infinite regress of tests on the logical validity >would be avoided.

Not really, no. These two issues have nothing to do with each other.
The M�nchhausen trilemma is only a problem for philosophers interested
in "foundationalims", it is of no concern to scienitsts who actually
work with axiomatic systems. The issue of falsifiablity has nothing to
do with it.

>The M�nchhausen trilemma, one of the Unsolved problems in philosophy, proposes that any world view reduces ultimately to the choice between unprovable axiomatic assumptions or infinite regress of language, reasoning, logic and metaphor.

The it woudl be a dilemma, not a trilemma. You forgot circular
arguments. Not sure what counts as "unsolvable" in philosophy, lots of
people have solved it "to their satisfaction", but that depends of
course on your standard for satisfaction.

>If the univ erse has an explanation, then such explanation itself must not have an explanation or it would induce infinite regress of explanations.

And why would that be a bad thing? That's one of the answers to the
trilemma: pick one and show that it is not a bad thing. I never
understood e.g. why people have issues with infinite regress. Themore
common one is to go with an axiomatic system, and to give up on
foundationalism, which is also a very good idea.

> The implication is that if a Deity created the universe and the structure >of our language, he in turn must not have an explanation and be unfalsifiable in his essence to avoid Antony Flew's falsification test for him as >described in Flew's article "Theology and Falsification".

I think you misread Flew's article big time. It starts with the
assumptions that not even a true believer would want empirically empty
statements about God, so that therefore, the _believer_ makes this
demand. If you don't and argue that it is fine by you if (certain)
statements about god are unfalsifiable then Flew's article is simply
irrelevant for you

>Such a Deity must explain the antonymic structure of our language, the way we understand existence as the opposite of non-existence and why this prevents infinite regress of options, avoiding infinite suspension of >judgement. Our antonymic language is reflected in the subjective notion of joy/gloom to the more objective premise of cause/effect in physics and concentrate/uniformity of energy in thermodynamics, but the notions >themselves are not falsifiable. Their justification are that the M�nchhausen trilemmian alternative is infinite suspension of reason, a state of nirvanic nothingness. Nirvanism proposes that the ultimate state is to reach a dimension where the antonymic structure of our language does not exist, a state of neither perception nor non-perception. But to accept the very proposition and not reject it, we have to assume antonymic language, the Nirvanic world view itself can only be perceived or not perceived. Nirvanism reduces therefore to a Reductio ad absurdum.

And with that you have reached the next reiteration of the catuskoti,
well done grasshopper, you might find enlightenment yet. Technical
detail: the catuskoti is a tetralemma, not a dilemma or trilemma.
Each reiteration seems the same, but you understand it differently in
each reiteratin. That is part of the paradox (Zen Buddhism makes this
of course even clearer than Nagarjuna's Nyaya school of thought)

> If God's existence as supreme ruler of the universe could be proven, he would not be God because it would raise the question as to how to prevent proofs Ad infinitum.

Why woudl that be a problem

>This Deity would have established the principle of falsifiability and cannot therefore be subject unto it himself.

Why do we need a deity for that principle?

>If God exists, he can't be scientific because he would have established science, preventing infinite regress of science(empiricism). Because our thinking is not frozen into a state of infinitism the conclusion is therefore that an unfalsifiable God must exist.

I have the greatest sympathy for the notion of a non empirical god,
but your reasons for this are all false. And you keep applying
falsification outside its legitimate scope - sentences are falsified,
not objects.

>
> What is significant about the various debates between theists and atheists about the existence of God is that both sides are making the unrealized assumption that our only choices reduces to a contrast: God either exists or he doesn't.

Tetralemme: or both, or neither. (which then may make you reflect on
what you mean with "exists")

> This very antonymic notion itself isn't falsifiable. The view that we are to reject God's existence due to the lack of empirical evidence needs to explain where the empirical evidence for the underlying antonymic assumption in the proposition itself is.

?

>Only a Deity of supreme intelligence would have had the foresight to turn the most convincing argument against his existence into something which actually implies his existence.

that is juts your muddled thinking, blaming god for your self-
inflicted confusions seems to me to be rather blasphemous, sorry.

> Because Irreducible complexity was derived from the self-refuting premise of empiricism/unfalsifiability

Eh, no? It was derived from a set of observations, tha tturned into a
hypothesis, which required a term for a specific type of object.

>it led to the erroneous conclusion that the unscientific concept of IC is therefore a fallacy.

The concept of IC is not a fallacy (concepts never are) The claim that
IC systems can't possible evolve is simply contingently (empirically)
false, as it happens.

<snip more for maybe later>

[backspace]

Elaborate on this please, refer me to books to consult.

> The claim that
> IC systems can't possible evolve is simply contingently (empirically)
> false, as it happens.

My point is that the concept of light/darkness cannot involve because
they constitute an entangled composite integrity. Neither can premise/
conclusion *evolve*, they form the nexus of God himself who did not
evolve and has not explanation.

The evolution adaptation premise is that the present attributes were
not there in the distant past but had to be acquired. Because there
were not observers back then the premise is merely restated as the
conclusion - circular reasoning. Even if the mechanism - life - could
be defined AND the acquisition of attributes demonstrated in the
present, it would still not be evidence that the fossils in particular
did acquire attributes, what happened a 100mil years ago is forever
out of not just experimental observation but inferences. A rock
falling is an observation, gravity is the inference. Therefore the
term *inference* must be labeled with subscripts, inference1 is
*experimental inference* such as gravity and fossils would be *non-
experimental inference*. The conclusion that the fossils had
attributes notconstituted in the present is a circular reasoning
farce.

Life is that property we all share that makes us aware of ourselves.
The evolution assumption with the Life mechanism is that *if* it could
ever be defined, then this mechanism would be the means of acquiring
information and not just expressing information. Acquisition always
implies something, because something cannot be acquired out of
nothing. There never was a point in time were there was nothing,
because for a consciousness to experience a state of nirvanic
nothingness he must still have a notion of something: something/
nothing forms an antonymic composite integrity. We can't therefore
comprehend a state of nothingness due to our consciousness being wired
into the nexux of Platonic antonymity. This also answers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief

Evolution Acquisition should be used reflectively as the opposite of
YEC expression. The acquisition of attributes premise is the inverse
of the YEC expression premise. In the same way that the color *red*
causes nothing to happen unless experience by a consciousness, so
nothing at all happens unless experienced by a consciousness: the ony
thing that exists in actual ultimate reality is consciousness. All of
language is merely a metaphor for this eternal state. YEC premise is
that information is neither created nor destroyed but only expressed
analogous to the first law of thermodynamics. God himself is the very
essence of information and can't be destroyed nor created. God has no
explanation , preventing infinite regress of information - all
information ends with him. Evolutionist adaptationists have
carelessly assumed that once they are able to demonstrate acuiqision
of attirbutes in the present by making a creature that is aware of
itself(life) that such mechanism would implies that in the distant
past the fossils also would have acquired information.

[Burkhard]

On 27 Mar, 18:51, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 6:39�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Mar, 13:44, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Because Irreducible complexity was derived from the self-refuting premise of empiricism/unfalsifiability
> > Eh, no? It was derived from a set of observations, tha tturned into a
> > hypothesis, which required a term for a specific type of object.
> > >it led to the erroneous conclusion that the unscientific concept of IC is therefore a fallacy.
> > The concept of IC is not a fallacy (concepts never are)
>
> Elaborate on this please, refer me to books to consult.

Any introduction to logic will do, but on fallacies in particular ,
there is a very good book by C L Hamblin.

Fallacies are invalid arguments, that is they must at least have the
bare syntactical form of an argument - some premises and then a
conclusion. Concepts, or terms, are syntactically below the level of
sentence, and hence not of the right syntactic type of be true or
false (or fallacious or valid)

>
> > The claim that
> > IC systems can't possible evolve is simply contingently (empirically)
> > false, as it happens.
>
> My point is that the concept of light/darkness cannot involve because
> they constitute an entangled composite integrity. Neither can premise/
> conclusion *evolve*, they form the nexus of God himself who did not
> evolve and has not explanation.
>
> The evolution adaptation premise is that the present attributes were
> not there in the distant past but had to be acquired. Because there
> were not observers back then

Well, first we have observed emergence of new properties in "real
time", e.g. immunity against antibiotics acquired by bacteria. And
things tend to leave traces behind even where there is no observer -
the basis if you like also of Locard's exchange principle on which
most forensic sciences are based. So we can form a pretty good picture
of the attributes living things had in the Cambrian say, which made
them very different indeed form today critters

> the premise is merely restated as the
> conclusion - circular reasoning. Even if the mechanism - life - could
> be defined AND the acquisition �of attributes demonstrated in the
> present, it would still not be evidence that the fossils in particular
> did acquire attributes, what happened a 100mil years ago is forever
> out of not just experimental observation but inferences.

so you say, but without any sound reasons, and also without any good
reasons why this should not just as well apply to anything that
happened yesterday. If you give up on the idea that the world makes
sense, then anything I infer from my memory about yesterday is as
"assumption based" as anything I infer about what happened 100m years
ago. If you don't, the difference simply becomes a matter of
degrees.

>A rock
> falling is an observation, gravity is the inference. Therefore the
> term *inference* must be labeled with subscripts, inference1 is
> *experimental inference* such �as gravity and fossils would be *non-
> experimental inference*. The conclusion that the fossils had
> attributes notconstituted in the present is a circular reasoning
> farce.

No, it is an observation. I can look at fossils of micro-organisms
form the different past, compare them to an elephant, and I'd say the
difference is quite striking.

>
> Life is that property we all share that makes us aware of ourselves.
> The evolution assumption with the Life mechanism is that *if* it could
> ever be defined, then this mechanism would be the means of acquiring
> information and not just expressing information.

No really, no. That sounds like post-modern woo, not science.

> Acquisition always
> implies something, because something cannot be acquired out of
> nothing. There never was a point in time were there was nothing,
> because for a consciousness to experience a state of nirvanic
> nothingness he must still have a notion of something: something/
> nothing forms an antonymic composite integrity. We can't therefore
> comprehend a state of nothingness due to our consciousness being wired
> into the nexux of Platonic antonymity. This also answershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief

I'm afraid none of this makes any sense to me

>
> Evolution Acquisition should be used reflectively as the opposite of
> YEC expression. The acquisition of attributes premise is the inverse
> of the YEC expression premise. In the same way that the color *red*
> causes nothing to happen unless experience by a consciousness, so
> nothing at all happens unless experienced by a consciousness: the ony
> thing that exists in actual ultimate reality is consciousness.

Bishop Berkeley, I thought you had died a few centuries back! How nice
to see you are well.

>All of
> language is merely a metaphor for this eternal state. YEC premise is
> that information is neither created nor destroyed but only expressed
> analogous to the first law of thermodynamics. �God himself is the very
> essence of information and can't be destroyed nor created. God has no
> explanation , preventing infinite regress of information - all
> information ends with him. Evolutionist adaptationists �have
> carelessly assumed that once they are able to demonstrate acuiqision
> of attirbutes in the present by making a creature that is aware of
> itself(life) that such mechanism would �implies that in the distant
> past the fossils also �would have acquired information.

Again, none of this makes any sense to me, at least not
scientifically. As a metaphysical position, it is not one I'd chose,
but it would not have any impact on the ToE anyway. the mix of the two
(science and metaphysics) results in word salad.

[raven1]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:44:46 -0700 (PDT), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>My edits are being reversed on Wikipedia

I can't imagine why.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:51:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Mar 27, 6:39�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>> On 27 Mar, 13:44, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > Because Irreducible complexity was derived from the self-refuting premise of empiricism/unfalsifiability

>> Eh, no? It was derived from a set of observations, tha tturned into a
>> hypothesis, which required a term for a specific type of object.

>> >it led to the erroneous conclusion that the unscientific concept of IC is therefore a fallacy.

>> The concept of IC is not a fallacy (concepts never are)

>Elaborate on this please, refer me to books to consult.

Concepts may be erroneous, but unless they contain a logical
fallacy they cannot be fallacious.

>> The claim that
>> IC systems can't possible evolve is simply contingently (empirically)
>> false, as it happens.

>My point is that the concept of light/darkness cannot involve because
>they constitute an entangled composite integrity. Neither can premise/
>conclusion *evolve*, they form the nexus of God himself who did not
>evolve and has not explanation.

And this word salad refutes the above statement of
fact...how?

Usually I'd snip your incoherence and faulty "reasoning"
with a note that it *is* incoherent and faulty. This time I
left it intact; everyone should have a chance to see it and
form their own conclusions:

--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Stephanus]

Bob Casanova my involve was a typo it should have been evolve.

[Stephanus]

[jonathan]

"backspace" <steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:254410dd-f383-4b78...@googlegroups.com...

> My edits are being reversed on Wikipedia here is my last edit:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tautology_(rhetoric)&oldid=547076224

>. Logical tautologies are neither refutable nor verifiable under any
>condition by axiomatic necessity. If this were not so, it would raise the
>question as to how an M�nchhausen infinite regress of tests on the logical
>validity would be avoided. The M�nchhausen trilemma, one of the Unsolved
>problems in philosophy, proposes that any world view reduces ultimately to
>the choice between unprovable axiomatic assumptions or infinite regress of

>language, reasoning, logic and metaphor. If the universe has an

>explanation, then such explanation itself must not have an explanation or
>it would induce infinite regress of explanations. The implication is that
>if a Deity created the universe and the structure of our language, he in
>turn must not have an explanation and be unfalsifiable in his essence to
>avoid Antony Flew's falsification test for him as described > >in Flew's
>article "Theology and Falsification"

I see this ng is still mired in Dark Age thinking. Which is to say
a linear frame of reference in observing reality. The solution to
your trilemma is trivial from a non-linear perspective.

From a linear point of view, everything has a finite beginning
and end, a linear sliding scale from birth to death, or from
zero to infinite, false or true and so on. This is the source
of the inability to solve that philosophical problem.

A frame of reference error.

Nature and reality are non-linear or cyclic in character.
Correct that initial of all errors, and the universe makes
sense again.

One universe would evolve and help shape the next universe.
No deity needed, except for the first universe. But in a cyclic
or non-linear frame of reference, the unknowability of the ultimate
source of creation is not a logical problem. No more mysterious
than the unknowability of the path leading up to an orbit.

Once an orbit is established, any evidence of the previous path
is erased. Cyclic order destroys any evidence of the creator.

That is not a logical contradiction, it is the obvious truth
of our existence. The assertion the creator is unknowable
is a given, not a logical conclusion.

>. Such a Deity must explain the antonymic structure of our language,

The inherent duality which seems to pervade all of reality, whether
good or evil, particle or wave and so on, is also the direct result
of applying the incorrect frame of reference to reality.

Frame of reference errors carry throughout all that follows.

The only way to generate precision, repeatability or 'proof'
in the objective sense is to simplify reality into one of it's
opposites. Either classical or quantum, science or religion
true and false and so on. In this linear or objective view, our frame
of reference is from one or the other opposing simplicities
with an eye of trying to mash the two back together again, and
make sense of all the subjective messiness of reality.
From a linear view, all we can see is complexity and
confusion

But from a non-linear view, our starting point is the
entangled form, complexity. From a non-linear view, all
we can see is simplicity in all directions.
Meaning and truth become trivial and obvious.



"The Fact that Earth is Heaven --
Whether Heaven is Heaven or not
If not an Affidavit
Of that specific Spot
Not only must confirm us
That it is not for us
But that it would affront us
To dwell in such a place "



This is Heaven! Doubting whether God exists is like
a fish doubting the existence of water. We swim
in beauty every day, every question is another step
in The Garden, yet doubt the magnificence of
it's creator. Whatever it may be.

It's irrational, a delusion to fail to believe in something 'more'
than meets the scientific eye which is responsible for our
existence.

> the way we understand existence as the opposite of non-existence and why
> this prevents infinite regress of options, avoiding infinite suspension of
> judgement. Our antonymic language is reflected in the subjective notion of
> joy/gloom to the more objective premise of cause/effect in physics and
> concentrate/uniformity of energy in thermodynamics, but the notions
> themselves are not falsifiable. Their justification are that the
> M�nchhausen trilemmian alternative is infinite >suspension of reason, a
> state of nirvanic nothingness. Nirvanism pro

That is only because a linear or objective view takes the instinctive, not
rational, assumption that reducing to simplicity is the path to
understanding reality. No more rational that a cave man bashing
everything into pieces to figure them out. A non-linear or complexity view
expands to the whole, in order to learn about the components.

Expanding to the whole inverses the results of reductionism
Your complete logical futility and confusion becomes our
complete certainty and comfort. From simply inversing the
reductionist frame of reference from a part detail or logical frame,
to a complexity or naturalist frame

Science should be searching for and understanding complexity, not
simplicity.



But nature is a stranger yet;
The ones that cite her most
Have never passed her haunted house,
Nor simplified her ghost.

To pity those that know her not
Is helped by the regret
That those who know her, know her less
The nearer her they get.

> lly.The antonymic nexus of existence/non-existence was assumed in the

> conclusion by both Atheist and ID theorists but it did not derive from
> their respective syllogisms in either the major or minor premises nor in
> the arguments that bind the conclusion to the syllogism, therefore the
> conclusion that God exists or does not exist did not derive logically.
>
> The God Delusion on p.114 states ".......A deep understanding of Darwinism
> teaches us to be >wary of the easy assumption that design is the only
> alternative to chance,
and teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing
complexity......" . Applying Dakwins logic to his very sentence itself
reveals its own self-refutational nature. Since design/chance isn't our only
dichotomy then on what basis is Dawkins sentence either designed >or the
result of chance? His sentence could be for some other yet to be determined
reason, an infinite number of reasons , inducing infinite regress. Richard
Dawkins premise is that God's existence is improbable,but because his
arguments induces infinitism, his conclusion that God does not exist, did
not derive logically.
>
> Whether God exists or not in reality is not the concern of the logician
> but whether the respective conclusions from conflicting world views derive
> logically.

But nature shows us the answer for all to see. No leaps of logic
or metaphysical knots are needed. Is it any logical or scientific
problem to assert that whatever existed just prior to the Big Bang
is one, unknowable, and two, the source of our creation?

Creation erases the evidence of the creator. That is not any problem
in logic. The assertion requires no proof.


Truth is as old as God
His Twin identity
And will endure as long as He
A Co-Eternity --

And perish on the Day
Himself is borne away
From Mansion of the Universe
A lifeless Deity.



Poems by E Dickinson




s

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:19:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Stephanus
<srens...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova my involve was a typo it should have been evolve.

That was obvious. It doesn't fix the problem.

[backspace]

On Mar 29, 12:27 am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "backspace" <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:254410dd-f383-4b78...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > My edits are being reversed on Wikipedia here is my last edit:

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tautology_(rhetoric)&oldid=...

> >. Logical tautologies are neither refutable nor verifiable under any
> >condition by axiomatic necessity. If this were not so, it would raise the
> >question as to how an M�nchhausen infinite regress of tests on the logical
> >validity would be avoided. The M�nchhausen trilemma, one of the Unsolved
> >problems in philosophy, proposes that any world view reduces ultimately to
> >the choice between unprovable axiomatic assumptions or infinite regress of
> >language, reasoning, logic and metaphor. If the universe has an
> >explanation, then such explanation itself must not have an explanation or
> >it would induce infinite regress of explanations. The implication is that
> >if a Deity created the universe and the structure of our language, he in
> >turn must not have an explanation and be unfalsifiable in his essence to
> >avoid Antony Flew's falsification test for him as described > >in Flew's
> >article "Theology and Falsification"

> I see this ng is still mired in Dark Age thinking. Which is to say
> a linear frame of reference in observing reality. The solution to
> your trilemma is trivial from a non-linear perspective.

This is a http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence . In
control theory "non-linear" means the transfer function changes as the
as the input changes making the
output a "non-linear" response. Did you know this or are you using
smart sounding words devoid of context?

> >. Such a Deity must explain the antonymic structure of our language,

> The inherent duality which seems to pervade all of reality, whether
> good or evil, particle or wave and so on, is also the direct result
> of applying the incorrect frame of reference to reality.

Presumably we must accept and not reject your view, a vivid example of
what Freud would have termed the return of the antonymic repressed.

> > the way we understand existence as the opposite of non-existence and why
> > this prevents infinite regress of options, avoiding infinite suspension of
> > judgement. Our antonymic language is reflected in the subjective notion of
> > joy/gloom to the more objective premise of cause/effect in physics and
> > concentrate/uniformity of energy in thermodynamics, but the notions
> > themselves are not falsifiable. Their justification are that the
> > M�nchhausen trilemmian alternative is infinite >suspension of reason, a
> > state of nirvanic nothingness. Nirvanism pro

> That is only because a linear or objective view takes the instinctive, not
> rational, assumption that reducing to simplicity is the path to
> understanding reality. No more rational that a cave man bashing
> everything into pieces to figure them out. A non-linear or complexity view
> expands to the whole, in order to learn about the components.

Linear is the inverse of non-linear meaning that the transfer function
of the system either varies or does not vary as the input varies,
allowing the output to be predicted with
Laplace transform tables . In this sense "objectivity" has nothing to
do with "linearity" , in another context it can be used as a
dissimilar term. English language is a dissimilar semantic marshmallow
allowing much mischief to be propagated by those skilled in the art.
When describing the transfer function of a system the antonymic nexus
of linear/non-linear is the unevolvable conceptualization that is not
an empirical concept but like the Concentrate/uniformity in
thermodynamics, grammar in language and cause/effect in physics
allows us to ratiocinate about engineering systems. All of empiricism
is bound by this unfalsifiable , unscientific Platonic contrast. YEC
is unscientific, this does not mean YEC is irrational.

> Science should be searching for and understanding complexity, not
> simplicity.

Either your intellectual abilities are complex or simple, do you know
of any other options?

> But nature is a stranger yet;
> The ones that cite her most
> Have never passed her haunted house,
> Nor simplified her ghost.

> To pity those that know her not
> Is helped by the regret
> That those who know her, know her less
> The nearer her they get.

To be, or not to be: that is the antonymic nexus of the question and
the answer is found in the author and finisher of our faith, the Alpha
and Omega, the Beginning and End - Jesus Christ unifying the last
chapter of Revelations with the first book and chapter Genesis.

[backspace]

Following my train of logic raises the question: what does it therefore mean to
be empirical or scientific? The way empiricism is used, the best dissimilar term for the concept is "measurements" as Fleeming Jenkin described his theory on the last page from the wikia links i gave. Atheists describe their Heideggerian beingness state as that of *being* empirical. I have difficulty understanding what this could mean. IF they are in a state of measurment , what would happen then if the last consciousness in the universe dies. What would it even mean then to have a property of redness if there is nobody to verbalize such an idea: redness for whom?

All actions of sight, touch,hearing can be measured by machines calibrated between their span and zero. Are atheists therefore in state of zero-span'd calibration? As a YEC I don't believe I am a calibrated automaton but have freewill and will never baptize an infant for example because it is an act of atheism, atheism is the denial of free will as William Provine explained to Ben Stein. My essence is bound by something I cannot calibrate, God cannot be calibrated between his Zero and Span. God is the essence that binds my reason to his bounds of antonymity.

The 'zero' of a machine measuring light intensity is the lowest lux level it can measure and the 'span', is the range of lux intensity levels form the zero in a linear fashion usually, to the maximum intensity. To be empirical is to be measurable and most measurements are done with machines on a linear scale, are Atheists therefore calibrated machines?

Cause/effect, linear/non-linear cannot itself be calibrated between its span and zero: this enables the reasoned explication about measurements, preventing infinite regress of measurements.

A cause/effect, concentrate/uniformity machine cannot be bought at Edmund optics, neither can you buy a "fitness" measurement machine to measure your "fitness" from a biology lab because you don't have such a property. From the atheist adaptation premise that pigs in the present did not posses their attributes in the past, on what scale of porcine fitness would a sow have been mounted on ball bearings instead of trotters? In other words what would have been the "fitness" span and zero of pigs.

Redness does not cause anything to happen unless experienced by a consciousness and numbers don't cause anything to happen unless implemented by a consciousness. When a certain amount of cars are allowed to drive , known as the traffic flow rate/hour then "redness" in the traffic robot expresses the will of a consciousness implementing addition and subtraction. Addition is the antonymic opposite of subtraction, it forms a composite integrity and did not develop gradually but only together constituted the very means of expressing our consciousness. Consciousness is expressed with numbers

Conclusion:
When atheists assert that they are only scientific or empirical , they are therefore formulating a meaningless sentence. There is no such thing as *being* scientific or empirical because the very speech act of reference to empiricisms involves a consciousness. You can be no more "scientific" than you can be a zero and span. Empiricisms only exist as a subset of consciousness. If redness causes nothing to happen - not a single car to drive without a consciousness then by extension nothing happens at all if a consciousness is not aware of it.

[jonathan]

"backspace" <steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:dcab4d4f-5ff3-492c...@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

And in optical theory non-linear means the dielectric polarization P
responds nonlinearly to the electric field E of the light.
So what?

Just about every discipline dealing with the real world has their own
non-linear functions. Since I didn't attach any particular field to the
term non-linear, it should be assumed I mean the general case.

> Did you know this or are you using
> smart sounding words devoid of context?

'Flattery' has never won a debate, so far as I know.

>
>
>> >. Such a Deity must explain the antonymic structure of our language,
>
>> The inherent duality which seems to pervade all of reality, whether
>> good or evil, particle or wave and so on, is also the direct result
>> of applying the incorrect frame of reference to reality.
>
> Presumably we must accept and not reject your view, a vivid example of
> what Freud would have termed the return of the antonymic repressed.

A curious mind should at least give a chance to sell you on these ideas.

>
>
>> > the way we understand existence as the opposite of non-existence and
>> > why
>> > this prevents infinite regress of options, avoiding infinite suspension
>> > of
>> > judgement. Our antonymic language is reflected in the subjective notion
>> > of
>> > joy/gloom to the more objective premise of cause/effect in physics and
>> > concentrate/uniformity of energy in thermodynamics, but the notions
>> > themselves are not falsifiable. Their justification are that the
>> > M�nchhausen trilemmian alternative is infinite >suspension of reason, a
>> > state of nirvanic nothingness. Nirvanism pro
>
>> That is only because a linear or objective view takes the instinctive,
>> not
>> rational, assumption that reducing to simplicity is the path to
>> understanding reality. No more rational that a cave man bashing
>> everything into pieces to figure them out. A non-linear or complexity
>> view
>> expands to the whole, in order to learn about the components.
>
> Linear is the inverse of non-linear

No it isn't, not even close.

A linear function takes the form y = f (x)
Where the output is directly related to the input.
Most people view the world in this way where
there's a nice predictable correlation between
cause and effect, and the clockwork universe
makes sense.

But a non-linear function takes the form x = f(x)
Where the output feeds back into the input.
An iteration into itself.

And non-linear systems have certain tendencies.

For the linear the equation y = x * n. Suppose n = 2,
then plotting for x = 1, 2, 3 we have y = 2, 4, 6
a straight l i n e of slope n ....( l i n e a r )

Now for non-linear x = x * n. Again for n = 2,
starting with x = 1 we have x = 2, 4, 8 an exponential
progression towards infinity, if n = 1 we have 1, 1, 1 -
stagnation and for n = 0.5 we have 0.5, 0.25, 0.125
a progression towards zero. Three very different behaviours
from the same formula, dependent upon the constant.
If we assume that it is 1 then anything even slightly more
will take it eventually to infinity, any less to 0.
The Butterfly Effect, sensitivity to initial conditions
appears even for such a basic formula.

So non-linear behavior has the strong tendency to
either converge to zero, or diverge to infinity.
In Complexity Science the idea is that for more complex
non-linear systems, when the output is the result of
....both types of behaviors, converging and diverging
static and chaotic, then a third dynamic attractor forms.

And this third behavior is ....Emergence itself.

The self tuning tendencies we normally consider
to be evolutionary, and in the Darwinian sense
with some differences.

[Earle Jones]

In article <-vCdnTpNpunKocvM...@giganews.com>,

"jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "backspace" <steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dcab4d4f-5ff3-492c...@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 29, 12:27 am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "backspace" <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:254410dd-f383-4b78...@googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > My edits are being reversed on Wikipedia here is my last edit:
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tautology_(rhetoric)&oldid=...
> >> >. Logical tautologies are neither refutable nor verifiable under any
> >> >condition by axiomatic necessity. If this were not so, it would raise
> >> >the

> >> >question as to how an Munchhausen infinite regress of tests on the
> >> >logical
> >> >validity would be avoided. The Munchhausen trilemma, one of the Unsolved

> >> > Munchhausen trilemmian alternative is infinite >suspension of reason, a

*
In network theory, a system is 'linear' if it responds to superposition.

earle
*

[Stephanus]

I accept Prof. Burkhard from Edinburgh university's view that self-
referential was incorrect in the wikipedia article, because the
sentences don''t refer to themselves.

Self-referential means the sentence refers to itself.
Previous revision:
A [[rhetorical]] tautology is defined as a series of statements that

form an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way

that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed or that by defining a

dissimilar or synonymous term in terms of another self-referentially,

the truth of the proposition or explanation cannot be disputed.

After considering Prof. Burkhard and deciding he was correct and I was
wrong:
A rhetorical tautology is defined as a series of statements that form

an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that

the truth of the proposition is guaranteed or that by defining a
dissimilar or synonymous term in terms of another , the truth of the

[Burkhard]

On 3 Apr, 12:33, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I accept Prof. Burkhard from Edinburgh university's view that self-
> referential was incorrect in the wikipedia article, because the
> sentences don''t refer to themselves.

OK, improvement :o)

>
> Self-referential means the sentence refers to itself.
> Previous revision:
> A [[rhetorical]] tautology is defined as a series of statements that
> form an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way
> that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed or that by defining a
> dissimilar or synonymous term in terms of another self-referentially,
> the truth of the proposition or explanation cannot be disputed.
>
> After considering Prof. Burkhard and deciding he was correct and I was
> wrong:
> A rhetorical tautology is defined as a series of statements that form
> an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that
> the truth of the proposition

That remains rather ambiguous. Do you mean: the truth of the
propositionS, that is every single proposition in the argument? Or do
you mean the premises only? That would fit with what you say below in
terms of "explanation". Or do you mean the conclusion only?

>is guaranteed or that by defining a
> dissimilar or synonymous term in terms of another , the truth of the

> proposition or explanation cannot be disputed.

As above, it is unclear if you mean the premises, the conclusion, or
both. It is also unclear how that definition differs from that of a
deductively valid inference.

Now, I'm guessing here, but the closest I can get to what you seem to
want to express would be something like:

A rhetorical tautology is a logically invalid argument where all the
premises are necessary truths (and hence tautologies) and the
conclusion is a contingent statement.
In that case, we would have something that looks a bit like a proper
argument/explanation of the conclusion, but isn't, really, because all
the premises are tautologies in the logical sense (hence necessarily
true) , whereas the conclusion is only contingently true. From this,
we can also infer that the argument can't be logically valid.

Now, there are still a couple of problems with that. First, I would
not call the entire argument a rhetorical tautology, because it isn't
a tautology to start with - quite on the contrary, we know
automatically that there must be one logical mistake or the other in
the inference. In fact, any one of a larger number of logical mistakes
may have happened here, and in argumentation theory, you'd simply
identify what exactly the mistake is - e.g. affirming the antecedent.
The only tautologies are the premises. So maybe "rhetorical use of
tautologies" would work, to describe the pragmatic aspect of how
tautologies are used in this context.

That in turn means that you can't get away from identifying the
premises as classical, logical tautologies - that is, something can be
a rhetorical (use of) tautologies only if the premises are logical
tautologies. Which in turn means that they must be true in
_all_possible models (all possible worlds), or, syntactically, you
must be able to derive the premises from the empty set of axioms.

None of the candidates you have given for rhetorical tautologies meets
this standard.

So, if you claim that something is a rhetorical tautology, you would
have to show at a minimum that a) all the premises are indeed logic
ally truth, that is valid in every model/true in every possible world.
b) that the conclusion is a contingent statement, that is that there
is at least one model/possible world where the conclusion is wrong.
You should also in theory be able to show c): which specific logical
mistake was made in the inference step.

It is that last issue, c, which makes me doubt that the term
"rhetorical tautology" fulfils any meaningful explanatory function, at
least of it is used to criticise an argument. You could always just as
well simply demonstrate that it is a non sequitur, and identify the
specific logical mistake that was made in the inference.

[Stephanus]

Neither rhetorical tautologies nor logical tautologies(claims of
logic) are rhetorical circularity. Rhetorical circularity or circular
reasoning differs from circularity by logical necessity, you are
equivocating between the two.
My article's description of circular reasoning refers to rhetorical
circularity.

The major problem in the peer reviewed journal articles describing
natural selection as a tautology is that the follow up letters refer
to logical tautologies.

In addition they like RAy martinez continue to insist that terms such
as the oxymoron natural selection is a tautology. Only sentences can
be tautologies. I have explained elsewhere that the term ns was the
metaphor for the sentence:
...... acquisition of attributes via the natural means of competitive
preservation.... Darwin used selection as a dissimilar term for
preservation.

Why Martinez and Burkhard is this so difficult to understand ?

[Burkhard]

On 4 Apr, 09:59, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > must be able to derive the premises from the empty set of 嚙窮xioms.

>
> > None of the candidates you have given for rhetorical tautologies meets
> > this standard.
>
> > So, if you claim that something is a rhetorical tautology, you would

> > have to show at a minimum 嚙緣hat a) all the premises are indeed logic

> > ally truth, that is valid in every model/true in every possible world.
> > b) that the conclusion is a contingent statement, that is that there
> > is at least one model/possible world where the conclusion is wrong.
> > You should also in theory be able to show c): which specific logical
> > mistake was made in the inference step.
>
> > It is that last issue, c, which makes me doubt that the term
> > "rhetorical tautology" fulfils any meaningful explanatory function, at
> > least of it is used to criticise an argument. You could always just as

> > well simply demonstrate that it is 嚙窮 non sequitur, and identify the

> > specific logical mistake that was made in the inference.
>
> Neither rhetorical tautologies nor logical tautologies(claims of
> logic) are rhetorical circularity. Rhetorical circularity or circular

> reasoning 嚙範iffers from circularity by logical necessity, you are
> equivocating between the two.

Ehh, where do I say anything about circularity? And as far as
equivocating between rhetorical and logical circularity is concerned,
it is more that I challenge the legitimacy of the distinction you are
making there. Your own definition of a rhetorical tautology is if
taken at face value simply a definition of valid logical inference.
My reconstruction of what you probably meant was a logical fallacy
where the premises are tautologies and the conclusion is a contingent
sentence.

> My article's description of circular reasoning refers to rhetorical
> circularity.

Yet you have been unable to provide a definition that does not either
contain a clear mistake (like the self-referential) or does not simply
collapse into the definition of valid inference.

> The major problem in the peer reviewed journal articles describing
> natural selection as a tautology is that the follow up letters refer
> to logical tautologies.

No idea what that is supposed to mean, what "follow up" letters?

>
> In addition they like RAy martinez continue to insist that terms such
> as the oxymoron natural selection is a tautology. Only sentences can
> be tautologies. I have explained elsewhere that the term ns was the
> metaphor for the sentence:
> ...... acquisition of attributes via the natural means of competitive
> preservation....

That is not a sentence, that is another term. The absence of a verb
could have alerted you to that fact.


>嚙瘩arwin used selection as a dissimilar term for

> preservation.
>
> Why Martinez and Burkhard is this so difficult to understand ?

Because your expressions are as muddled as your thinking. You make up
new terms ("rhetorical tautology" because you think that shields you
from the rigour demanded by a logical tautology, yet what you then
offer in terms of explanation of the concept is ambiguous, unclear,
full of errors and even in the most charitable reading probably not
what you want to say,.

[Stephanus]

> > > must be able to derive the premises from the empty set of �axioms.

>
> > > None of the candidates you have given for rhetorical tautologies meets
> > > this standard.
>
> > > So, if you claim that something is a rhetorical tautology, you would

> > > have to show at a minimum �that a) all the premises are indeed logic

> > > ally truth, that is valid in every model/true in every possible world.
> > > b) that the conclusion is a contingent statement, that is that there
> > > is at least one model/possible world where the conclusion is wrong.
> > > You should also in theory be able to show c): which specific logical
> > > mistake was made in the inference step.
>
> > > It is that last issue, c, which makes me doubt that the term
> > > "rhetorical tautology" fulfils any meaningful explanatory function, at
> > > least of it is used to criticise an argument. You could always just as

> > > well simply demonstrate that it is �a non sequitur, and identify the

> > > specific logical mistake that was made in the inference.
>
> > Neither rhetorical tautologies nor logical tautologies(claims of
> > logic) are rhetorical circularity. Rhetorical circularity or circular

> > reasoning �differs from circularity by logical necessity, you are

Ellipses, note the ellipses, the verb part is at
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki


> >�Darwin used selection as a dissimilar term for

> > preservation.

> > Why Martinez and Burkhard is this so difficult to understand ?

> Because your expressions are as muddled as your thinking. You make up
> new terms ("rhetorical tautology" because you think that shields you
> from the rigour demanded by a logical tautology, yet what you �then
> offer in terms of explanation of the concept is ambiguous, unclear,
> full of errors and even in the most charitable reading probably not
> what you want to say,.

You don't address the core of my arguments but rightfully alert me to
logical mistakes such as the self-referential issue.
This was important and necessary, but now that this is fixed you don't
for example address my definition of
circular reasoning as provided.

http://rewardandconsent.blogspot.com/
''.... An unfalsifiable theory is not scientific, according to the
philosopher of science, Karl Popper, not necessarily because it is
false, but because if it is false, then no potential observation can
show it to be false. He said Freud's psychoanalysis of the unconscious
id, ego, and superego is unscientific since no possible concrete
observation can show it to be false. The same holds for vague
astrological predictions and for guarantees of supernatural
phenomena......''

I explained elsewhere that the conclusions from rhetorical tautologies
are non-sequiturs, meaning they don't follow logically.
IF the author were to incorporate this into his arguments, it would
make what he wants to say clearer.

For example we were endlessly informed that given enough time chance
will lead to the acquisition of new attributes. Then came the
discovery of cell and it was realized that even given eternity , you
won't get an amino acid, never mind and elephant.
But because the chance conclusion never derived logically from the
Malthusian competitionsist mythology by Darwin, it allowed the
Epicureans to effortlessly substitute a different non-sequitur, namely
that chance is not the only alternative to design.
This very act of denying antonymity were forced to assume antonymity,
namely that we must accept and not reject the proposition, what Freud
would have termed the return of the Platonic repressed.

[Burkhard]

Why not put it here? I find the site that this link leads to all but
unreadable, layout wise, and as you use the expression several times,
it would remain unclear what sentence you mean.

>
> > >�Darwin used selection as a dissimilar term for
> > > preservation.
> > > Why Martinez and Burkhard is this so difficult to understand ?
> > Because your expressions are as muddled as your thinking. You make up
> > new terms ("rhetorical tautology" because you think that shields you
> > from the rigour demanded by a logical tautology, yet what you �then
> > offer in terms of explanation of the concept is ambiguous, unclear,
> > full of errors and even in the most charitable reading probably not
> > what you want to say,.
>
> You don't address the core of my arguments but rightfully alert me to
> logical mistakes such as the self-referential issue.
> This was important and necessary, but now that this is fixed you don't
> for example address my definition of
> circular reasoning as provided.

That's mainly because the part where you talk about circularity is so
confused that I could not make any sense of it whatsoever. I can try
to have another go at it, but don't hold your breath

>
> http://rewardandconsent.blogspot.com/
> ''.... An unfalsifiable theory is not scientific, according to the
> philosopher of science, Karl Popper, not necessarily because it is
> false, but because if it is false, then no potential observation can
> show it to be false. He said Freud's psychoanalysis of the unconscious
> id, ego, and superego is unscientific since no possible concrete
> observation can show it to be false. The same holds for vague
> astrological predictions and for guarantees of supernatural
> phenomena......''

That is a rather garbled rendition of Popper, (unfalsifiable theories
are trivially true) and again I don't see any connection with the
post I originally replied to.

>
> I explained elsewhere that the conclusions from rhetorical tautologies
> are non-sequiturs,

Well, that depends. If the conclusion from a set of tautologies
(rhetorical or otherwise) is itself a tautology, then it is a valid
inference, not a non-sequitur. If the conclusion derived from a set
of tautologies is a contingent sentence, then yes, we know that some
form of fallacy must have happened at the inference step. So IF you
claim that an argument is of this fallacious form, you ought to be
able to identify the specific mistake that was made.

meaning they don't follow logically.
> IF the author were to incorporate this into his arguments, it would
> make what he wants to say clearer.
>
> For example we were endlessly informed that given enough time chance
> will lead to the acquisition of new attributes. Then came the
> discovery of cell and it was realized that even given eternity , you
> won't get an amino acid, never mind and elephant.

That is an unproven empirical claim by you, and has no bearing on the
logical form of the argument

> But because the chance conclusion never derived logically from the
> Malthusian competitionsist mythology by Darwin, it allowed the
> Epicureans to effortlessly substitute a different non-sequitur, namely
> that chance is not the only alternative to design.
> This very act of denying antonymity were forced to assume antonymity,
> namely that we must accept and not reject the proposition, �what Freud
> would have termed the return of the Platonic repressed.

That is totally garbled I'm afraid, and again has no bearing on the
issue

[Burkhard]

On 27 Mar, 14:44, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

OK, as requested a look at the part with circularity in it:

>
> Wittgenstein asserted that the conceptual confusion in philosophical problems reduces to that of language and that our investigation is therefore a grammatical one. Grammar is a composite integrity of finite rules that cannot develop gradually but only together constitute the means of generating a natural language. Chomsky's universal grammar theory is predicated on this assumption.

Leaving aside the issue that his UG theory is also probably wrong, I
can't see how is theory is predicted on the assumption that grammar
rules can't develop gradually. On the face of it, it is wrong, as we
can see changes in grammar happening all around us, gradually and in
real time. A typical example would be the treatment of the split
infinitive in English.

>
> Rhetorical tautologies guarantee the truth of the proposition,

which position?

> where the expectation (premise) was for a testable construct, any conclusion is by the precepts of falsificationism a non sequitur (logic).

Falsificationism does not tell you if an argument is a non sequitur or
not, different discipline altogether

> Circular reasoning differs from tautologies in that the premise is restated as the conclusion in an argument,

That is of course a tautology. A |- A is valid in all possible
models.

> instead of deriving the conclusion from the premise with arguments, while tautologies states the same thing twice.

Restating the premise as a conclusion is I'd say a prime example of
saying the same thing twice. nor are all tautologies examples of
saying the same thing twice, in any meaningful sense of the word. Is
"A or -A" saying the same thing twice? Hardly I'd say.

> If the argument that separates the conclusion from the premise is a logical fallacy such as a rhetorical tautology, then the premise is merely restated as the conclusion and did not derive in a logical fashion from the >premise.

Quite on the contrary, I'd say nothing could be more logical than A |-
A Neither is it a fallacy, it is itself a valid inference scheme, that
is valid in all models.

> The form the arguments are allowed to take, either falsifiable or unfalsifiable(logical validities) dictates in what way the conclusion can logically derive from the premise, without merely restating the premise. Aristotle's "begging the question", 'begging the premise' or 'requesting the premise' means a conclusion is stated without specifying the premise which is
>
> �not the same concept as a circular argument.

Not sure what you mean with that, sounds like the definition of an
enthymeme to me. In modern parlance, begging the question and circular
argument are the same thing. I might be that Aristotle, in a somewhat
opqaue paragraph in the analytics, tried to keep them separate, but as
it is unclear on what grounds exactly, the distinction was all but
dropped.

> Without knowledge of the premise it isn't possible to determine if the conclusion derives logically from the premise. To "raise the question" or to "raise the conclusion" means a specified premise raises a question or a >series of questions that will determine in what way any conclusion derives logically from the premise. In both the phrases "raising the question" and "begging the question" the same term 'question' is used as a >dissimilar reference to premise and conclusion respectively. The phrases derive their meaning by reflectivity to each other in the same way that light is understood as the semantic opposite of darkness. Because the >same term - 'question' - is used as a dissimilar reference to two dichotomous concepts it leads to them being confused with one another.

no idea what that is supposed to mean. Americans sometimes use
"raising the question" and "begging the question" synonymously, a
simple example of semantic shift. Not a helpful one, as it plasters
over a relevant distinction between the two, but if in doubt simply
ask the speaker what he meant.

[Stephanus]

..... mmmh you are right, let me try again:

The sections in the works of Dawkins, Rorty stating that our
antonymic(cause/effect, light/darkness) view of the world is
incorrect, is forced to assume antonymity in the very assertion of
denying antonymity: namely hat we must accept and not reject the
Dawkins,Rorty proposition. The YEC major premise is that God is
antonymity, we are created in his image and therefore can only
understand or ratiocinate in an antonymic fashion about matter which
is frozen light. Any attempt at denying this is self-refuting because
the very arguments denying our antonymity is implicitly assuming
antonymity(accept/reject) such as the argument . YEC minor premise is
that God's existence is probable by looking out the window and
observing nature, Paley's arguments from design is argument by analogy
which glues the conclusion(God exists) to the syllogism.

Atheists are correct in observing that the ID argument by design
analogy is circular because we have no experience of an unseen
designer, we only have experience of seen designers.This argument was
made in some fashion to me by Howard in the thread Automated
Selection, this was how I understood him and I did not have a response
to his view at the time. I think this observation form atheists is
very good and a serious challenge to ID and YEC, especially because
the ID side are *ignoring* this argument. I also did not reply to
Howard because I was at loss for a proper response. My latest wiki
edits deriving God's existence from a syllogism is my attempt at
answering him.

Dembski's ID took the YEC minor premise - God's existence is deduced
by analogous argument from design by reference to known seen
designers, humans - and then expanded on this with CSI etc. to
derive therefore that God must exist. All he did was restate his
minor premise in a highly complicated way as the conclusion - circular
reasoning. Paul stated that God's existence is plain for all to see by
nature.,,,, this is where the ID side wants to stop. But Paul also
wrote that by *faith* we understand the heavens and earth was framed
by the word of God. The word of God is language, 7 as language as a
number means antonymic addition/subtraction you *increase* away from 7
by addition and *decrease* from 7 by subtraction. Everything is an
incantation of numbers, but numbers as Fleeming Jenkin wrote cannot be
measured, a point made by Berlinski. Therefore there is no such thing
as science or empiricism, only a composite integrity of antonymic
necessity - God himself.

Thus interpreting Paul the apostle and Jenkins YEC is the following
1) Major premise God is sufficient in himself as an antonymic
abstraction, no space, nor time can bind him. He is faith incarnate
and is not scientific.
2) Minor premise is that God's existence is probable due to actual
things in nature around us.

Paleys and Dembski's CSI arguments now glues this syllogism to the
conclusion that God must exist. Because ID excludes the unfalsifiable
Munch. major premise, they are only restating their minor premise
circularly .

[Burkhard]

On 4 Apr, 14:35, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

> > That is an unproven empirical claim by you, and �has no bearing on the
> > logical form of the argument
> > > But because the chance conclusion never derived logically from the
> > > Malthusian competitionsist mythology by Darwin, it allowed the
> > > Epicureans to effortlessly substitute a different non-sequitur, namely
> > > that chance is not the only alternative to design.
> > > This very act of denying antonymity were forced to assume antonymity,
> > > namely that we must accept and not reject the proposition, �what Freud
> > > would have termed the return of the Platonic repressed.
> > That is totally garbled I'm afraid, and again has no bearing on the
> > issue
>
> ..... �mmmh you are right, let me try again:

And you think the below is much clearer.... I "think" I reserve
judgement on this...

> The sections in the works of Dawkins, Rorty stating that our
> antonymic(cause/effect, light/darkness) view of the world is
> incorrect, �is forced to assume antonymity in the very assertion of
> denying antonymity: �namely hat we must accept and not reject the
> Dawkins,Rorty proposition. �The YEC major premise is that God is
> antonymity, we are created in his image and therefore can only
> understand or ratiocinate in an antonymic fashion about matter which
> is frozen light. Any attempt at denying this is self-refuting because
> the very arguments denying our antonymity is implicitly assuming
> antonymity(accept/reject) such as the argument.

OK, metaphysical system that locates thinking in antonyms in some
higher ordering principle. Not how I would do it personally, but as
there is NO way you can get from this metaphysical theory to any
specific statement that could be ion conflict with our best scientific
theories, I don't mind for the purpose of this NG.

I would say though that _even if_ one were to agree that our thinking
is structured by antonyms, that does not force anyone to accept that a
specific pair of terms is indeed antonymic, or that things can come in
more than two types of things. I have red, green and blue pens, for
instance , this is not a violation of the idea that cognition is based
on antonymic opposites.

I mention this because you claim that design and random are such an
antonymic pair. It is perfectly possible to accept your above
characterisation of antonyms in out thinking, and nonetheless reject
the idea that random/design are such an antonymic pair

> �YEC minor premise

You are using a non standard meaning of "minor" and "major" premise.
in logic, the major premise is always a universal sentence (All X are
Y) , the minor premise always a specific statement ("P is an X")

> is
> that God's existence is probable by looking out the window and
> observing nature, Paley's arguments from design is argument by analogy
> which glues the conclusion(God exists) to the syllogism.

>
> Atheists are correct in observing that the ID argument by design
> analogy is circular because we have no experience of an unseen
> designer, we only have experience of seen designers.This argument was
> made in some fashion to me by Howard in the thread Automated
> Selection, this was how I understood him and I did not have a response
> to his view at the time. �I think this observation form atheists is
> very good and a serious challenge to ID and YEC, especially because
> the ID side are *ignoring* this argument. I also did not reply to
> Howard because I was at loss for a proper response. My latest wiki
> edits deriving God's existence from a syllogism is my attempt at
> answering him.

I'm can't see why any circularity would be involved. The argument
Howard seems to be making is slightly different: As we only have
experience of seen designers, any analogous inference a la Paley has a
hidden assumption that the unseen designer is subject to the same
limitations as a human designer. That does not render the argument
circular, it renders it blasphemous.

Quite a number of ID arguments are of this type: I can't figure out
how X has happened naturally, therefore God surely also can;t have
figured it out, therefore miraculous intervention needed. The missing
premise is that God is as stupid as the person making that argument.

> Dembski's ID took the YEC minor premise - God's existence is deduced
> by analogous argument from design by reference to known seen
> designers, �humans - �and then expanded on this with CSI etc. to
> derive therefore that God must exist.

I can't see the circularity here myself.

>�All he did was restate his

> minor premise in a highly complicated way as the conclusion - circular
> reasoning. Paul stated that God's existence is plain for all to see by
> nature.,,,, � this is where the ID side wants to stop. �But Paul also
> wrote that by *faith* we understand the heavens and earth was framed
> by the word of God. �The word of God is language, 7 as language as a
> number means antonymic addition/subtraction you *increase* away from 7
> by addition and *decrease* from 7 by subtraction. Everything is an
> incantation of numbers, but numbers as Fleeming Jenkin wrote cannot be
> measured, a point made by Berlinski. Therefore there is no such thing
> as science or empiricism, only a composite integrity of antonymic
> necessity - God himself.

Can't quite see how that would follow either.

>
> Thus interpreting Paul the apostle and Jenkins YEC is the following
> 1) Major premise God is sufficient in himself as an antonymic
> abstraction, no space, nor time can bind him. He is faith incarnate
> and is not scientific.
> 2) Minor premise is that God's existence is probable due to actual
> things in nature around us.
>
> Paleys and Dembski's CSI arguments now glues this syllogism to the
> conclusion that God must exist. Because ID excludes the unfalsifiable
> Munch. major premise, they are only restating their minor premise
> circularly .

I fail to see the circularity. And if this were the only thing they
did, few here would object (much) The objection comes when very
specific claims are made on that basis, such as the age of the earth,
or how species relate to each other. Nothing in the above entails any
such inference

[Stephanus]

Because YEC antonymity is not scientific which I don't say in
disparaging sense. I am at pains to point out that Chomsky
universal grammar, grammar itself, Thompson's CI or
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Irreducible_Functionality prevents
infinite regress of science. In fact I still don't know what it means
to be scientific. Scientists are confusing their descriptions of
nature with an actual explanation of nature.

Does there even exist such as thing as science? My conclusion is
therefore that saying: I am scientific or empirical is a meaningless
sentence. The only thing that we are is antonymic, made in the image
of Antonymity himself God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because
is Language, he made our language with checks and balances to ferret
out meaningless sentences.

[Burkhard]

Really? How do they do that? Especially soemthing like Chomsky's
grammar which is nothing but a (probably false) theory scientific
theory about language acquisition.
And why would infinite regress be a problem anyway?

In fact I still don't know what it means
> to be scientific. Scientists are confusing their descriptions of
> nature with an actual explanation of nature.

You'd need to explain where exactly you see the difference

>
> Does there �even exist such as thing as science?

Sure does. It is a specific human activity. Not _that_ different from
everyday reasoning about the world, just more systematic, and by now
with enough accumulated knowledge that a high degree of specialisation
has occurred. We can observe people doing it all the time, just go to
your nearest lab.

Now, theorist _of_ science have come up with different explanations of
what the common denominator between different scientific disciplines
is (if you like what the "essence" of science is, and with different
explanations of why science is so successful. Some of them are quite
convincing, others less so. But that there are (also) not very good
theories of science does not mean there is no such thing as science,
just as the fact that people used to have the wrong theory of what he
sun is did not imply there is no sun.

>My conclusion is
> therefore that saying: I am scientific or empirical is a meaningless
> sentence.

That woudl be a very strange thing to conclude, as it goes in the fact
of what we observe, just go to a lab and observe scientists at work

> The only thing that we are is antonymic, made in the image
> of Antonymity himself God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because
> is Language, he made our language with checks and balances to ferret
> out meaningless sentences.
>

If you like that sort of metaphysics, sure, what ever works for you.
Just has nothing to do with science.

[Stephanus]

On Apr 4, 9:51 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

Green is more *darker* than yellow, which is more *lighter*.

[Stephanus]

Of course not.

[Burkhard]

On Apr 6, 5:17锟絧m, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 4, 9:51锟絧m, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Apr, 14:35, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>

> > > > That is an unproven empirical claim by you, and 锟絟as no bearing on the

> > > > logical form of the argument
> > > > > But because the chance conclusion never derived logically from the
> > > > > Malthusian competitionsist mythology by Darwin, it allowed the
> > > > > Epicureans to effortlessly substitute a different non-sequitur, namely
> > > > > that chance is not the only alternative to design.
> > > > > This very act of denying antonymity were forced to assume antonymity,

> > > > > namely that we must accept and not reject the proposition, 锟絯hat Freud

> > > > > would have termed the return of the Platonic repressed.
> > > > That is totally garbled I'm afraid, and again has no bearing on the
> > > > issue
>

> > > ..... 锟絤mmh you are right, let me try again:

>
> > And you think the below is much clearer.... I "think" I reserve
> > judgement on this...
>
> > > The sections in the works of Dawkins, Rorty stating that our
> > > antonymic(cause/effect, light/darkness) view of the world is

> > > incorrect, 锟絠s forced to assume antonymity in the very assertion of
> > > denying antonymity: 锟絥amely hat we must accept and not reject the
> > > Dawkins,Rorty proposition. 锟絋he YEC major premise is that God is

> > > antonymity, we are created in his image and therefore can only
> > > understand or ratiocinate in an antonymic fashion about matter which
> > > is frozen light. Any attempt at denying this is self-refuting because
> > > the very arguments denying our antonymity is implicitly assuming
> > > antonymity(accept/reject) such as the argument.
>
> > OK, metaphysical system that locates thinking in antonyms in some
> > higher ordering principle. Not how I would do it personally, but as
> > there is NO way you can get from this metaphysical theory to any
> > specific statement that could be ion conflict with our best scientific
> > theories, I don't mind for the purpose of this NG.
>
> > I would say though that _even if_ one were to agree that our thinking
> > is structured by antonyms, that does not force anyone to accept that a
> > specific pair of terms is indeed antonymic, or that things can come in
> > more than two types of things. I have red, green and blue pens, for
> > instance , this is not a violation of the idea that cognition is based
> > on antonymic opposites.
>
> Green is more *darker* than yellow, which is more *lighter*.

Which rather misses the point (which was that we can have more than
two categories within a class) but shows another nice issue, as orange
is lighter than green, but darker than yellow. Very often, things are
on a continuum, with numerous shades in between.

[Stephanus]

On Apr 6, 3:59�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

Human activity as antonym of non-activity.

> Now, theorist _of_ science have come up with different explanations of
> what the common denominator between different scientific disciplines
> is (if you like what the "essence" of science is, and with different
> explanations of why science is so successful. Some of them are quite
> convincing, others less so. But that there are (also) not very good
> theories of science does not mean there is no such thing as science,
> just as the fact that people used to have the wrong theory of what he
> sun is did not imply there is no sun.

Science isn't measurements but the ratiocination concerning
measurements using the antonymic assumptions
of cause/effect, increasing/regressing(numbers), linear/non-linear.
You are not addressing my point that antonymic ratiocination
concerning rocks,trees and flees isn't scientific itself and that this
must be so by necessity to avoid infinite regress.

There is an ambiguity with the sentence: I am scientific because the
people using the phrase isn''t doing so in the context of
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Fleeming_Jenkin

[Burkhard]

So what? Humans are engaged in lots of activities. Some do sport. Some
do music. Some do science. That is all I need to know or observe to
know that there's such a thing as science, something you just doubted
for some in explicable reason.

>
> > Now, theorist _of_ science have come up with different explanations of
> > what the common denominator between different scientific disciplines
> > is (if you like what the "essence" of science is, and with different
> > explanations of why science is so successful. Some of them are quite
> > convincing, others less so. But that there are (also) not very good
> > theories of science does not mean there is no such thing as science,
> > just as the fact that people used to have the wrong theory of what he
> > sun is did not imply there is no sun.
>
> Science isn't measurements but the ratiocination concerning
> measurements using the antonymic assumptions
> of cause/effect, increasing/regressing(numbers), �linear/non-linear.
> You are not addressing my point that antonymic ratiocination
> concerning rocks,trees and flees isn't scientific itself

That would be because I have no idea what that's supposed to mean

> and that this
> must be so by necessity to avoid infinite regress.

As I said before, I'm not convinced that an infinite regress of
explanations is a problem

>
> There is an ambiguity with the sentence: I am scientific because the
> people using the phrase isn''t doing so in the context ofhttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Fleeming_Jenkin

Maybe if you put some quotation marks in that sentence, it would
parse at least syntaxtically As written I have no idea what it is
supposed to mean

[Mark Isaak]

Human activity is a multidimensional continuum. Treating it as antonym
can only be done at the expense of loosing 99.999+% of what human
activity is.

Human brains like to separate things into discrete categories,
especially black-white, yes-no antonymy such as you are talking about.
Reality, on the other hand, is not remotely like that. Most things
exists on continua, and all sets have fuzzy edges.

"The color of truth is grey." - Andre Gide

>> Now, theorist _of_ science have come up with different explanations of
>> what the common denominator between different scientific disciplines
>> is (if you like what the "essence" of science is, and with different
>> explanations of why science is so successful. Some of them are quite
>> convincing, others less so. But that there are (also) not very good
>> theories of science does not mean there is no such thing as science,
>> just as the fact that people used to have the wrong theory of what he
>> sun is did not imply there is no sun.
>
> Science isn't measurements but the ratiocination concerning
> measurements using the antonymic assumptions
> of cause/effect, increasing/regressing(numbers), linear/non-linear.

Science is a systematized practice of trying to understand reality.
Antonymic assumptions are inevitable, since they are how we tend to
think, but they usually get in the way.

> [snip part that I did not understand, either]

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Stephanus]

Must we accept or reject your view.? In all attempts to deny
anonymity , it resufaces in the sentence of denial
Itself namely the assumption that we must accept and not reject it

[eridanus]

El s�bado, 6 de abril de 2013 19:26:26 UTC+1, Stephanus escribi�:

> On Apr 6, 3:59�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > >�All he did was restate his
> > > > > minor premise in a highly complicated way as the conclusion - circular
> > > > > reasoning. Paul stated that God's existence is plain for all to see by
> > > > > nature.,,,, � this is where the ID side wants to stop. �But Paul also
> > > > > wrote that by *faith* we understand the heavens and earth was framed
> > > > > by the word of God. �The word of God is language, 7 as language as a
> > > > > number means antonymic addition/subtraction you *increase* away from 7
> > > > > by addition and *decrease* from 7 by subtraction. Everything is an
> > > > > incantation of numbers, but numbers as Fleeming Jenkin wrote cannot be
> > > > > measured, a point made by Berlinski. Therefore there is no such thing
> > > > > as science or empiricism, only a composite integrity of antonymic
> > > > > necessity - God himself.

> > > > Can't quite see how that would �follow either.
> > > Because YEC antonymity is not scientific which I don't say in
> > > disparaging sense. I am at pains to point out that Chomsky
> > > universal grammar, grammar itself, Thompson's CI orhttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Irreducible_Functionalityprevents
> > > infinite regress of science.

> > Really? How do they do that? Especially something like Chomsky's

> > grammar which is nothing but a (probably false) theory scientific
> > theory about language acquisition.
> > �And why would infinite regress be a problem anyway?
> > �In fact I still don't know what it means
> > > to be scientific. Scientists are confusing their descriptions of
> > > nature with an actual explanation of nature.
> > You'd need to explain where exactly you see the difference

> > > Does there �even exist such as thing as science?
> > Sure does. It is a specific human activity. Not _that_ different from
> > everyday reasoning about the world, just more systematic, and by now
> > with enough accumulated knowledge that a high degree of specialisation
> > has occurred. We can observe people doing it all the time, just go to
> > your nearest lab.
>
> Human activity as antonym of non-activity.

And non-activity referred to living beings is death. I can imagine that
even when we are resting or sleeping, we are doing something; but not
when we are dead.

> > Now, theorist _of_ science have come up with different explanations of
> > what the common denominator between different scientific disciplines
> > is (if you like what the "essence" of science is, and with different
> > explanations of why science is so successful. Some of them are quite
> > convincing, others less so. But that there are (also) not very good
> > theories of science does not mean there is no such thing as science,
> > just as the fact that people used to have the wrong theory of what he
> > sun is did not imply there is no sun.
>
> Science isn't measurements but the ratiocination concerning
> measurements using the antonymic assumptions
> of cause/effect, increasing/regressing(numbers), linear/non-linear.
> You are not addressing my point that antonymic ratiocination
> concerning rocks,trees and flees isn't scientific itself and that this
> must be so by necessity to avoid infinite regress.
>

It is difficult to understand what you are trying to say. Science is
another word for "knowledge". It came to substitute the word philosophy
that was too worn out by abuses.
Then, the "older science" called "philosophy" was accumulating a lot dirt
and senseless incrustations. It was stinking of nonsense.
Philosophy had become since its birth a senseless play of words, that were
mostly incomprehensible, a little like the writing you are making here.

In regard to this, the "new way of thinking" was called science, and they
were determined to not get stray saying or writing silly things. So, the
best way to so, was to speak and to write and to reason only about material
questions. About things that could be seen, with our eyes, and were susceptible, unless they were microscopic, to be weighted and measured. In
the new way of thinking they called science, do not existed any space for
metaphysical speeches, or metaphysical reasoning.
But sometimes, in the "new knowledge", or science, we found ourselves philosophizing a little. These moments are a little dangerous, for in such cases we have the feeling that we are loosing our bearings, that our
compass had started to turn and oscillate like crazy and does not point
to the north anymore.

Then, when you are talking about things as a continuum, of rocks as a
continuum, as not having well known boundaries, rocks that are
multidimensional, I have the feeling that our sailing compass had become
crazy and does not point to the north anymore.

To me, rocks can be as big as possible, like the moon or any rocky planet.
It cannot look as a rock for it can be covered of ice, or a thick
atmosphere of dense gas, that do not permit you to the rock. I can
swallow all this, but I cannot swallow the rock is multidimensional, if
you mean more dimensions than three. For to most of ass, crass scientist,
rocks still have three dimensions, and can presumably be measured, and
even weighted in some manner, and there is point in space in which a rock
starts to exist and a moment in which the rock ends. And this could
easily be seen as a concrete rock, and you can even to label this rock
with a name. This rock is Venus, this rock is Mars, this one is Mercury,
etc. Then, searching the sky for more rocks, we can meet the belt of
asteroids. And there are so many of them, that we do not try to put to
them all a name. Only to a few of the bigger rocks we can put a name.
Some astronomers had been labeling this incredible number or rocks with
a number. But I think they are crazy.

Summing up. If we play too much with our words, we can end speaking like
the ancient philosophers. Then our science can be tainted by this
senseless mania, and had to be abandoned as a dirty word. Then, we should
be obliged to look for a new word meaning "knowledge" in another language
like in Chinese or Burmese or Tibetan. So please do not put much crap
over the word science. Try to be concise and objective. If you have a
tendency to speak crap, and metaphysics, please abandon the field of
science and enter to argument your fantasies with philosophers.

Eridanus

[Mark Isaak]

Of course not. You may accept parts and reject other parts. Or you may
tentatively accept, with degree of confidence ranging to any value.

> In all attempts to deny
> anonymity , it resufaces in the sentence of denial
> Itself namely the assumption that we must accept and not reject it

Only because you force it upon such a surface. There is a lot more to
the universe than you choose to see.

[Stephanus]

Which is not a scientific position, no test can be formulated to
falsify it. We are not scientific, only antonymic.

[Burkhard]

Why should these be the only options? You can accept it in part, and
reject it in part. Or see it as a first approximation and refine it.
Or reserve judgement. Or accept it only in montha that have an "r" in
it. Lots of options available, as almost always.

>In all attempts to deny
> anonymity , it resufaces in the sentence of denial
> Itself namely the assumption that we must accept and not reject it

and you keep confusing the question of anonymity as such, and whether
any specific a choices are antonymic.

[Stephanus]

mmmh you're right , let me try again(I do admire your patience with
me):

Science isn't measurements but the ratiocination concerning
measurements using the antonymic assumptions

of cause/effect, increasing/regressing(numbers), linear/non-
linear(control theory), concentrate/uniformity(thermodynamics).

This of course begs the question - what is science? It seems each
person is making up his own definition of science. Prof.
Herrrmann(math US naval academy) defined science as ..... at the very
least a well reasoned description of nature... To describe an
empirical object like a rock uses unempirical antonymity. Therefore I
propose we dump the term 'science' because it is not defined. If the
last consciousness dies for whom would a rock be a rock and for who
would it be hard.

You are not addressing my point that antonymic ratiocination

concerning rocks,trees and flees assumes untestable, unfalsifiable
antonymity itself and that this must be so by necessity to avoid
infinite regress of proofs. Note the "assume" part.
You state that you have no problem with infinite regress. Very well
then I take note of your position, because it not scientific to either
accept or reject infinitism, merely that most people would not want to
have an infinite suspension of judgement. It is a position statement,
not a "scientific" statement. See I have no idea what "science" means,
I know that hardness is the opposite of softness though.

There is an ambiguity with the sentence: I am scientific because the
people using the phrase isn''t doing so in the context of

http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Fleeming_Jenkin and my interpretation
of him at
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki

[Stephanus]

Must I accept or reject your position statement?

[Stephanus]

Because the Munch. trilemmian alternative is infinite suspension of
judgement. If as Dawkins wrote on p.114 of the
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/The_God_delusion that chance/design
is not our only options, how will we then avoid spending eternity
searching the Bazillions of possible alternatives?

> You can accept it in part, and reject it in part.

Must I accept or reject your view?

> Or see it as a first approximation and refine it.

First is the opposite of last.

> Or reserve judgement. Or accept it only in montha that have an "r" in
> it. Lots of options available, as almost always.

How do we avoid infinite suspension of judgement?

[Stephanus]

I agree what I wrote made no sense and fixed it my reply to burkhard
above.

[Stephanus]

On Apr 10, 4:55�pm, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Human activity is a multidimensional continuum. �Treating it as antonym
> > > > can only be done at the expense of loosing 99.999+% of what human
> > > > activity is.
>
> > > > Human brains like to separate things into discrete categories,
> > > > especially black-white, yes-no antonymy such as you are talking about.
> > > > Reality, on the other hand, is not remotely like that. �Most things
> > > > exists on continua, and all sets have fuzzy edges.
>
> > > Must we accept or reject your view.?
> > Why should these be the only options?
>
> Because the Munch. trilemmian alternative is infinite suspension of

> judgement. If as Dawkins wrote on p.114 of thehttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/The_God_delusion� �that chance/design

> is not our only options, how will we then avoid spending eternity
> searching the Bazillions of possible alternatives?

> > You can accept it in part, and �reject it in part.

> Must I accept or reject your view?

If you used "in part" as a dissimilar term for accepting and rejecting
at the same time then it is Orwellian doublethink. Thus no, you can't
accept or reject "in part" because you can't have the traffic robot
both green and red at the same time.

[Burkhard]

Not sure if cause and effect are antonyms. Apart from that , it seems
to say simply that science is more than just measuring things. Fine by
me, and I don't know of anyone who ever argued it was.

> This of course begs the question - what is science?

No, why would it? It is after all an attempt at a description of just
that, science

> It seems each
> person is making up his own definition of science.

That would go a step too far. Science is as I said before a specific
human activity, We can therefore study it, as we study any other
human activity.
As part of this process, people will form theories that account more
or less convincingly for the data, that is what we observe when we
observe people engaging in science. As so often, these views will
differ - that is where falsification if you like comes in, or a more
rational formulation of the same idea - that is we can test which of
these competing theories about science is better than the others. At
least in the long run

> it Prof.

> Herrrmann(math US naval academy) defined science as ..... at the very
> least a well reasoned description of nature... �To describe an
> empirical object like a rock uses unempirical antonymity.

Why is antonymity "unempirical" and what does that mean? It seems ot
bve a fact about our cognitive apparatus that anonyms play a role in
the way we structure our experiences.

Therefore I
> propose we dump the term 'science' because it is not defined.

There are plenty of more or less good definitions around, just chose
the one tha works for your purpose.

>If the
> last consciousness dies for whom would a rock be a rock and for who
> would it be hard.

Not sure what you mean with that. But in a universe without
intelligent observers, maybe even one without humans, there would be
no science.

>
> You are not addressing my point that antonymic ratiocination
> concerning rocks,trees and flees assumes untestable, unfalsifiable
> antonymity itself and that this must be so by necessity to avoid
> infinite regress of proofs. Note the "assume" part.
> You state that you have no problem with infinite regress. Very well
> then I take note of your position, because it not scientific to either
> accept or reject infinitism, merely that most people would not want to
> have an infinite suspension of judgement.

Why would from an infinite regress a suspension of judgement result?
We can and do make judgements all the time, even when we have much
more pressing problems than the abstract possibility of infinite
regress.
Infinite regress is a problem only if you pursue a specific
philosophical project, a form of foundationalism that goes (at least)
back to Descartes. Once you get over the desire to find ultimate,
clear and distinct, foundations, you realise that it was a stupid idea
even to look for them

> It is a position statement,
> not a "scientific" statement.

So?

> See I have no idea what "science" means,

Then I'd suggest either going to the next lab and observe an actual
scientists, or read what others have foudn out that way, e.g.
Laudan;'s Beyond Positivism and Relativism, or Godfrey-Smith' (2003).
Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science

> I know that hardness is the opposite of softness though.
>
> There is an ambiguity with the sentence: I am scientific because the
> people using the phrase isn''t doing so in the context ofhttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Fleeming_Jenkinand my interpretation
> of him athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki

I still don't see any ambiguity, what are the different readings you
think the sentence allows?

[Burkhard]

On 10 Apr, 16:55, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:41�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>
> > > > Human brains like to separate things into discrete categories,
> > > > especially black-white, yes-no antonymy such as you are talking about.
> > > > Reality, on the other hand, is not remotely like that. �Most things
> > > > exists on continua, and all sets have fuzzy edges.
>
> > > Must we accept or reject your view.?
> > Why should these be the only options?
>
> Because the Munch. trilemmian alternative is infinite suspension of
> judgement.

Not as far as I can see. It just means to work with uncertain
foundations.

>If as Dawkins wrote on p.114 of thehttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/The_God_delusion� �that chance/design

> is not our only options, how will we then avoid spending eternity
> searching the Bazillions of possible alternatives?

Why woudl we do this? Listing the four or five best candidates and
look at them first, and stick with those temporarily until something
better comes along seems much more sensible. Sure, we might overlook
in the process some alternatives, but so what, as long as we find out
interesting things with what we have?

>
> > You can accept it in part, and �reject it in part.
>
> Must I accept or reject your view?

Nope, which is why I gave you other options too. Feel free to add any
I overlooked, refine my ideas, or accept them in part, or in different
degrees.

>
> > Or see it as a first approximation and refine it.
>
> First is the opposite of last.

What does that mean?

>
> > Or reserve judgement. Or accept it only in month that have an "r" in

> > it. Lots of options available, as almost always.
>
> How do we avoid infinite suspension of judgement?

Tossing a coin often helps. Making a best stab at a problem and see
how far you get also works.

[Stephanus]

On Apr 10, 5:23�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 10 Apr, 16:55, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 10, 4:41�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > > > > Human brains like to separate things into discrete categories,
> > > > > especially black-white, yes-no antonymy such as you are talking about.
> > > > > Reality, on the other hand, is not remotely like that. �Most things
> > > > > exists on continua, and all sets have fuzzy edges.
>
> > > > Must we accept or reject your view.?
> > > Why should these be the only options?
>
> > Because the Munch. trilemmian alternative is infinite suspension of
> > judgement.
>
> Not as far as I can see. It just means to work with uncertain
> foundations.
>
> >If as Dawkins wrote on p.114 of thehttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/The_God_delusion��that chance/design
> > is not our only options, how will we then avoid spending eternity
> > searching the Bazillions of possible alternatives?
>
> Why woudl we do this? Listing the four or five best candidates and
> look at them first, and stick with those temporarily until something
> better comes along seems much more sensible. Sure, we might overlook
> in the process some alternatives, but so what, as long as we find out
> interesting things with what we have?

Would you upload a video to youtube and demonstrate the alternative to
a pattern or design
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design

> > > You can accept it in part, and �reject it in part.

> > Must I accept or reject your view?

> Nope, which is why I gave you other options too. Feel free to add any
> I overlooked, refine my ideas, or accept them in part, or in different
> degrees.

> > > Or reserve judgement. Or accept it only in month that have an "r" in
> > > it. Lots of options available, as almost always.
>
> > How do we avoid infinite suspension of judgement?

> Tossing a coin often helps. Making a best stab at a problem and see
> how far you get also works.

Tossing a coin is either heads or tails.

[Burkhard]

On Apr 10, 5:32�pm, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 5:23�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Apr, 16:55, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 10, 4:41�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > > > Human brains like to separate things into discrete categories,
> > > > > > especially black-white, yes-no antonymy such as you are talking about.
> > > > > > Reality, on the other hand, is not remotely like that. �Most things
> > > > > > exists on continua, and all sets have fuzzy edges.
>
> > > > > Must we accept or reject your view.?
> > > > Why should these be the only options?
>
> > > Because the Munch. trilemmian alternative is infinite suspension of
> > > judgement.
>
> > Not as far as I can see. It just means to work with uncertain
> > foundations.
>
> > >If as Dawkins wrote on p.114 of thehttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/The_God_delusion��that chance/design
> > > is not our only options, how will we then avoid spending eternity
> > > searching the Bazillions of possible alternatives?
>
> > Why woudl we do this? Listing the four or five best candidates and
> > look at them first, and stick with those temporarily until something
> > better comes along seems much more sensible. Sure, we might overlook
> > in the process some alternatives, but so what, as long as we find out
> > interesting things with what we have?
>
> Would you upload a video to youtube and demonstrate the alternative to
> a pattern or designhttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design

Of course not. A) that would be pointless, as I said before, knitting
patterns are made by designers, so they really are not alternatives,
but overlap.

Nor is design and random alternatives, and there are already YouTube
videos showing this,
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OHLCW0ZRv-A&feature=related

And other artists besides Pollock have used random elements for ages.

B) there is a limit how you can visualise abstract concepts. A video
that properly describes randomness e.g. would need in theory infinite
length if you distrust abstract descriptions

C) it would be work. But I can describe you roughly what you'd see

>
> > > > You can accept it in part, and �reject it in part.
> > > Must I accept or reject your view?
> > Nope, which is why I gave you other options too. Feel free to add any
> > I overlooked, refine my ideas, or accept them in part, or in different
> > degrees.
> > > > Or reserve judgement. Or accept it only in month that have an "r" in
> > > > it. Lots of options available, as almost always.
>
> > > How do we avoid infinite suspension of judgement?
> > Tossing a coin often helps. Making a best stab at a problem and see
> > how far you get also works.
>
> Tossing a coin is either heads or tails.

Nonsense. Can also end standing on the edge, or get caught by a bird
in flight and never return. Simple dichotomies are rarely true.

F

[Mark Isaak]

Are you talking about your position? That's what I was talking about.

> We are not scientific, only antonymic.

I am in the middle between the two.

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 4, 1:59�am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My article's description of circular reasoning refers to rhetorical
> circularity.
>

> The major problem in the peer reviewed journal articles describing
> natural selection as a tautology is that the follow up letters refer
> to logical tautologies.
>

> In addition they like RAy martinez continue to insist that terms such
> as the oxymoron natural selection is a tautology. Only sentences can
> be tautologies. I have explained elsewhere that the term ns was the
> metaphor for the sentence:
> ...... acquisition of attributes via the natural means of competitive

> preservation.... � �Darwin used selection as a dissimilar term for

> preservation.
>
> Why Martinez and Burkhard is this so difficult to understand ?

When we say natural selection is a tautalogy we are talking about its
definition or explanation. In fact, I became convinced of the
tautologous nature of natural selection when reading many of your "re-
phrase" arguments here at Talk.Origins, Stephan.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 4, 6:35�am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
[....]

> Atheists are correct in observing that the ID argument by design
> analogy is circular because we have no experience of an unseen
> designer, we only have experience of seen designers.This argument was
> made in some fashion to me by Howard in the thread Automated
> Selection, this was how I understood him and I did not have a response
> to his view at the time. �I think this observation form atheists is
> very good and a serious challenge to ID and YEC, especially because
> the ID side are *ignoring* this argument. I also did not reply to
> Howard because I was at loss for a proper response. My latest wiki
> edits deriving God's existence from a syllogism is my attempt at
> answering him.

Why don't you post your answer here? I find it very difficult to read
these wiki pages because they're loaded with formatting distractions.

You think Howard has a good argument because it has been ignored? One
could rightly interpret lack of attention as being caused by the fact
that the argument is evidently poor. But you think it's a good
argument. This is seen in the fact that you've spent much time
thinking about a refutation. So be it.

"Atheists are correct in observing that the ID argument by design
analogy is circular because we have no experience of an unseen

designer, we only have experience of seen designers" (Stephan).

Did Howard actually use the word "experience"?

Next question: IF we can find and identify human designs in nature,
what's the logical inference?

I've noticed in the past that you do not answer questions
forthrightly. I'm hoping this will change.

Ray

[Stephanus]

As a term it is defined as an oxymoron from a dictionary. It can be no
more a tautology then the pleonasm 'free gift' can be a tautology. My
premise is that only sentences can be tautologies, therefore the
oxymoron ns must be used metaphorically and be defined as a proxy
elsewhere as a full sentence. This full sentence as defined by
Spencer, darwin was a Malthusian competition derivative and turned out
to be a claim of logic. IT is bizarre that I did extensive
incorporation of your views on ".... by the precepts of empiricisms
the claims of logic are not falsifiable......" and yet we can't agree
on a simple semantic issue.

I have been wrong about many things and am not trying to be dishonest
about anything or lie and deceive, for I have to face the judgement
seat of Christ. Therefore we had better get our theology and
philosophy figured out correct or be in serious trouble not with man
but with Christ.

[Stephanus]

On Apr 11, 3:56�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 6:35�am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [....]
>
> > Atheists are correct in observing that the ID argument by design
> > analogy is circular because we have no experience of an unseen
> > designer, we only have experience of seen designers.This argument was
> > made in some fashion to me by Howard in the thread Automated
> > Selection, this was how I understood him and I did not have a response
> > to his view at the time. �I think this observation form atheists is
> > very good and a serious challenge to ID and YEC, especially because
> > the ID side are *ignoring* this argument. I also did not reply to
> > Howard because I was at loss for a proper response. My latest wiki
> > edits deriving God's existence from a syllogism is my attempt at
> > answering him.
>
> Why don't you post your answer here? I find it very difficult to read
> these wiki pages because they're loaded with formatting distractions.
>
> You think Howard has a good argument because it has been ignored? One
> could rightly interpret lack of attention as being caused by the fact
> that the argument is evidently poor. But you think it's a good
> argument. This is seen in the fact that you've spent much time
> thinking about a refutation. So be it.

So be it then, but the Atheists have a point: the inference from
design is based on our analogous experience of known seen designers.
If this is the only argument for God then it merely restates the
underlying premise that God's existence is probable from our
observation of nature. Hence we must incorporate God's unfalsifiable
essence as the major premise. For by faith we understand that the
heavens were made by the word of God is as about as unscientific as
you can get. This is why I insist that we must state we theists are
unscientific and careful to point out that this is not disparaging.

[ernes...@gmail.com]

.


In reference to:

> And non-activity referred to living beings is death. I can imagine that
> even when we are resting or sleeping, we are doing something; but not
> when we are dead.

There are people alive now who have been through "non-activity" for lengthy periods. Given that in times past it was not unusal to put a string from the casket to a bell above ground, so the person who recovered from "non-activity" could be found and dug up.
There are various stages of "dead", and non-activity is one stage, but not conclusive as to being "dead".









.

[Stephanus]

On Apr 11, 4:56�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 6:35�am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [....]
>
> > Atheists are correct in observing that the ID argument by design
> > analogy is circular because we have no experience of an unseen
> > designer, we only have experience of seen designers.This argument was
> > made in some fashion to me by Howard in the thread Automated
> > Selection, this was how I understood him and I did not have a response
> > to his view at the time. �I think this observation form atheists is
> > very good and a serious challenge to ID and YEC, especially because
> > the ID side are *ignoring* this argument. I also did not reply to
> > Howard because I was at loss for a proper response. My latest wiki
> > edits deriving God's existence from a syllogism is my attempt at
> > answering him.

> Why don't you post your answer here? I find it very difficult to read
> these wiki pages because they're loaded with formatting distractions.

I fixed it because the subscripts made it difficult to read, it is
only plain text now. My latest edit is that Dembski, Dawkins and all
those that deny a 6000 year old earth are semiotic necromancers.

> You think Howard has a good argument because it has been ignored? One
> could rightly interpret lack of attention as being caused by the fact
> that the argument is evidently poor. But you think it's a good
> argument. This is seen in the fact that you've spent much time
> thinking about a refutation. So be it.

> "Atheists are correct in observing that the ID argument by design
> analogy is circular because we have no experience of an unseen
> designer, we only have experience of seen designers" (Stephan).
>
> Did Howard actually use the word "experience"?

> IF we can find and identify human designs in nature, what's the logical
> inference?

That it was made by a known seen human designer due to our experience
with said seen designers. Design is something which represents
something other than itself. The universe either made itself or it was
made. If the universe made itself out of nothing then we won't be able
to understand such a concept because in order to comprehend
nothingness , there must be an antonymic somethingness.
Therefore there was no point in time where there was literally
nothing, before nature was made by God only antonymic essense
existed.

[Stephanus]

The term 'pattern' does not mean 'random' anymore than natural in
natural selection means chance. From the premise of antonymity all
semantic objects such as natural, preservation, random etc. can be
used to symbolically represent a pattern with a purpose(design) or a
pattern without one(pattern). But you know this of course.

Erasmus darwin coined 'artificial cultivation' in Zoonomia where
darwin lifted it and used selection as dissimalar term for cultivation
or preservation. Artificial selection,preservation is an inversion of
logic because it is precisely nature's 'selections', decisions etc.
which are artificial and human decisions , preservations, cultivations
which are 'natural' so to speak.

1) A human went to a party and the hosts expected him to make a choice
between tofu and milk. He had a preference for soda, his more
'natural' choice but could not choose it as it was not available.
Therefore he made an 'artificial selection' for milk, his more
'natural' choice between tofu and milk. If soda were available he
would have made a 'natural selection' for it.

With 1) we have a pattern with a purpose and the term 'artificial
selection' was used as metaphor for this concept. Natural selection in
this context had nothing to do with the 'natural preservation' or
'unintentional preservation' of those creatures who survived the
others in the struggle for life. Darwin meant with natural selection
the following:

In the malthusian struggle for life the descendants of those who
outwitted their competitors for resources gained attributes via this
natural(unintentional) means of competitive 'selection' , preservation
or cultivation.

The problem with this story is as Pnyikos pointed out to Howard is
that we would be told the exact same thing if the other creature came
to dominate his ecological niche and it is thus untestable.

=== selection at random ===
2) I put my hand in a bag with marbles and do a selection at random.
This is obviously a design even though it contains the terms random

3) A tornado struck the house, knocking over a bucket with letters,
generating a random pattern on the carpet - non-design

4) The painter in Burkhard's video generates random patterns of paint
- Design


Therefore the terms random,selection, design,pattern etc. by
themselves do not tell you whether the wielder of these tools means a
purpose or non-purpose: this is context dependent.

> Nor is design and random alternatives, and there are already YouTube

> videos showing this,http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OHLCW0ZRv-A&feature=related

[Burkhard]

How could I , as non of this seems standard English usage.

>
> Erasmus darwin coined 'artificial cultivation' in Zoonomia where
> darwin lifted it and used selection as dissimalar term for cultivation
> or preservation. Artificial selection,preservation is an inversion of
> logic because it is precisely nature's 'selections', decisions etc.
> which are artificial and human decisions , preservations, cultivations
> which are 'natural' so to speak.

I find nothing natural to breed dogs so that they look "pleasing", but
are pretty much constantly ill, or cows or pigs that maximise milk and
meat respectively, but at considerable costs to the animal's welfare.
"Artificial" as "man made" goes back to the 15th century I think.

>
> 1) A human went to a party and the hosts expected him to make a choice
> between tofu and milk. He had a preference for soda, his more
> 'natural' choice but could not choose it as it was not available.
> Therefore he made an 'artificial selection' for milk, his more
> 'natural' choice between tofu and milk. If soda were available he
> would have made a 'natural selection' for it.

That is a pretty silly play on a the fact that "natural" has multiple
meanings, don't you think?

>
> With 1) we have a pattern with a purpose

I can't see a pattern here. If he did it every week, then a pattern
might emerge.

>and the term 'artificial
> selection' was used as metaphor for this concept. Natural selection in
> this context had nothing to do with the 'natural preservation' or
> 'unintentional preservation' of those creatures who survived the
> others in the struggle for life. Darwin meant with natural selection
> the following:
>
> In the malthusian struggle for life the descendants of those who
> outwitted their competitors for resources gained attributes via this
> natural(unintentional) means of competitive 'selection' , preservation
> or cultivation.
>
> The problem with this story is as Pnyikos pointed out to Howard is
> that we would be told the exact same thing if the other creature came
> to dominate his ecological niche and it is thus untestable.

Of course it is testable, same tests apply as last time round. Simply
put the animal in an environment where you have altered the factor you
consider causal for its success, and see what happens.

>
> === selection at random ===
> 2) I put my hand in a bag with marbles and do a selection at random.
> This is obviously a design even though it contains the terms random

"Obviously" a design? Why? I can't see anything designed here

>
> 3) A tornado struck the house, knocking �over a bucket with letters,
> generating a random pattern on the carpet - �non-design
>
> 4) The painter in Burkhard's video generates random patterns of paint
> - Design
>
> Therefore the terms �random,selection, design,pattern etc. by
> themselves do not tell you whether the wielder of these tools means a
> purpose or non-purpose: this is context dependent.

Yup. Which is pretty much what I have been telling you for some time.
So why do you keep using "pattern" and "design" as if they were
antonyms?

[Stephanus]

From the premise that the animal's present attributes weren't in the
distant past's ancestors or the premise
that all variation is the expression of pre-existing information.

> > === selection at random ===
> > 2) I put my hand in a bag with marbles and do a selection at random.
> > This is obviously a design even though it contains the terms random

> "Obviously" a design? Why? I can't see anything designed here

The act of volition to select a marble at random, in other words a
statistical sample as in probability sampling.

[Stephanus]

On Apr 11, 4:13�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

'natural' has no meaning, the only meaning that exists is antonymic,
which can be represented with semantic objects.
Platonic antonymity is the only thing that exists. Dictionaries
document the ''majority usage'', in the majority sentences natural
would be the metaphor for unintentional or chance. Do not assign any
word, term or sentence an actual meaning, we are only dealing with
meanings deriving from two conflicting world views - materialism and
YEC. Both these world views use the same semantic objects but have
different premises.

[Burkhard]

The theory of evolution is used in wildlife management and in
medicine . It is not solely about the past, and the ideas can be and
are tested when designing strategies for maintaining biodiversity, or
when combating drug resistance.

Nor is the idea that animals in the past looked different a simple
"assumption" - it is a rather straightforward explanation of the data
that we have, and itself subject to tests and falsification.

Whether the "information" is pre-existing has rather little to do with
it, genetic frontloading would be in principle consistent with the
ToE, we have just no reason to believe that it is true, and lots of
reasons to believe thta it is false (from genetics, not from the ToE)

>
> > > === selection at random ===
> > > 2) I put my hand in a bag with marbles and do a selection at random.
> > > This is obviously a design even though it contains the terms random
> > "Obviously" a design? Why? I can't see anything designed here
>
> The act of volition to select a marble at random, in other words a
> statistical sample as in probability sampling.

Seems to stretch the meaning of "design" beyond useful limits - unless
you mean the entire experimental set up as "designed".

[Burkhard]

On 11 Apr, 18:16, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 4:13�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> > > Erasmus darwin coined 'artificial cultivation' in Zoonomia where
> > > darwin lifted it and used selection as dissimalar term for cultivation
> > > or preservation. Artificial selection,preservation is an inversion of
> > > logic because it is precisely nature's 'selections', decisions etc.
> > > which are artificial and human decisions , preservations, cultivations
> > > which are 'natural' so to speak.
>
> > I find nothing natural to breed dogs so that they look "pleasing", but
> > are pretty much constantly ill, or cows or pigs that maximise milk and
> > meat respectively, but at considerable costs to the animal's welfare.
> > "Artificial" as "man made" goes back to the 15th century I think.
>
> > > 1) A human went to a party and the hosts expected him to make a choice
> > > between tofu and milk. He had a preference for soda, his more
> > > 'natural' choice but could not choose it as it was not available.
> > > Therefore he made an 'artificial selection' for milk, his more
> > > 'natural' choice between tofu and milk. If soda were available he
> > > would have made a 'natural selection' for it.
>
> > That is a pretty silly play on a the fact that "natural" has multiple
> > meanings, don't you think?
>
> 'natural' has no meaning, the only meaning that exists �is antonymic,
> which can be represented with semantic objects.
> Platonic antonymity is the only thing that exists. Dictionaries
> document the ''majority usage'', in the majority sentences natural
> would be the metaphor for unintentional or chance.

Yes to the first, no to the second. Gravity is a law of nature, and
yet it allows us to predict quite well where an object will land if
dropped. Nothing random there. And you have used a different meaning
of "natural" in your example form the standard meaning )something
like: "normal") , which was my point

Do not assign any
> word, term or sentence an actual meaning, we are only dealing with
> meanings deriving from two conflicting world views - materialism and
> YEC. Both these world views use the same semantic objects but have
> different premises.

That has the card before the horse. Words enable communication. One
things people can communicate about are different worldviews. For
this, nothing more is needed as that the meaning of the terms is
sufficiently clear. If in doubt, ask.

[alextangent]

[Stephanus]

A rock falling is an observation, gravity is an inference and
metaphor: we don't know what gravity is. Predicting where a rock will
fall involves numbers and numbers are predicated on antonymity, you
either increase upwards from 7 or regress towards 6.
A law of nature is a metaphor for repeated behavior, there are no
actual laws of nature.

[Ray Martinez]

> premise is that only sentences can be tautologies....

I've accepted your premise. The fact is seen when I said the
definition or explanation of natural selection is tautologous. And
don't misunderstand "definition" to only convey an oxymoron (in this
case).

> ....therefore the

> oxymoron ns must be used metaphorically and be defined as a proxy
> elsewhere as a full sentence. This full sentence as defined by
> Spencer, darwin was a Malthusian competition derivative and turned out
> to be a claim of logic.

Yes, natural selection is a claim of logic.

> IT is bizarre that I did extensive
> incorporation of your views on ".... by the precepts of empiricisms
> the claims of logic are not falsifiable......" and yet we can't agree
> on a simple semantic issue.

Everytime I attempt engagement, to straighten things out between us,
you seem to disappear or ignore crucial points (like you do below). To
make matters worse, I don't see where----exactly, we disagree on this
issue?

> I have been wrong about many things and am not trying to be dishonest
> about anything or lie and deceive, for I have to face the judgement
> seat of Christ.

Me too, likewise.

> Therefore we had better get our theology and
> philosophy figured out correct or be in serious trouble not with man
> but with Christ.

Yes, I agree.

> > In fact, I became convinced of the tautologous nature of natural selection when reading many of your "re-
> > phrase" arguments here at Talk.Origins, Stephan.

You've ignored the point above.

Ray

[eridanus]

El mi�rcoles, 10 de abril de 2013 14:59:43 UTC+1, Mark Isaak escribi�:

> On 4/9/13 10:48 PM, Stephanus wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 3:05 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 4/6/13 11:26 AM, Stephanus wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>

> >>> On Apr 6, 3:59 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> All he did was restate his
>
> >>>>>>> minor premise in a highly complicated way as the conclusion - circular
>
> >>>>>>> reasoning. Paul stated that God's existence is plain for all to see by
>
> >>>>>>> nature.,,,, this is where the ID side wants to stop. But Paul also
>
> >>>>>>> wrote that by *faith* we understand the heavens and earth was framed
>
> >>>>>>> by the word of God. The word of God is language, 7 as language as a
>
> >>>>>>> number means antonymic addition/subtraction you *increase* away from 7
>
> >>>>>>> by addition and *decrease* from 7 by subtraction. Everything is an
>
> >>>>>>> incantation of numbers, but numbers as Fleeming Jenkin wrote cannot be
>
> >>>>>>> measured, a point made by Berlinski. Therefore there is no such thing
>
> >>>>>>> as science or empiricism, only a composite integrity of antonymic
>
> >>>>>>> necessity - God himself.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> Can't quite see how that would follow either.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Because YEC antonymity is not scientific which I don't say in
>
> >>>>> disparaging sense. I am at pains to point out that Chomsky
>
> >>>>> universal grammar, grammar itself, Thompson's CI or
>
> >>>>> http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Irreducible_Functionalityprevents
>
> >>>>> infinite regress of science.
>
> >>
>

> >>>> Really? How do they do that? Especially soemthing like Chomsky's

>
> >>>> grammar which is nothing but a (probably false) theory scientific
>
> >>>> theory about language acquisition.
>
> >>>> And why would infinite regress be a problem anyway?
>
> >>
>
> >>>> In fact I still don't know what it means
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> to be scientific. Scientists are confusing their descriptions of
>
> >>>>> nature with an actual explanation of nature.
>
> >>
>
> >>>> You'd need to explain where exactly you see the difference
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Does there even exist such as thing as science?
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Sure does. It is a specific human activity. Not _that_ different from
>
> >>>> everyday reasoning about the world, just more systematic, and by now
>
> >>>> with enough accumulated knowledge that a high degree of specialisation
>
> >>>> has occurred. We can observe people doing it all the time, just go to
>
> >>>> your nearest lab.
>
> >>
>
> >>> Human activity as antonym of non-activity.
>
> >>
>

> >> Human activity is a multidimensional continuum. Treating it as antonym
>
> >> can only be done at the expense of loosing 99.999+% of what human
>
> >> activity is.
>
> >>
>

> >> Human brains like to separate things into discrete categories,
>
> >> especially black-white, yes-no antonymy such as you are talking about.
>
> >> Reality, on the other hand, is not remotely like that. Most things
>
> >> exists on continua, and all sets have fuzzy edges.
>
> >>
>
> > Must we accept or reject your view.?
>
>
>

> Of course not. You may accept parts and reject other parts. Or you may
>
> tentatively accept, with degree of confidence ranging to any value.
>
>
>
> > In all attempts to deny
>
> > anonymity , it resufaces in the sentence of denial
>
> > Itself namely the assumption that we must accept and not reject it
>
>
>
> Only because you force it upon such a surface. There is a lot more to
>
> the universe than you choose to see.
>
>
>

> --
>
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
>
> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
>
> honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
>
> pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

of course, the universe can be so big, that we have not a damn idea of
how big it can be. It is a precious thing to speculate with matters we
ignore. A great feat of the intellect.
Isn't it wonderful that we ignore most about the matters we can have
before our eyes, but we felt confident enough to speculate with matters
we cannot observe? This is great!
I've seen people speculating with the multiverses, or about the
probabilities that our universe have to exist. It is incredible how
much confidence some people have in their intelligence. Have you doubts
about a first life started on the earth? Do not sweat. First life
came from outer space in form of seeds of live particles embedded in
meteorite rocks.


Eridanus

[Burkhard]

Gravity is the thing that we need to explain rocks falling. No
metaphor involved, just postulating an abstract entity that
systematises our experiences.

Predicting where a rock will
> fall involves numbers and numbers are predicated on antonymity, you
> either increase upwards from 7 or regress towards 6.

So what? the relevant thing is that we can predict where the rock
will fall, therefore it is not a random event.

> A law of nature is a metaphor for repeated behavior, there are no
> actual laws of nature.

Shrug. I'm not a realist myself, so I can live with that ontology
quite happily, but my point is utterly independent from the question
whether or not you are a realist, a structure realist or a non-
realist as far as laws of nature are concerned.

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 10, 9:39锟絧m, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 3:56锟絘m, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 6:35锟絘m, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [....]
>
> > > Atheists are correct in observing that the ID argument by design
> > > analogy is circular because we have no experience of an unseen
> > > designer, we only have experience of seen designers.This argument was
> > > made in some fashion to me by Howard in the thread Automated
> > > Selection, this was how I understood him and I did not have a response

> > > to his view at the time. 锟絀 think this observation form atheists is

> > > very good and a serious challenge to ID and YEC, especially because
> > > the ID side are *ignoring* this argument. I also did not reply to
> > > Howard because I was at loss for a proper response. My latest wiki
> > > edits deriving God's existence from a syllogism is my attempt at
> > > answering him.
>
> > Why don't you post your answer here? I find it very difficult to read
> > these wiki pages because they're loaded with formatting distractions.
>
> > You think Howard has a good argument because it has been ignored? One
> > could rightly interpret lack of attention as being caused by the fact
> > that the argument is evidently poor. But you think it's a good
> > argument. This is seen in the fact that you've spent much time
> > thinking about a refutation. So be it.
>
> So be it then, but the Atheists have a point: the inference from
> design is based on our analogous experience of known seen designers.

Yes, the Atheists have a point: it's true to a significant extent.
That said, how does the truth or fact of the point reflect negatively
on the historic design argument (design implies invisible Designer)?
And said point is not original to Atheist thought. The point which you
think so highly of originated from Theists, not Atheists.

The inference from design is based on the fact that the design-effect
is found and seen in the wild. Until I'm convinced otherwise I firmly
believe that you do not understand how the *previous sentence* defeats
the point "made by Atheists." I'm willing to stick around and hash
this out.

> If this is the only argument for God....

It's not.

> ....then it merely restates the

> underlying premise that God's existence is probable from our
> observation of nature.

Design is seen, Intelligence is then inferred. Now identify the
premise spoken of above?

> Hence we must incorporate God's unfalsifiable
> essence as the major premise.

I don't understand.

> For by faith we understand that the
> heavens were made by the word of God is as about as unscientific as
> you can get.

Just the opposite is true. Your thinking has been poisoned by pro-
Atheist assumptions and definitions. "Faith" means "that which is
based on fact" or the truth of God's word as preserved in the Bible.

The claim of Scripture is that God spoke: "Universe be" (and Universe
was). The effect, in this case the Universe, reflects design. We see
the effect of design and infer the work of invisible Designer; hence
faith is based on the fact that God's spoken or written word is true
because it corresponds with reality, in this case the reality of a
designed Universe.

> This is why I insist that we must state we theists are
> unscientific and careful to point out that this is not disparaging.

As ridiculous as it gets.

Congratulations, Atheists, you've successfully corrupted Stephan with
your nonsense and illogic. My hat is tipped.

> > "Atheists are correct in observing that the ID argument by design
> > analogy is circular because we have no experience of an unseen
> > designer, we only have experience of seen designers" (Stephan).
>
> > Did Howard actually use the word "experience"?

How about an answer?

> > Next question: IF we can find and identify human designs in nature,
> > what's the logical inference?
>
> > I've noticed in the past that you do not answer questions
> > forthrightly. I'm hoping this will change.

Yoo hoo, Stephan? No answers?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 11, 6:38�am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:

[....]

> > IF we can find and identify human designs in nature, �what's the logical
> > inference?
>
> That it was made by a known seen human designer due to our experience
> with said seen designers.

False; the discovery of human designs in nature (the wild) can only
mean Divine origin, work and/or intervention. The issue here is logic,
and nothing else: design implies and corresponds to Divine power and
intelligence.

> Design is something which represents
> something other than itself.

Okay.

> The universe either made itself or it was
> made.

Yes.

> If the universe made itself out of nothing then we won't be able
> to understand such a concept because in order to comprehend
> nothingness , there must be an antonymic somethingness.

The Bible says God spoke the universe into existence out of
nothingness.

> Therefore there was no point in time where there was literally
> nothing, before nature was made by God only antonymic essense
> existed.

You need to give preeminence to the Bible and its assumptions and
claims because these words correspond to reality and are thus verified
true. The comments made above appear to give something else, some
unknown, the place of preeminence. Again, your thinking appears to
have been corrupted by secularism, or that which is built on sand, and
not the Rock of Christ and His Word, the Bible. I believe the error in
your thinking all stems from acceptance of a non-Biblical definition
of faith.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Ah, speaking as the by now unquestionable expert on Stephanus, there
you misinterpret him. Its all getting rather transcendental. His
"logic" runs thusly:
Science can offer an explanation for X. If we want to know why that
explanation is true, we need ot have a meta-justification for why the
scientific method works. Let's call this justification 1. We then need
a reason to accept justification 1. For this we need another meta-meta-
justification, let's call it 2. This, obviously, leads to an infinite
regress - all our scientific knowledge claims are therefore ultimately
build on sand.

So, by this logic, IF we want some foundation for our knowledge, it
has to be something else than science (as this would just be question
begging - why is science true?) So we need something from outside
science that can assure us that its basic tenants are true - but which
can't be itself scientific. That's then where religion comes in. We
can trust (to a degree) our logic, because it mirrors the logic that
God used in the creation act (or something like this) , anchoring
language in reality. Without that anchor, we can never be certain if
we "hit" with our words any external reality. ID, by trying to be
scientific, can never do this, because it is still trapped in the
limits of science. So it is not "faith" as just being different from
"knowledge", rather, faith becomes the foundation without which
science (or language) itself is meaningless. So ID is just not
ambitious enough an dform his perepsective, it is you who grants way
too much to "atheists", that is an unjustifiable trust in the
truthfulness of scientific inquiry.

Once you strip the word salad that he uses to justify this idea,
nothing that new (Leibniz on postmodern acid, really). Some of the
obvious problems are

- even if you buy into the idea in principle there is no way to get
from there to the specific Christian God
- even if you buy into the idea in principle, there is no way you get
specific factual statements out of it (like the age of the earth, or
the theory of evolution for that matter) Like all meta-theories, it
ought to be neutral towards any scientific claim - where it isn't, he
is cheating.
- the only people who care are philosophers who still believe in
foundationalism, that is, just a bunch of people with nothing better
to do, and most certainly not practicisng scientists who just go on
regardless.
- even those few who care will find that specific metaphysics deeply
unappealing, There is a reason nobody has tried anything like it for a
few hundred years, it doesn;t work, even on its own terms

[Stephanus]

On Apr 11, 9:53锟絧m, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 11 Apr, 20:37, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 6:51锟絧m, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 11 Apr, 18:16, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > > On Apr 11, 4:13锟絧m, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > Erasmus darwin coined 'artificial cultivation' in Zoonomia where
> > > > > > darwin lifted it and used selection as dissimalar term for cultivation
> > > > > > or preservation. Artificial selection,preservation is an inversion of
> > > > > > logic because it is precisely nature's 'selections', decisions etc.
> > > > > > which are artificial and human decisions , preservations, cultivations
> > > > > > which are 'natural' so to speak.
>
> > > > > I find nothing natural to breed dogs so that they look "pleasing", but
> > > > > are pretty much constantly ill, or cows or pigs that maximise milk and
> > > > > meat respectively, but at considerable costs to the animal's welfare.
> > > > > "Artificial" as "man made" goes back to the 15th century I think.
>
> > > > > > 1) A human went to a party and the hosts expected him to make a choice
> > > > > > between tofu and milk. He had a preference for soda, his more
> > > > > > 'natural' choice but could not choose it as it was not available.
> > > > > > Therefore he made an 'artificial selection' for milk, his more
> > > > > > 'natural' choice between tofu and milk. If soda were available he
> > > > > > would have made a 'natural selection' for it.
>
> > > > > That is a pretty silly play on a the fact that "natural" has multiple
> > > > > meanings, don't you think?
>

> > > > 'natural' has no meaning, the only meaning that exists 锟絠s antonymic,

> > > > which can be represented with semantic objects.
> > > > Platonic antonymity is the only thing that exists. Dictionaries
> > > > document the ''majority usage'', in the majority sentences natural
> > > > would be the metaphor for unintentional or chance.
>
> > > Yes to the first, no to the second. Gravity is a law of nature, and
> > > yet it allows us to predict quite well where an object will land if
> > > dropped.Nothing random there.
>
> > A rock falling is an observation, gravity is an inference and
> > metaphor: we don't know what gravity is.
>
> Gravity is the thing that we need to explain rocks falling. No
> metaphor involved, just postulating an abstract entity that
> systematises our experiences.
>

> 锟絇redicting where a rock will

>
> > fall involves numbers and numbers are predicated on antonymity, you
> > either increase upwards from 7 or regress towards 6.
>

> So 锟絯hat? the relevant thing is that we can predict where the rock

> will fall, therefore it is not a random event.


> > A law of nature is a metaphor for repeated behavior, there are no
> > actual laws of nature.

> Shrug. I'm not a realist myself, so I can live with that ontology
> quite happily, but my point is utterly independent from the question
> whether or not you are a realist, a structure realist or a non-

> realist 锟絘s far as laws of nature are concerned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism

"the belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except
through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure,
and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are
constant laws of abstract culture".[1]

I have no idea what an abstraction or science is or means, I only know
what it means to be antonymic. God is neither scientific nor abstract
but antonymic. We are created in his image and therefore our language
will only make sense in terms of this premise. Note I said premise,
whether this is true in reality is not the concern of the logician.
The logician is tasked with determining whether conclusions are stated
in such a way that they don't constitute an essential restatement of
the premise.

[Stephanus]

On Apr 11, 10:46�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 6:38�am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
> > > IF we can find and identify human designs in nature, �what's the logical
> > > inference?
>
> > That it was made by a known seen human designer due to our experience
> > with said seen designers.
>
> False; the discovery of human designs in nature (the wild) can only
> mean Divine origin, work and/or intervention.

I don't get it, how is a car of divine origin?

> The issue here is logic,
> and nothing else: design implies and corresponds to Divine power and
> intelligence.

Design begets design. Since we are designers, it means a designer must
have designed us, which raises the question as which God or Designer
of the many there can be.

> > Design is something which represents
> > something other than itself.

> Okay.

> > The universe either made itself or it was
> > made.

> Yes.

> > If the universe made itself out of nothing then we won't be able
> > to understand such a concept because in order to comprehend
> > nothingness , there must be an antonymic somethingness.

> The Bible says God spoke the universe into existence out of
> nothingness.

Before the universe existed there was no physical matter, only God's
antonymic essense.

> > Therefore there was no point in time where there was literally
> > nothing, before nature was made by God only antonymic essense
> > existed.

> You need to give preeminence to the Bible and its assumptions and
> claims because these words correspond to reality and are thus verified
> true.
> The comments made above appear to give something else, some
> unknown, the place of preeminence. Again, your thinking appears to
> have been corrupted by secularism, or that which is built on sand, and
> not the Rock of Christ and His Word, the Bible. I believe the error in
> your thinking all stems from acceptance of a non-Biblical definition
> of faith.

Faith is the evidence for things not seen, it is unscientific(whatever
that means) by definition. God as unscientific unfalsifiable (I am
that I am) antonymic essence prevents an infinite regress in our
descriptions of empiricism.
All of this is in my wiki, read this please and then quote from it.

Howard did use the term "experience" I believe, it was in the thread
Automated selection
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Automated_Selection

"I am that I am" (Exodus 3:14). What God was saying here is..... I am
that I am because I have no explanation....
The article below want's to infer that Exodus 3:14 is a banal
tautology.


http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/ETC-Review-General-Semantics/78800753.html

"THIS IS LIKE DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN" - Eight Types of Tautology.
Rhetoric (Terminology)
Definition (Logic) (Terminology)
Author:
Moore, Michael
Pub Date:
06/22/2001
Publication:
Name: ETC.: A Review of General Semantics Publisher: Institute of
General Semantics Audience: Academic; Professional Format: Magazine/
Journal Subject: Education; Languages and linguistics Copyright:
COPYRIGHT 2001 Institute of General Semantics ISSN: 0014-164X
Issue:
Date: Summer, 2001 Source Volume: 58 Source Issue: 2
Geographic:
Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States
Ads by Google
Velcro
MICHAEL MOORE [*]

THOUGH INTRODUCED into propositional calculus at the end of the 19th
century by the American logician Charles Peirce, tautology (literally
"the same word") had its place among the better-known errors of
rhetoric as early as the 4th century. Aelius Donatus (Chase, 1926), a
famous Latin grammarian, listed it, inter alia, alongside cacemphaton
(vulgar utterance) and barbarism: "Tautology is a faulty repetition of
phrases, such as 'me, myself and I'." Current dictionary definitions
leave it unclear whether repeated words or repeated ideas constitute a
tautology, and whether mere repetition suffices. Three dictionary
definitions illustrate this confusion:

Merriam Webster Dictionary: "Needless or meaningless repetition in
close succession of an idea, statement, or word."

Concise Oxford Dictionary: "Saying the same thing twice over in
different words."

Oxford English Dictionary (OED): "A repetition of the same statement;
the repetition (esp. in the immediate context) of the same word or
phrase, or of the same idea or statement in other words."

The idea of repetition appears in each of these definitions. A
consideration of the following terms, related to tautology, shows that
such repetition comes in many different forms.

Antanaclasis: "The same word is repeated in a different, if not a
contrary signification" (OED). For example: "And that's
that!" (probably "the most succinct antanaclastic tautology in the
English language," according to States, 2000), or "who's who."

Paronomasia: "A play upon words in which the same word is used in
different senses or words similar in sound are set in opposition so as
to give antithetical force" (Webster). For example: "Thou art Peter
[rock], and upon this rock I shall build my church" (Matthew 16: 18;
though this example worked better in Greek). We find a modern example
of such punning in Stein (1922/1993, p.182): "So great so great Emily!
Sew grate sew grate Emily." [1]

Pleonasm: "Iteration or repetition in speaking or in writing, the use
of more words than those necessary; the coincident use of a word and
its substitute" (Webster). Webster's definition sounds like a good
example of pleonasm

Redundancy: "The part of a communication that can be eliminated
without loss of essential information" (Webster). This definition
lacks redundancy.

Ads by Google
Sunday School Lessons
52 Fun Sunday School Lesson Plans. Simple & Effective. Ages 2-14.
www.TeachSundaySchool.com
Swimming Pool Heating
Energy efficient pool heating. Swim all year round!
www.aquaheat.com
Von Seidels, Cape Town
Patent, Trademark, Copyright law IS0 9001 accredited for our service
www.vonseidels.com
In the following I won't attempt to make clear distinctions among
tautologies and their termes voisins; possibly some of the examples I
use belong to one of the above.

In contrast with its somewhat fuzzy literary meaning, in logic a
tautological statement consists of one that we cannot deny without
inconsistency. Formally, the expression p v p (read "p or not-p")
embodies a tautology, for in a truth table both possible combinations
of p with p (T and F, or F and T) result in a true statement (a
"formal truth" in Copi, 1953, p.247; see also Fearnside & Holther,
1959, pp. 135-137 for their discussion of "logical truth," and its
overlap with tautology). A few quotes and paraphrases from
Wittgenstein ("who venerated tautology," says Borsodi, 1967, p.58)
will further characterize logical tautologies:

When "the proposition is true for all the truth-possibilities of the
elementary propositions ... we say that the truth-conditions are
tautological" (1922, 4.46).

"Tautology: if p then p, and if q then q" (5.101).

"A tautology ... says nothing" (5.142).

"Tautology is that which is shared by all propositions, which have
nothing in common with one another ... Tautology is the substanceless
center of the propositions" (5.143).

"The propositions of logic are tautologies. The propositions of logic
therefore say nothing" (6.1; 6.11).

Borsodi (1967) echoes Wittgenstein's above sentiments when he
announces: "Every truth is the statement of a tautology" (p.57).
Borsodi (also Burke, 1941, p.448; Fearnside & Holther, 1959, p.137;
Thiher, 1997, p.15) leads us to understand that according to the rules
of logic, good definitions constitute tautologies. Here the
definitional difficulty confronts us again: On the one hand, if we
define tautology as "needless or meaningless repetition" (see the
above definition by the Webster dictionary, as well as the quote from
Donatus), then definitions have nothing to do with tautologies. if, on
the other hand, any repetition of an idea, in the same or different
words suffices (as in the above Oxford definitions), then definitions
certainly illustrate tautologies. Literati who regard tautologies as
errors belong to the former camp; logicians, for whom tautologies have
a neutral character, have taken the latter position.

Having touched upon the history of tautology and its definitions, I
shall now turn to the question of motivation. First I must note that
the rules of a particular language, as well as linguistic
circumstances, may force, permit, or discourage redundancy. For us to
regard a particular instance as a tautology, the source must have had
freedom to use the redundant expression (see Kedar-Kopfstein, 1993).
in spite of their form, we need not consider any of the following
phrases as tautological, for in each of them the repeated words have a
non-redundant function: [2]

"It ain't over till it's over" (attributed to Yogi Berra).

"And a woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke" (Kipling,
1886/1941, The Betrothed).

"The three things needed to successfully wage war are money, money,
and money" (attributed to the 17th century Austrian field marshal
Raimondo Montecuccoli).

"What we cannot think, that we cannot think" (Wittgenstein, 1922,
5.61; the same person who gave us the formal, logical definitions of
tautology above).

"To-morrow, and to-morrow and to-morrow,! Creeps in this petty pace
from day to day ..." (Macbeth V: v). [3]

"Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose" (Sacred Emily in Stein,
1922/1993. In her introduction Pondrom refers to this as Stein's
"signature tautology," p.xliv).

"Rose is Rose" (Pat Brady's comic strip).

"Enough is enough" (which has given rise, inter alia, to the name of
the 2000 British rock group Enuff Znuff).

"I know what's what"; "Business is business"; "A promise is a
promise."

The same holds for the following everyday expressions. Their lack of
redundancy derives from the total effect of each utterance, which has
an entirely different meaning from that of its single constituents:

now now; well well well; dear dear; come come; so so; a no-no.

What reasons may the sources have for expressing themselves
redundantly? I find several non-exclusive explanations. [4] The lack
of exclusiveness among the following derives from several causes,
among them our inability to enter the speaker's mind, and the multi-
determination lying behind every behavior.

1. Inadequacies of Language

Cherry (1977) suggests that the need for redundancy arises out of "the
inadequacies of language itself. This latter requires that we expand
our phrases and sentences until we are content that we have 'conveyed
our meaning'" (p.l20). Jespersen (1917) made a similar statement
regarding the widespread use of the logically unnecessary double
negation in languages which use comparatively small negative elements:
"The insignificance of these elements makes it desirable to multiply
them so as to prevent their being overlooked" (p.72; see Moore, 1992,
as well as Wustmann, 1891/1966). Precisely in this spirit, in several
cases formally negative prefixes have an intensive rather than a
negative denotation:

disannul, dissever, misdoubt, unravel, unthaw, irregardless.

One can find numerous literary examples of double negation, especially
in the reporting of direct speech:

"We don't never let him get off the place" (Faulkner, 1929/1956, p.3).

"It wasn't none of my car, I tell you!" (Faulkner, 1932/1959, p.70).

The idea of redundancy as emphasis provides a variation on Cherry's
previous notion. We find here two related mechanisms. In the first,
the source seems to believe that simple repetition of a message
increases the chance of its reception. In the second device, the
source indicates the intensity of the message by repeating it several
times. [5] (Consider the effect of knocking on a door several times.)
The first two of the following biblical examples appear in Kedar-
Kopfstein (1993, p.387):

"Treason, treason" (2 Kings 11:14; structurally similar to current
"Help! Help!").

"Holy, holy, holy" (Isaiah 6:3; the "Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus" of the
Catholic Mass).

"O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would God I had died for
thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!" (2 Samuel 19: 1; compare, several
analyses of Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom! in Muhlenfeld, 1984).

In both poetry and everyday expressions this emphatic function often
reveals itself:

"... that untravelled world, whose margin fades/ For ever and for ever
when I move." (Tennyson, Ulysses, 19).

"To Carthage then I came/ Burning burning burning burning" (T. S.
Eliot, The Wasteland).

"I'm a good girl, I am" (Liza in Shaw's Pygmalion, II).

"The plane, the plane!" (In the TV series Fantasy Island).

"Burn, baby, burn" (inner-city war cry); Run Lola, Run (movie title).

easy, easy; faster, faster!; hear, hear!; dumb-dumb.

One can achieve emphasis also by using different words that express
the same idea:

"I'm willing to tell you. I'm wanting to tell you. I'm waiting to tell
you." (Doolittle in Shaw's Pygmalion, II; Higgins calls this a
"natural gift of rhetoric").

2. Intended Vagueness

While in the above examples tautology served to strengthen an
utterance, a source may also use tautologies to achieve vagueness.
Political demagoguery falls into this category: "... something about
politics attracts the tautology .... The tautology, strategically,
would be a way of saying something without actually saying
much" (States, 1998). Such a strategy has a strong element of
populism: One cannot tautologize to an elite audience. Not so in Kedar-
Kopfstein's (1993, 3.5) biblical examples, in which the author uses
tautological paronomasia because of "his inability or unwillingness to
describe the matter at hand exactly." I suggest that the following
illustrates such a case of intentional mystification (Armstrong, 1993,
p.21, concurs):

"I am that I am" (Exodus 3:14).

Many Bible translations differ from this faithful rendition by the
King James' version; e.g. the Knox translation: "I am the God who
IS" (sic), or the Greek Septuagint's "I am the being." Both such
translators and numerous religious exegetes show embarrassment vis a
vis the blatant tautology of the Hebrew original, and alter it.

Tautologies do not stand alone as a method for saying nothing;
cliches, truisms and platitudes serve a similar purpose, so does
practically any verbosity. Nietzsche commented on the dialectics of
revealing for the purpose of concealing: "Talking much about oneself
can also be a means to conceal oneself' (1886/1966, Epigram # 169, p.
92; see also Bialik, 191511950). I shall also mention in this context
the famous Dr. Fox effect, or "[T]he overriding influence of
instructor expressiveness on students' evaluation of college and
university teaching" (Marsh, 1987; the original Dr. Fox, a
professional actor, delivered a contentless lecture to an audience of
educators and graduate students who subsequently rated him very
favorably; see Naftulin, Ware & Donnelly, 1973).

3. Derision

A further possibility for the intentional use of tautology involves
neither strengthening or weakening, but rather rests on the derision
inherent in it. (Compare, Shapira, 1988, for both playful and
pejorative aspects in syllabic redoubling.) In such cases the source
mocks its audience, perhaps assuming that the latter does not
immediately grasp the repetitiousness of the message. Consider, for
instance, the following quotations from Shakespeare. In the first one
Marc Antony defines the crocodile to drunken Lepidus:

"It is shaped, sir, like itself; and it is as broad as it hath
breadth; it is just so high as it is, and moves with its own organs;
it lives by that which nourisheth it; and, the elements once out of
it, it transmigrates." Lepidus: "What color is it of?" Antony: "Of its
own color, too .... And the tears of it are wet." (Antony & Cleopatra,
II: vii).

"Polonious: What do you read, my lord? / Hamlet: Words, words,
words" (Hamlet, II: ii).

"Words, words, mere words, no matter from the heart" (Troilus and
Cressida, V: iii. -- Compare, "Parole, Parole, Parole" as a song
title, as well as a recent Italian movie).

States (2000) considers a whole category of jokes as based on the
principle of hidden tautology: Why did the chicken cross the road?;
Why did they bury the Scotchman on the hill?; What has four wheels and
flies? etc. He then goes on to say: "[T]echnically, these aren't
tautologies because there is nothing redundant about them; rather,
they flirt with the redundancy involved in tautology in order to
create a gap ..."

4. Poetic Device

I shall pool here several types of tautology in which the technical
aspects of repetition dominate: imitation, ornamentation, and figures
of speech. All of these may appear both in everyday language and as a
poetic device:

"Keeping time, time, time,/In a sort of Runic rhyme ... /From the
bells, bells, bells, bells (Poe, The Bells).

"Twit twit twit/ Jug jug jug jug jug jug" (T. S. Eliot, The
Wasteland).

"This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This
is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper" (T. S.
Eliot, "The Hollow Men").

Bang bang, you're dead; knock knock, who's there?; bye bye; gobble
gobble; tap tap; boing-boing; tom-tom drum; pooh-pooh; blah blah. [6]

To "vow a vow" (Numbers 30: 2,3); "Joseph dreamed a dream" (Genesis
37: 5. -- Compare, "dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream
before," in Poe, "The Raven"); he "smiled a wicked smile."

Yet even these seemingly technical redundancies may have additional
depth. The editors of an anthology (Baym & al., 1985, p.988) explain
Gertrude Stein's sentence "Will you be well will you be well":
"Repetition of similar-sounding words directs attention away from
meaning and toward sound." Perloff (1988, p.102) adds, also with
regard to Gertrude Stein's style: "Verbal and phrasal repetition, in
this context, is neither ornamental nor, as for many poets, a form of
intensification. Rather, repetition generates meaning."

5. Psychological Significance

Unlike the often artistic motivation inherent in the previous type of
redundancy, the following examples have a psychological significance.
In this type of repetition, speakers indicate the acceptance of their
fate:

"If I perish, I perish." (Esther 4:15)

"If I be bereaved (of my children), I am bereaved." (Genesis 43:14)

A Doris Day song contributes a more modern version of such acceptance:

"Que sera, sera, whatever will be, will be."

The following expressions carry a similar atmosphere of resignation,
of unwillingness to fight destiny:

"But men are men; the best sometimes forget." (Othello, II: iii)

"Boys will be boys"; "Children will be children."

"A man has got to do what a man has got to do."

In all of the previous cases, someone puts tautologies to his or her
use, in order to make a point, or to gain ascendance over the
listeners. Now we shall turn the tables, and look at some cases in
which the audience seems to hold the upper hand.

6. Critical Audience

In the following, a critical audience accuses the source of having
(perhaps unintentionally) committed a tautology. Thus creationists
have claimed that the Darwinian phrase "survival of the fittest"
involves a tautology, in effect saying that "survivors
survive." (Evolutionary theorists have repeatedly rebutted this
claim.) In a similar vein, the Encyclopedia Britannica describes that
stock sentence of many books on logic, "All men are rational," as
tautological: "The statement cannot but be true because it asserts
every possible state of affairs: it is true whichsoever of its
constituents are true, and it is also true whichsoever are false." [7]

In a discussion of literary theories, Thiher (1997, p.16) mentions the
difficulty of seeing if a statement or series of statements function
as a tautology. In his analysis of several theories (Marxist,
Freudian, constructivist etc.), he finds that these have tautological
axioms, operating by the Humpty Dumpty principle: The belief that
defining terms as one wants can offer knowledge. Thiher makes us aware
of the danger inherent in this mode of thinking: "... tautologies are
often hidden, and failure to recognize them can ... lead to rather
grandiose claims about what one has discovered through pseudological
exercises in thought" (p.32).

Another example both illustrates the complex process of unearthing a
suspected tautology, and shows that deciding whether an utterance does
or does not constitute a tautology may have important consequences. In
a lengthy statement on marriage which serves as the Vatican's attack
on so-called "de facto" unions, Cardinal Trujillo (2000, 11/10) claims
that the "principle of justice would be violated if de facto unions
were given a juridical treatment similar or equivalent to the family
based on marriage." He then defines the principle of justice:
"Treating equals equally, and what is different differently." In
another context de Jasay (1999) makes it clear what this amounts to:
"... 'treat like cases alike' is no more than a tautology for 'apply
the rule'." According to Trujillo's definition, anyone who applies a
rule (with the possible exception of decision making made on the basis
of randomness), applies it justly. The missing element in this chain
of thought, and the one that actually involves justice, conce rns the
choice of variables defining equality and difference. As de Jasay
(1999) writes, "Between the two extremes 'every case is like every
other' and 'no case is like any other,' certain cases are like certain
others if one variable is chosen as relevant for rulemaking, and other
cases are like yet others if relevance is judged differently." (See
below for a higher level of analysis of same vs. different.)

7. Inept Speakers

In contrast with the above difficulties of exposing suspected
tautologies in complex texts, quite often redundancy reveals itself
with ease. All of the following seem to originate in apparently inept
speakers who are unaware of the impression their utterances make on
attentive audiences. I must add, however, that audiences have no
objective means to decide whether the sources indeed lack
sophistication, or perhaps employ one of the other motivational
explanations (especially intentional vagueness or mockery, as in #2
and #3, above) applies.

"The more people out of work, the higher the unemployment" (attributed
to Calvin Coolidge).

"Wherever I have gone in this country I have found
Americans" (attributed to Alf Landon).

"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the
world" (attributed to Dan Quayle).

"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the
polls" (attributed to Dan Quayle).

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the
impurities in our air and water that are doing it" (attributed to Dan
Quayle).

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure" (attributed to Dan
Quayle).

"This is like deja vu all over again" (attributed to Yogi Berra).

"You can observe a lot just by watchin'" (attributed to Yogi Berra).

"If you can't imitate him, don't copy him" (attributed to Yogi Berra).

8. Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

I have saved for last the most disturbing explanation for redundant
utterances: neurotic repetition. We find an extreme manifestation of
such redundancy in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), one of the
more severe anxieties. Repetition serves as a necessary ingredient of
both obsession and compulsion. In the former recurrent and persistent
thoughts, impulses or images occupy a person; in the latter repetitive
behaviors or mental acts occur, such as praying, counting, repeating
words silently. According to Sullivan (1956) obsessives often use
language not as a means of communication but as a defense against
anxiety. Repetition in these cases fills a neurotic need by preventing
or reducing distress. [8]

Freud attributed great importance to "repetition compulsion" and
described some of its manifestations in Beyond the Pleasure Principle
(1920/1955). One of his interpreters regards the compulsion to repeat
as the secret of the neurosis itself (Wollheim, 1971, p.211), for not
only does it demonstrate the power of the repressed, but also provides
evidence for the death instinct or the Nirvana principle, by virtue of
its leading to the total draining of energy. A related phenomenon
noted by Freud involves the "very frequent repetition of the same word
in writing and copying -- 'perseverations'" (1901/1960, pp.128-129;
compare, cataphasia or catalogia: prolonged repetition of meaningless
words).

As I suggested when I set out to classify redundant expressions, my
system lacks exclusiveness, so that occasionally a specific tautology
may fall into several categories. By having added neurotic repetition
as a possible motivation for redundancy, I have eroded the difference
between the various types even further, for this psychological
explanation may well lie behind many of the others.

Conclusion

"Tautology, like everything else, is a function of context ..." writes
States (2000); "Depending on where you choose to stand on the scales
of sameness and difference and pertness [sic] and wholeness, you could
as well argue that there is no such thing as tautology or that the
whole world itself is a tautology ..." Indeed, both claims have had
considerable support. On the "no tautology" side we can bring no
lesser an authority than Heraclitus. If, as he claimed, one cannot
enter the same river twice, then no repetition ever fulfills the
"needless or meaningless" part of tautologies' above quoted dictionary
definition. [9] Contra this opinion stands King Solomon (traditionally
considered as the author of Ecclesiastes): "The thing that hath been,
it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall
be done: and there is no new thing under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
We can easily recognize the latter notion in several non-linear
theories of history which claim that time is cyclic, reiterating the
same sequence of events over and over again. Nietzsche, who rejected
linear, teleological views of world development, developed and
described such a theory in several of his works, having based it on
one of his most celebrated ideas: eternal recurrence (see Cairns,
1962, pp.226-239). Writing about this idea of Nietzsche, one of his
interpreters commented: "On this level of consideration, all events
are ultimately the same ..." (Schacht, 1983, p.255).

Fortunately, we need not identify with either extreme position.
Between a nihilistic sameness of everything and an overwhelming
variety of informational input we can find a middle road: By regarding
something as tautological, we effectively reduce diversity, smooth out
"inessential" variation. Perhaps this led Thiher (1997) to claim that
"[t]autologies, or definitions, are tools we use to bring order to the
world and what we find in the world" (p.16).

Burke has summed up well the dialectics of this issue in his mock
prayer to Logos, whose works he considers as "a Great
Tautology" (Dialectician Hymn, 1941, pp.447-450): "... And may we have
neither the mania of the One I Nor the delirium of the Many -- / But
both the Union and the Diversity."

(*.) Dr. Michael Moore, a social psychologist, is an associate
professor at the Department of Education in Science and Technology of
the Technion -- Israel Institute of Technology.

NOTES

(1.) Stein's work characteristically contains many instances of
paronomasia; see especially the short story Miss Furr & Miss Skeene in
Stein, 1922/1993, pp.17-22.

(2.) The following have different structures from those quoted. In
spite of the repeated words, none of these contains a redundancy,
either:

"Dowered with the hate of hate, the scorn of scorn,/ The love of
love." (Tennyson, "The Poet").

"Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,/ Burning
for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exodus 21:24-25).

"Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust" (Book of Common
Prayer).

"A dream within a dream" (Poe, poem of same title).

A man's man, a cop's cop, a gentleman's gentleman; compare, biblical
"king of kings" (Ezekiel 26:7), "slave of slaves" (Genesis 9:25).

7th daughter of a 7th daughter, vis-a-vis, fifty-fifty.

From time to time, face to face, wall to wall, mouth to mouth, house
to house, word for word, letter for letter, little by little, step by
step, by the by, day by day.

(3.) Macbeth's response to the news of Lady Macbeth's death ends with
the words: "Life ... is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and
fury,/ Signifying nothing." Compare with Wittgenstein 5.142, quoted
above.

(4.) Occasionally we also come across motivationless or dead
tautologies. Thus "saltcellar" represents a compound redundancy (in
other words, a tautology), for cellar derives from Latin sal, salt.
"Forewarn" means to warn beforehand, as if one could warn otherwise.
"Cherubims" and "behemoths" offer a somewhat similar picture, both
ending in a redundant plural suffix. See also "El Camino Avenue" and
"Avenue Road," for redundancy.

(5.) Shapira (1988) recognizes two opposing tendencies in the syllabic
redoubling (itself a redundancy ...) that appears in many words:
intensification vs. diminution. See also Ferguson (1964) for syllabic
redoubling as a characteristic of baby-talk in several languages.

(6.) In French: blablabla. Webster's dictionary definition indicates
blah-blah's especially apt character for the illustration of
tautologies: "a derogatory comment on meaningless chatter, of
imitative origin."

(7.) See also: "A person should always do his duty." If duty means
what a person should do, then this sentence says that a person should
do what a person should do.

(8.) A clinician need not diagnose OCD for anxiety-reducing repetition
to occur. Magic formulae often contain instructions for repeating a
spell 3, 7 or 9 times; the Jewish Day of Atonement service ends with
the seven-fold reiteration of a short sentence; the use of the rosary
involves the recitation of the same prayers scores of times.

(9.) His contemporaries already made fun of Heraclitus. Epicharmos of
Kos, a comic writer of the school of Pythagoras, put the "same river"
notion in the mouth of a debtor. The latter refused to pay: "How could
he be liable, seeing he is not the same man that contracted the
debt?" (in the entry on Heraclitus, included in The Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

REFERENCES

Armstrong, Karen (1993) A History of God. New York: Ballantine.

Baym, Nina, & al. (Eds.) (1985) The Norton Anthology of American
Literature, 2nd edition. New York: Norton.

Bialik, Haim N. Revealment and Concealment in Language, translated by
J. Sloan. Commentary, 1950, 9, 171-175. (Original work published
1915.)

Borsodi, Ralph (1967) The Definition of Definition. Boston: Porter
Sargent.

Burke, Kenneth (1941) The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in
Symbolic Action. Louisiana State University.

Cairns, Grace E. (1962) Philosophies of History: Meeting of East and
West in Cycle-pattern Theories of History. New York: Citadel.

Chase, Wayland J. (1926) The Ars Minor of Donatus. Madison: U. of
Wisconsin.

Cherry, C. (1978) On Human Communication, 3rd edition. Cambridge, MA:
MIT.

Copi, Irving M. (1953) Introduction to Logic. New York: Macmillan.

de Jasay, Anthony (1999) On Treating Like Cases Alike. The Independent
Review, 4(1), 107-122.

Faulkner, William (1956) The Sound and the Fury. New York: Random
House. (Original work published 1929.)

Faulkner, William (1959) Light in August. New York: Random House.
(Original work published 1932.)

Fearnside, W. Ward & Holther, William B. (1959) Fallacy: The
Counterfeit of Argument. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ferguson, Charles A. (1964) Baby Talk in Six Languages. In J. J.
Gumperz & D. Hymes, eds., The Ethnography of Communication, pp.
103-114. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

Freud, Sigmund (1960) Psychopathology of Everyday Life. In Standard
Edition, vol. 6. London: Hogarth. (Original work published 1901.)

Freud, Sigmund (1955) Beyond the Pleasure Principle. In Standard
Edition, vol. 18. London: Hogarth. (Original work published 1920.)

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/heraclit.htm.

Jespersen, O. (1917) Negation in English and Other Languages.
Kobenhavn: Host.

Kipling, Rudyard (1941) The "Betrothed." In Departmental Ditties, vol.
25 of The Collected Works of Rudyard Kipling. Garden City, New York:
Doubleday. (Original work published 1886.)

Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin (1993) Paronomasia in Biblical Texts:
Logical and Psychological Aspects. In M. Bar Asher & al. (Eds.), Iyune
mikra ufarshanut. (Biblical Studies and Exegesis), vol. 3, pp.383-400.
Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan U. (in Hebrew).

Marsh, Herbert W. (1987) "Dr. Fox" Studies. International Journal of
Educational Research, 11, 331-336.

Moore, M. (1992) Double Negation. ETC: A Review of General Semantics,
49, 305-309.

Muhlenfeld, Elisabeth (Ed.) (1984) William Faulkner's Absalom,
Absalom! -- A Critical Casebook. New York: Garland.

Naftulin, D. H., Ware, J. E. & Donnelly, F. A. (1973) The Doctor Fox
lecture: A Paradigm of Educational Seduction. Journal of Medical
Education, 48, 630-635.

Nietzsche, F. (1966) Beyond Good and Evil. New York: Vintage Books.
(Original work published 1886.)

Perloff, Marjorie (1988) Six Stein Styles in Search of a Reader. In
Bruce Kellner, ed., A Gertrude Stein Companion, pp. 96-108. New York:
Greenwood.

Schacht, Richard (1983) Nietzsche. London: Routledge.

Shapira, Charlotte (1988) Le Redoublement Expressif dans la Creation
Lexicale. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 52, 51-63.

States, Bert 0. (1998) Of Paradoxes and Tautologies. The American
Scholar, 67(1), 51-66.

Stein, Gertrude (1993) Geography and Plays. Madison, Wisconsin: U. of
Wisconsin. (Original work published 1922.)

Sullivan, H. S. (1956) Clinical Studies in Psychiatry. New York:
Norton.

Thiher, Allen (1997) The Power of Tautology: The Roots of Literary
Theory. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University.

Trujillo, Alfonso L. (2000) Family, Marriage and "de facto" Unions.
The Vatican: Pontifical Council for the Family.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1922) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London:
Kegan Paul, T. Trubner.

Wollheim, Richard (1971) Sigmund Freud. New York: Cambridge
University.

Wustmann, G. Sprachdummheiten, 14th ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966.
(Original work published 1891.)
Gale Copyright:
Copyright 2001 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

[Stephanus]

The only thing that works is unscientific Platonic antonymity, because
it prevents infinite regress of empirical descriptions. I propose that
we use "empirical descriptions" instead of science.

> Let's call this justification 1. We then need
> a reason to accept justification 1. For this we need another meta-meta-
> justification, let's call it 2. �This, obviously, leads to an infinite
> regress - all our scientific knowledge claims are therefore ultimately
> build on sand.

Our antonymic language assumptions is based on God himself and he has
no explanation. I am glad you have not yet asked me the asinine
question: Who made God.

> So, by this logic, IF we want some foundation for our knowledge, it
> has to be something else than science (as this would just be question
> begging - �why is science true?)

What is science? What is truth? Tarski's semantic theorem of truth
showed that truth itself is not defined. If science is truth then
science is not defined. If it is not defined then how do you know it
is the basis for our reason.
Mathematical physics lags the rigor of pure math and Poincare stated
that the most complex of math is a round about way of saying A = A .

> So we need something from outside
> science that can assure us that its basic tenants are true - but which
> can't be itself scientific.

We need to assume an umperical truth in order to ratiocinate about
empiricisms , avoiding infinite regress. Unfalsifiable faith prevents
infinite regress.

> That's then where religion comes in. � We
> can trust (to a degree) our logic, because it mirrors the logic that
> God used in the creation act (or something like this) , anchoring
> language in reality. Without that anchor, we can never be certain if
> we "hit" with our words any external reality.

Yes

> ID, by trying to be
> scientific, can never do this, because it is still trapped in the
> limits of science.

Yes, attempting to derive God's existence by excluding his
unfalsifiable antonymity from the premise will lead to circular
reasoning. God did this to prevent us from deriving the Hindu god as
the true God for example.

> So it is not "faith" as just being different from
> "knowledge", rather, faith becomes the foundation without which
> science (or language) �itself is meaningless.

Yes

> So ID is just not ambitious enough an dform his perepsective, it is you who grants way
> too much to "atheists", that is an unjustifiable trust in the
> truthfulness of scientific inquiry.

The debates between ICR, AIG, Dembski's ID movement and atheists are
doublethink grammar farces, a process of bastardizing syntax such as
the non-metaphorical use of oxymorons and gargoyles like:".... ns does
not cause an increase in information but only a decrease....". In
acquiescing to the materialist's anti-Platonic language; AIG, ID'sts
have become semiotic necromancers summoning dead tautologies(natural
selection) in their shared abuse of syntax . Numb to the Orwellian
essence of their - natural(purposeless) selection(purpose) - they
engage in verbal crucifixion of the Logos by destroying the authentic
linguistic intercourse that regenerates Christ's linguistic Body.
Syntax has a symbiotic relationship to facts and relates subject(what
is inside of us) to object(external world). Dawkins abrogated syntax
to his anti-Platonism in The God delusion by using a 'was' instead of
a 'were not' to negate the historical fact stated by Charles Kingsley
that society went from non-random(God) to randomness(absolute empire
of accident) after OoS.

> Once you strip the word salad that he uses to justify this idea,
> nothing that new (Leibniz on postmodern acid, really). �Some of the
> obvious problems are
> - even if you buy into the idea in principle there is no way to get
> from there to the specific Christian God

Why?

> - even if you buy into the idea in principle, there is no way you get
> specific factual statements out of it (like the age of the earth, or
> the theory of evolution for that matter) Like all meta-theories, it
> ought to be neutral towards any scientific claim - where it isn't, he
> is cheating.
> - the only people who care are philosophers who still believe in
> foundationalism, that is, just a �bunch of people with nothing better
> to do, and most certainly not practicisng scientists who just go on
> regardless.

The supernova that is observed for the first time "knows" this across
space and time and then "instructs" the photons hitting the
photographic plate to change "reality" to consciousness observing it.
This is quantum interpretation of the quantum erasure experiment.

[eridanus]

El jueves, 11 de abril de 2013 22:46:44 UTC+1, Ray Martinez escribi�:

faith is to believe that the words from some authority are true.
Then it is about the same if the words are those of the bible
or they come from a scientific. If you believe because the author
is an authority, this is faith.

But if you say, this theory can be wrong, but I like it. This is not
faith, but a confidential state of mind. You are prepared to abandon
the theory as soon as it began to displease you.
Why a theory can displease you? Because you had heard a new theory
that is contrary to the first one you loved, and it looks much better.

When I say "this new theory looks much better" I mean you have the new
theory has a different explanation that looks better, or seems more
logical, etc. It seems that the new theory explains facts much better
than the previous one, etc.

Eridanus

[Ray Martinez]

So he's not singling out ID per se, but all scientific claims?

> So, by this logic, IF we want some foundation for our knowledge, it
> has to be something else than science (as this would just be question
> begging - �why is science true?) So we need something from outside
> science that can assure us that its basic tenants are true - but which
> can't be itself scientific. That's then where religion comes in. � We
> can trust (to a degree) our logic, because it mirrors the logic that
> God used in the creation act (or something like this) , anchoring
> language in reality. Without that anchor, we can never be certain if
> we "hit" with our words any external reality. ID, by trying to be
> scientific, can never do this, because it is still trapped in the
> limits of science. So it is not "faith" as just being different from
> "knowledge", rather, faith becomes the foundation without which
> science (or language) �itself is meaningless. So ID is just not
> ambitious enough an dform his perepsective, it is you who grants way
> too much to "atheists", that is an unjustifiable trust in the
> truthfulness of scientific inquiry.

Assuming you've represented him more or less correctly, if I were a
doctor and he was my patient wanting to know what is wrong with his
epistemology, I would tell him that it is in critical condition. I
never fathomed any of what you say as his view. And I have no idea as
to where he obtained any of these absurd ideas or logic.

What I do know is that he's now claiming ID is circular logic. It
isn't; and he refuses to engage or consider any argument or
explanation that contradicts. Yet he tells me that he is very
interested in debating the truth, believing he will one day answer to
Christ.

Stephan has created very many EXCELLENT anti-natural selection posts.
These "re-phrase" messages clearly demonstrated how ridiculous the
claims of natural selection. But you would completely disagree. Yet it
was from these posts that helped convinced me of how false natural
selection really is. Now Stephan's logical mindset, as seen in these
posts, seems to have been washed away if you have represented his
views correctly. Pure tragedy.

> Once you strip the word salad that he uses to justify this idea,
> nothing that new (Leibniz on postmodern acid, really). �Some of the
> obvious problems are
>
> - even if you buy into the idea in principle there is no way to get
> from there to the specific Christian God
> - even if you buy into the idea in principle, there is no way you get
> specific factual statements out of it (like the age of the earth, or
> the theory of evolution for that matter) Like all meta-theories, it
> ought to be neutral towards any scientific claim - where it isn't, he
> is cheating.
> - the only people who care are philosophers who still believe in
> foundationalism, that is, just a �bunch of people with nothing better
> to do, and most certainly not practicisng scientists who just go on
> regardless.
> - even those few who care will find that specific metaphysics deeply
> unappealing, There is a reason nobody has tried anything like it for a
> few hundred years, it doesn;t work, even on its own terms

I could add a bunch more.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 12, 4:52�am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:46�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 6:38�am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [....]
>
> > > > IF we can find and identify human designs in nature, �what's the logical
> > > > inference?
>
> > > That it was made by a known seen human designer due to our experience
> > > with said seen designers.
>
> > False; the discovery of human designs in nature (the wild) can only
> > mean Divine origin, work and/or intervention.
>
> I don't get it, how is a car of divine origin?

"Nature" or "the wild" only and always refers to natural or non-man-
made reality.

The main topic or question of this newsgroup, Talk.Origins, is how did
species come to exist in nature or the wild (Creationism says God did
it; Evolutionism says material non-man made environment and previously
living species did it)?

Where did you obtain the idea that nature, or the wild, included man-
made things? There's no dispute as to how or where cars originate,
unlike mankind, species, bacteria, disease, trees, mountains, the
Earth and Universe, etc.etc.

> > The issue here is logic,
> > and nothing else: design implies and corresponds to Divine power and
> > intelligence.
>
> Design begets design. Since we are designers, it means a designer must
> have designed us, which raises the question as which God or Designer
> of the many there can be.

Christians know that there is only one Designer: the Genesis Creator.

> > > Design is something which represents
> > > something other than itself.
> > Okay.
> > > The universe either made itself or it was
> > > made.
> > Yes.
> > > If the universe made itself out of nothing then we won't be able
> > > to understand such a concept because in order to comprehend
> > > nothingness , there must be an antonymic somethingness.
> > The Bible says God spoke the universe into existence out of
> > nothingness.
>
> Before the universe existed there was no physical matter, only God's
> antonymic essense.

I agree, so what's the point?

> > > Therefore there was no point in time where there was literally
> > > nothing, before nature was made by God only antonymic essense
> > > existed.
> > You need to give preeminence to the Bible and its assumptions and
> > claims because these words correspond to reality and are thus verified
> > true.
> > The comments made above appear to give something else, some
> > unknown, the place of preeminence. Again, your thinking appears to
> > have been corrupted by secularism, or that which is built on sand, and
> > not the Rock of Christ and His Word, the Bible. I believe the error in
> > your thinking all stems from acceptance of a non-Biblical definition
> > of faith.
>
> Faith is the evidence for things not seen, it is unscientific (whatever
> that means) by definition.

The following context of "Faith is the evidence for things not
seen" (Hebrews 11) goes on to demonstrate the meaning of the phrase.
In every example cited the common denominator is: God says something
or promises something to an individual; then the individual, in
response, acts on what is said until God brings what He said to pass.
For example: God told Noah to build an Ark, despite the fact that it
had never rained, Noah obeyed and built an Ark. The author of Hebrews
is saying that when Noah built the Ark he was providing "evidence of
things not seen" or acting in faith on what God said. When it started
to rain the judgement of God became seen. Noah's faith saved him and
his household in the Ark. So faith is based on the truth of God's
word.

The Bible claims God created the Earth.

Since the Earth looks designed and since many other facts confirm,
like fine tuning, the claim that God created the Earth is confirmed.
Faith is based on fact, in this case, the fact that God created the
Earth. If the Earth had no marks of design then the claim would be
false, and the basis for faith destroyed.

Ray

> God as unscientific unfalsifiable (I am
> that I am) antonymic essence prevents an infinite regress in our
> descriptions of empiricism.
> All of this is in my wiki, read this please and then quote from it.
>
> Howard did use the term "experience" I believe, it was in the thread

> Automated selectionhttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Automated_Selection

>
> "I am that I am" (Exodus 3:14). �What God was saying here is..... I am
> that I am because I have no explanation....
> The article below want's to infer that Exodus 3:14 is a banal
> tautology.
>

> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/ETC-Review-General-Semantics...

> ...
>
> read more �

[Burkhard]

On Apr 12, 1:08�pm, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 12:29�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>
> > Ah, speaking as the by now unquestionable expert on Stephanus, there
> > you misinterpret him. Its all getting rather transcendental. His
> > "logic" runs thusly:
> > Science can offer an explanation for X. If we want to know why that
> > explanation is true, we need ot have a meta-justification for why the
> > scientific method works.
>
> The only thing that works is unscientific Platonic antonymity, because
> it prevents infinite regress of empirical descriptions. I propose that
> we use "empirical descriptions" instead of science.

That would be a rather restricted view of what scientists actually
do.

> > Let's call this justification 1. We then need
> > a reason to accept justification 1. For this we need another meta-meta-
> > justification, let's call it 2. �This, obviously, leads to an infinite
> > regress - all our scientific knowledge claims are therefore ultimately
> > build on sand.
>
> Our antonymic language assumptions is based on God himself and he has
> no explanation. I am glad you have not yet asked me the asinine
> question: Who made God.
>

Of course I don;t ask that question. You have chosen door No 3 for the
"infinite regress problem", that is a set of axioms. In principle as
good as any other, though of course you lose the ability to give
people a good reason why they should take _your axioms rather than any
other. the rest is just special pleading.

> > So, by this logic, IF we want some foundation for our knowledge, it
> > has to be something else than science (as this would just be question
> > begging - �why is science true?)
>
> What is science? What is truth? Tarski's semantic theorem of truth
> showed that truth itself is not defined.

Nope. It shows that IF you restrict yourself in your definition to s
specific form of definition, and IF you define it for fully
interpreted languages (which means essentially formal languages of a
certain type only) it IF we require as an adequacy criterion of a
definition of truth that all and only the true sentences in this
formal language are also provable, then and only then requires our
definition an infinite hierarchy of languages.

as soon as we drop any of these conditions (which make no sense anyway
for empirical theories), there is no problem any longer, nor is there
a problem if we accept recursive definitions (which gives us the
infinite hierarchy of propositions) . So we can always define truth,
even in the tarski sense, for any subset of our theory taht interests
us.

> If science is truth then
> science is not defined.

Who says science "is" truth?

> If it is not defined then how do you know it
> is the basis for our reason.

because it is sufficiently defined

> Mathematical physics lags the rigor of pure math and Poincare �stated
> that the most complex of math is a round about way of saying A = A .
>
> > So we need something from outside
> > science that can assure us that its basic tenants are true - but which
> > can't be itself scientific.
>
> We need to assume an umperical truth in order to ratiocinate about
> empiricisms , avoiding infinite regress. Unfalsifiable faith prevents
> infinite regress.
>

Only if yo think that foundations are required and desirable. Utterly
irrelevant for the practice of science, something philosophers are
welcome to bang their heads against

> > That's then where religion comes in. � We
> > can trust (to a degree) our logic, because it mirrors the logic that
> > God used in the creation act (or something like this) , anchoring
> > language in reality. Without that anchor, we can never be certain if
> > we "hit" with our words any external reality.
>
> Yes
>
> > ID, by trying to be
> > scientific, can never do this, because it is still trapped in the
> > limits of science.
>
> Yes, attempting to derive God's existence by excluding his
> unfalsifiable antonymity from the premise will lead to circular
> reasoning. God did this to prevent us from deriving the Hindu god as
> the true God for example.
>

All the arguments yo made work just as well for many forms of
Hinduism. We are just part of Brahma dreaming us in such a way that we
dream about other parts of his dream.

> > So it is not "faith" as just being different from
> > "knowledge", rather, faith becomes the foundation without which
> > science (or language) �itself is meaningless.
>
> Yes
>
> > So ID is just not �ambitious enough an dform his perepsective, it is you who grants way
> > too much to "atheists", that is an unjustifiable trust in the
> > truthfulness of scientific inquiry.
>
> The debates between ICR, AIG, Dembski's ID movement and atheists are
> doublethink grammar farces, a process of bastardizing syntax such as
> the non-metaphorical use of oxymorons and gargoyles like:".... ns does
> not cause an increase in information but only a decrease....". In
> acquiescing to the materialist's anti-Platonic language; AIG, ID'sts
> have become semiotic necromancers summoning dead tautologies(natural
> selection) in their shared abuse of syntax . Numb to the Orwellian
> essence of their - natural(purposeless) selection(purpose) - they
> engage in verbal crucifixion of the Logos by destroying the authentic
> linguistic intercourse that regenerates Christ's linguistic Body.
> Syntax has a symbiotic relationship to facts and relates subject(what
> is inside of us) to object(external world). Dawkins abrogated syntax
> to his anti-Platonism in The God delusion by using a 'was' instead of
> a 'were not' to negate the historical fact stated by Charles Kingsley
> that society went from non-random(God) to randomness(absolute empire
> of accident) after OoS.
>

If there is any meaning in the above, i fail to spot it. nice poetry
though.

> > Once you strip the word salad that he uses to justify this idea,
> > nothing that new (Leibniz on postmodern acid, really). �Some of the
> > obvious problems are
> > - even if you buy into the idea in principle there is no way to get
> > from there to the specific Christian God
>
> Why?

because word magic is a pretty common cultural phenomenon, as is the
notion of dualistic/antonymic nature, and there are many deities who
create in the same way - and most of the others leave the details
sufficiently vague that you can fill it in as desired.

You ask your god to do a job for you, after all, like you'd call a
handyman or a plumber. Once you go down this route of theology (of
which i'm extremity sceptical) it is mor eor less inevitable that lots
of deities can do the job you have specified.

>
> > - even if you buy into the idea in principle, there is no way you get
> > specific factual statements out of it (like the age of the earth, or
> > the theory of evolution for that matter) Like all meta-theories, it
> > ought to be neutral towards any scientific claim - where it isn't, he
> > is cheating.
> > - the only people who care are philosophers who still believe in
> > foundationalism, that is, just a �bunch of people with nothing better
> > to do, and most certainly not practicisng scientists who just go on
> > regardless.
>
> The supernova that is observed for the first time "knows" this across
> space and time and then "instructs" the photons hitting the
> photographic plate to change "reality" to consciousness observing it.
> This is quantum interpretation of the quantum erasure experiment.

Quantum mysticism maybe, relevant for science, not so much

>
>

[Stephanus]

What you mean with Science: dissimilar term for gradualism.
Two conflicting world views are using the same term - science - as
dissimilar reference to either gradualism or IC

[eridanus]

El domingo, 14 de abril de 2013 17:49:22 UTC+1, Burkhard escribi�:

the last fad with theist is to borrow words from scientific and
philosophical jargon and use them to prove their own brand of divinity.

Eridanus

and use to prove

[Burkhard]

Whom are you replying to?

[eridanus]

El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 17:04:13 UTC+1, Stephanus escribi�:

> What you mean with Science: dissimilar term for gradualism.
>
> Two conflicting world views are using the same term - science - as
> dissimilar reference to either gradualism or IC

dear Stephanus, try to put this in plain English.
Perhaps you are trying to say that the word science it is used by
many with different purposes?

Yeah. You are right. In fact, science simply means "knowledge".
The only trouble is that "knowledge" can be false, or wrong. One
can know, even you can know, something that does not correlates
with something real.

Then, if you are Christian, I can tell you that the only real god
is Our Lord Krishna, or Allah, and that Muhammad is the prophet
of god. And you can reply that my "science" is wrong. That Krishna
is a false god, and Muhammad is a false prophet.

We are here in front of serious problem. In lay sciences, some
theories or models, or whatever, are not universally accepted.
There is a lot of "soft sciences" that have as much prestige as
astrology, or fortune telling with cards.

Eridanus

[Stephanus]

I am on ipad I believe I replied to you on the issue of the meaning of science , google does not display the text correctly

[Burkhard]

On Apr 17, 5:44�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 17 Apr, 17:04, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What you mean with Science:

Both the outcome and the practice of what scientists do. It involves
at the most abstract level modelling data, hypothesising explanations
that explains as much as possible of the data we have in the simplest
possible way, and then systematically tests these results, by amongst
other things checking if they are consistent with what we already know
and by devising new tests.

>dissimilar term for gradualism.

Gradualism is not a term for science, it is however an outcome of
scientific activity, and indeed every systematic reasoning about the
material world. Aristotle found already that apparently, nature does
not normally make jumps , and the principle became so useful that
Newton and Leibniz posited it as axiomatic

It is only with quantum mechanics that we find models where it does
not apply - which of course does not render QM unscientific

> > Two conflicting world views are using the same term - science - as
> > dissimilar reference to either gradualism or IC

At here is nothing in the concept of IC as such that contradicts
gradualism. Rather, it was claimed by some thata very specific type of
gradualist if processes can't in principle produce IC systems. That
claim has been falsified.

[Stephanus]

On Apr 18, 10:32�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 5:44�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 17 Apr, 17:04, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What you mean with Science:
>
> Both the outcome and the practice of what scientists do. It involves
> at the most abstract level modelling data, hypothesising explanations
> that explains as much as possible of the data we have in the simplest
> possible way, and then systematically �tests these results, by amongst
> other things checking if they are consistent with what we already know
> and by devising new tests.

There is no such thing as an abstraction, it is a weasel word used to
obfuscate that in describing
nature by scientists , they are not explaining nature.

> >dissimilar term for gradualism.
>
> Gradualism is not a term for science, it is however an outcome of
> scientific activity, and indeed every systematic reasoning about the
> material world. Aristotle found already that apparently, nature does
> not normally make jumps , and the principle became so useful that
> Newton �and Leibniz posited it as axiomatic

Aristotle was not a gradualist as pointed out by Wentworth thompson
but a composite integritist or Irreducible functionalist

> It is only with quantum mechanics that we find models where it does
> not apply - which of course does not render QM unscientific
>
> > > Two conflicting world views are using the same term - science - as
> > > dissimilar reference to either gradualism or IC
>
> At here is nothing in the concept of IC as such that contradicts
> gradualism. Rather, it was claimed by some thata very specific type of
> gradualist if processes can't in principle produce IC systems. That
> claim has been falsified.

Not so

[Burkhard]

On Apr 18, 5:09 pm, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 10:32 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 5:44 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Apr, 17:04, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What you mean with Science:
>
> > Both the outcome and the practice of what scientists do. It involves
> > at the most abstract level modelling data, hypothesising explanations
> > that explains as much as possible of the data we have in the simplest
> > possible way, and then systematically  tests these results, by amongst
> > other things checking if they are consistent with what we already know
> > and by devising new tests.
>
> There is no such thing as an abstraction, it is a weasel word used to
> obfuscate that in describing

Of course there are such things. They are (at the very least)
operations of the human mind that is capable of abstracting away from
individual perceptions to general categories. If anything, what may be
disputable is how these things exist

> nature by scientists , they are not explaining nature.

For the normal understanding of the word "explanation", that is
exactly what they do - it is called the Hempel Oppenheim scheme of
explanation. If you have your own notion of what an explanation is,
you'd have to
A) make explicit what it is
B) give good reasons why your concept is better than the standard
concept

>
> > >dissimilar term for gradualism.
>
> > Gradualism is not a term for science, it is however an outcome of
> > scientific activity, and indeed every systematic reasoning about the
> > material world. Aristotle found already that apparently, nature does
> > not normally make jumps , and the principle became so useful that
> > Newton  and Leibniz posited it as axiomatic
>
> Aristotle was not a gradualist as pointed out by Wentworth thompson
> but a composite integritist or Irreducible functionalist

Of course he was, just read his "categories". A good first
introduction is here
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/continuity/

>
> > It is only with quantum mechanics that we find models where it does
> > not apply - which of course does not render QM unscientific
>
> > > > Two conflicting world views are using the same term - science - as
> > > > dissimilar reference to either gradualism or IC
>
> > At here is nothing in the concept of IC as such that contradicts
> > gradualism. Rather, it was claimed by some thata very specific type of
> > gradualist if processes can't in principle produce IC systems. That
> > claim has been falsified.
>
> Not so

Sure was - the first time a possible path was described where you
simply substract a part from a non-IC entity which removes a necessary
redundancy so that all the remaining parts are now indespensible.

[Stephanus]

On Apr 17, 5:52�pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 17:04:13 UTC+1, Stephanus �escribi�:
>
> > What you mean with Science: dissimilar term for gradualism.
>
> > Two conflicting world views are using the same term - science - as
> > dissimilar reference to either gradualism or IC
>
> dear Stephanus, try to put this in plain English.
> Perhaps you are trying to say that the word science it is used by
> many with different purposes?
>
> Yeah. �You are right. �In fact, science simply means "knowledge".

What is our knowledge based on? Science, you would say. Ok, what is
science based on . We can go on like this
into infinity, to avoid infinitism your views must ultimately be based
on something which has no explanation.

[Stephanus]

What is energy, magnetism and matter in its essence?

[Burkhard]

Don't know and don't care - essences are so 16th century. But I could
explain to you what explanatory function they have in the best of our
current theories.

[Bob Berger]

In article <6fa278ee-fab7-4acf...@r4g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Stephanus says...

Depends on what your definition of "is" is?

[Mark Isaak]

Have you ever built anything? A birdhouse or a crystal radio, perhaps?
I'm guessing you have not, and could not, because your mental
excursions into the essence of the ideal object's infinite possibilities
of ultimate form (or somesuch) would keep you from ever *doing* anything.

Scientists have no such problem, and do things, and often get them done.

[RAM]

On Apr 18, 11:09�am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 10:32�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 5:44�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Apr, 17:04, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What you mean with Science:
>
> > Both the outcome and the practice of what scientists do. It involves
> > at the most abstract level modelling data, hypothesising explanations
> > that explains as much as possible of the data we have in the simplest
> > possible way, and then systematically �tests these results, by amongst
> > other things checking if they are consistent with what we already know
> > and by devising new tests.
>
> There is no such thing as an abstraction, it is a weasel word used to
> obfuscate that in describing
> nature by scientists , they are not explaining nature.
>
> > >dissimilar term for gradualism.
>
> > Gradualism is not a term for science, it is however an outcome of
> > scientific activity, and indeed every systematic reasoning about the
> > material world. Aristotle found already that apparently, nature does
> > not normally make jumps , and the principle became so useful that
> > Newton �and Leibniz posited it as axiomatic
>
> Aristotle was not a gradualist as pointed out by Wentworth thompson
> but a composite integritist or


"Irreducible functionalist"

What in the hell is that?

>
> > It is only with quantum mechanics that we find models where it does
> > not apply - which of course does not render QM unscientific
>
> > > > Two conflicting world views are using the same term - science - as
> > > > dissimilar reference to either gradualism or IC
>
> > At here is nothing in the concept of IC as such that contradicts
> > gradualism. Rather, it was claimed by some thata very specific type of
> > gradualist if processes can't in principle produce IC systems. That
> > claim has been falsified.
>
> Not so

Tis too.

[Earle Jones]

In article
<6fa278ee-fab7-4acf...@r4g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

*
Energy:

1 the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental
activity: changes in the levels of vitamins can affect energy and
well-being.
� (energies) a person's physical and mental powers, typically as applied
to a particular task or activity.
2 power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources,
esp. to provide light and heat or to work machines.
3 Physics the property of matter and radiation that is manifest as a
capacity to perform work (such as causing motion or the interaction of
molecules): a collision in which no energy is transferred.
� a degree or level of this capacity possessed by something or required
by a process.

Magnetism:

1 a physical phenomenon produced by the motion of electric charge,
resulting in attractive and repulsive forces between objects.
All magnetism is due to circulating electric currents. In magnetic
materials the magnetism is produced by electrons orbiting within the
atoms; in most substances the magnetic effects of different electrons
cancel each other out, but in some, such as iron, a net magnetic field
can be induced by aligning the atoms.
2 the ability to attract and charm people: his personal magnetism
attracted men to the brotherhood.

Matter:

1 physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in
physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, esp. as
distinct from energy: the structure and properties of matter.
� a substance or material: organic matter | vegetable matter | fecal
matter.
� written or printed material: reading matter.
2 an affair or situation under consideration; a topic: a great deal of
work was done on this matter | financial matters.
� Law something that is to be tried or proved in court; a case.
� (matters) the present situation or state of affairs: we can do nothing
to change matters.
� (a matter for/of) something that evokes a specified feeling: it's a
matter of complete indifference to me.
� (a matter for) something that is the concern of a specified person or
agency: the evidence is a matter for the courts.
3 [ usu. with negative or in questions ] (the matter) the reason for
distress or a problem: what's the matter? | pretend that nothing's the
matter.
4 the substance or content of a text as distinct from its manner or form.
� Printing the body of a printed work, as distinct from titles,
headings, etc.
� Logic the particular content of a proposition, as distinct from its
form.

*
The dictionary is your friend.

earle
*
(The above from the New Oxford American Dictionary.)

[Stephanus]

On Apr 19, 4:16�am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 4/18/13 10:05 AM, Stephanus wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 5:52 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 17:04:13 UTC+1, Stephanus �escribi�:
>
> >>> What you mean with Science: dissimilar term for gradualism.
>
> >>> Two conflicting world views are using the same term - science - as
> >>> dissimilar reference to either gradualism or IC
>
> >> dear Stephanus, try to put this in plain English.
> >> Perhaps you are trying to say that the word science it is used by
> >> many with different purposes?
>
> >> Yeah. �You are right. �In fact, science simply means "knowledge".
>
> > What is our knowledge based on? Science, you would say. Ok, what is
> > science based on . We can go on like this
> > into infinity, to avoid infinitism your views must ultimately be based
> > on something which has no explanation.
>
> Have you ever built anything? �A birdhouse or a crystal radio, perhaps?
> � I'm guessing you have not, and could not, because your mental
> excursions into the essence of the ideal object's infinite possibilities
> of ultimate form (or somesuch) would keep you from ever *doing* anything.
>
> Scientists have no such problem, and do things, and often get them done.

Where can I buy a machine to measure and test your view?

[Stephanus]

http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Composite_Integrity Darcy wentworth
thompson stated that Aristotle, Alexander pope, Kant were IC , but he
used the term CI.

[Stephanus]

On Apr 18, 5:35 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> > > > > Two conflicting world views are using the same term - science - as
> > > > > dissimilar reference to either gradualism or IC

> > > At here is nothing in the concept of IC as such that contradicts
> > > gradualism. Rather, it was claimed by some thata very specific type of
> > > gradualist if processes can't in principle produce IC systems. That
> > > claim has been falsified.

> > Not so

> Sure was - the first time a possible path was described where you
> simply substract a part from a non-IC entity which removes a necessary
> redundancy so that all the remaining parts are now indespensible.

My ref is http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/D%27Arcy_Wentworth_Thompson
which pre-dates Behe and
Aristotle's description of the spontaneous formation of teeth
constituted...... Both Aristotle and Thompson had the same premise as
you do: that the present attributes were not there in the distant
past. Whether the premise is correct or not is not my concern for the
sake of determining how their conclusion; that the there was an
acquisition of attributes, derives logically.
My premise is that all attributes are merely expressed, information is
neither created nor destroyed , the same matter is neither created nor
destroyed. Whatever my premise is , is irrelevant in evaluating
Aristotle .

Aristotle believed in spontaneous generation, Darwin in extreme
gradualism. It is Darwinian gradualism that is the paradigm in
academia in conflict with Chomsky's universal grammar which he got
from Kabala mysticism according to John Brey's book tautological
oxymorons.

[Burkhard]

On Apr 19, 10:46 am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 5:35 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Two conflicting world views are using the same term - science - as
> > > > > > dissimilar reference to either gradualism or IC
> > > > At here is nothing in the concept of IC as such that contradicts
> > > > gradualism. Rather, it was claimed by some thata very specific type of
> > > > gradualist if processes can't in principle produce IC systems. That
> > > > claim has been falsified.
> > > Not so
> > Sure was - the first time a possible path was described where you
> > simply substract a part from a non-IC entity which removes a necessary
> > redundancy so that all the remaining parts are now indespensible.
>
> My ref ishttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/D%27Arcy_Wentworth_Thompson
> which pre-dates Behe

The link gives a long "flow of consciousness" text which I can't make
sense of

and
> Aristotle's description of the spontaneous formation of teeth
> constituted......

And what has that to do with gradualism?

>Both Aristotle and Thompson had the same premise as
> you do: that the present attributes were not there in the distant
> past.

That's not a premise, that is a conclusion based on the evidence we
have. You won't find teeth amongst the fossils of the Cambrian

>
Whether the premise is correct or not is not my concern for the
> sake of determining how their conclusion;  that the there was an
> acquisition of attributes, derives logically.
> My premise is that all attributes are merely expressed, information is
> neither created nor destroyed , the same matter is neither created nor
> destroyed. Whatever my premise is , is irrelevant in evaluating
> Aristotle .
>

Indeed, in particular as none of this has anything to do gradualism.

> Aristotle believed in spontaneous generation, Darwin in extreme
> gradualism.

Aristotele's theory of spontaneous generation only applies to some
animals, and is a gradualist theory within his framework - the
unifying feature is hos notion of "soul heat". and the analogy for
procreation. Aristotle develops a theory that is gradualistic in
general. He then comes to some accounts of spontaneous generation
which he considers so believable that they need to be explained -
precisely because they do not fit at first into a world where "nature
does not make jumps". So he can't explain how eels e.g. procreate, so
he needs to find another mechanism that explains them which in a
manner of speaking he then does.

>It is Darwinian gradualism that is the paradigm in
> academia in conflict with Chomsky's universal grammar which he got
> from Kabala mysticism according to John Brey's book tautological
> oxymorons.

There is no conflict between gradualism and universal grammar. There
are furthermore good reasons to believe that Chomsky's theory, as
originally formulated, is plainly false - and he revised it downwards
himself over several reiterations of his theory. The idea he got it
from the Kabbala is just pants. There is a certain Descartian
influence, but that's about as far as the philosophy goes, the rest
was just cognitive theories of language learning at the time Chomsky
had the idea.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/18/13 10:07 PM, Stephanus wrote:
> On Apr 19, 4:16 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 4/18/13 10:05 AM, Stephanus wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 5:52 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> El miércoles, 17 de abril de 2013 17:04:13 UTC+1, Stephanus escribió:
>>
>>>>> What you mean with Science: dissimilar term for gradualism.
>>
>>>>> Two conflicting world views are using the same term - science - as
>>>>> dissimilar reference to either gradualism or IC
>>
>>>> dear Stephanus, try to put this in plain English.
>>>> Perhaps you are trying to say that the word science it is used by
>>>> many with different purposes?
>>
>>>> Yeah. You are right. In fact, science simply means "knowledge".
>>
>>> What is our knowledge based on? Science, you would say. Ok, what is
>>> science based on . We can go on like this
>>> into infinity, to avoid infinitism your views must ultimately be based
>>> on something which has no explanation.
>>
>> Have you ever built anything? A birdhouse or a crystal radio, perhaps?
>> I'm guessing you have not, and could not, because your mental
>> excursions into the essence of the ideal object's infinite possibilities
>> of ultimate form (or somesuch) would keep you from ever *doing* anything.
>>
>> Scientists have no such problem, and do things, and often get them done.
>
> Where can I buy a machine to measure and test your view?

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Bird-House-Kit-94503/100659246#.UXFgZXDFVFQ

[Greg Guarino]

On 4/19/2013 11:19 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> We can go on like this
>>>> into infinity, to avoid infinitism your views must ultimately be based
>>>> on something which has no explanation.
>>>
>>> Have you ever built anything? A birdhouse or a crystal radio, perhaps?
>>> I'm guessing you have not, and could not, because your mental
>>> excursions into the essence of the ideal object's infinite possibilities
>>> of ultimate form (or somesuch) would keep you from ever *doing*
>>> anything.
>>>
>>> Scientists have no such problem, and do things, and often get them done.
>>
>> Where can I buy a machine to measure and test your view?
>
> http://www.homedepot.com/p/Bird-House-Kit-94503/100659246#.UXFgZXDFVFQ

And there's my chuckle for the day.

[Stephanus]

Where can I find the full letter that Charles Kingsley wrote to
Frederick Morice in 1863
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Charles_Kingsley

[Burkhard]

Eh, why do you think I'd know? As far as I know, his wife published a
"His life and letters" book, so that might be a place to look. I think
you mean Maurice, by the way.

[Stephanus]

Frederick Maurice
download and type page 609 for the letter unscanned

http://ia600406.us.archive.org/17/items/worksofcharleski07king/worksofcharleski07king.pdf

f. maurice
TO REV. F. D. MAURICE p.176

convert to darwin's views


http://archive.org/stream/worksofcharleski07king/worksofcharleski07king_djvu.txt

TO REV. F. D. MAURICE letter 1863, as quoted by Osborn Nytimes 1915
around:
......" I am very busy working out points of Natural The-ology, by the
strange light of Huxley, Darwin, and Lyell.
I think I shall come to something worth having before I have done. But
I am not going to rush into print this
seven years, for this reason : The state of the scientific mind is
most curious ; Darwin is conquering everywhere,
and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and fact. The
one or two who hold out are forced to
try all sorts of subterfuges as to fact, or else by evoking the odium
theologicum . . . But they find that now they have got rid of an
interfering God — a master- magician, as I call it — they have to
choose between the absolute empire of accident, and a living,
immanent, ever-working God. Grove's truly great mind has seized the
latter alternative already, on the side of chemistry. Ansted is
"eeling for it in geology ; and so is Lyell ; and
I, in my small way of zoology, am urging it on Huxley, Rolleston, and
Bates, who has just discovered facts
about certain butterflies in the valley of the Amazon, which have
filled me, and, I trust, others, with utter
astonishment and awe. Verily, God is great, or else there is no God at
all. ............

.... But they find that now they have got rid of an interfering God —
a master- magician, as I call it — they have to choose between the
absolute empire of accident, and a living, immanent, ever-working
God ...

Note the Platonic antonymity : choice between chance or design

[Stephanus]

> http://ia600406.us.archive.org/17/items/worksofcharleski07king/workso...

>
> f. maurice
> TO REV. F. D. MAURICE    p.176
>
> convert to darwin's views
>

> http://archive.org/stream/worksofcharleski07king/worksofcharleski07ki...

What kingsley meant with 'master magician' was the YEC God direclty
creating PunkEek , something which is blasphemy of course. He tried to
convince Huxley to adopt theistic evolution as opposed to chance or
'absolute empire of accident'.
The only people who are going to heaven are YEC who place their faith
in Christ. Theist evolution and old earth is making
Christ to be a lier, because he clearly indicated that God made man
and women in the Beginning, by which the authors of the gospel
understood to be 4000 years ago or 6000 years today.

If YEC is wrong, then Ray Martinez faith is invain as well as mine. I
would abandon and renounce Christ. A persistence in old earth
doctrinal error will only be tolerated up to point by God or not at
all depending on circumstance because we worship a merciful God.

[Bill]

On Apr 25, 6:37 pm, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:

..

> The only people who are going to heaven are YEC who place their faith
> in Christ.

What a dreary place that will be.

[eridanus]

By almighty, Zeus! You should not say, my faith is wrong, or my faith
is right. For the faith is not a property of logic thinking. If faith
were a result of logic, it could be wrong or right.
But faith has not any relation with logic, even if sometimes there are
a priest or two that try to apply some logic to prove that god exists.

Faith is the result of an operant conditioning. It is in the same case
when we tell a boy, that he must put the lost tooth under the pillow and
the tooth fairy would put for him a sweet or other gift.

Then, you have done nothing to deserved your faith in Hari Krishna or
in Jesus. It had been inoculated in you, like when you were inoculated
against measles or other common illness of children. Then, the boy is
not right or wrong for being inoculated, but he was a passive receptor.

The same case with your faith in Jesus. Just imagine that you were taught
the faith in Muhammad and the Koran. You will be a Muslim. Then, being
a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Buddhist, or other, is not a merit per se.
It is not right not wrong, is a passive condition. You cannot fight
against this, for you had been inoculated with that germ. It would take
a little miracle for you to become an atheist. Our brain washing is rather
strong, and it would take a great specialist to change that. Then, you
would not let yourself to be influenced by an specialist to change. For
you think is a great thing to be a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Krishnata
or other.
That is the reason you feel so sure walking on this site. You feel sort
of invulnerable to the germs of this site.

Eridanus