FANDOM


Descartes

"I think therefore I am" is the syllogism: I think, in order to think I must exist, therefore I conclude I exist. Or I am conscious, in order to be conscious I must exist, therefore I exist. The problem is that the conclusion is assumed in the premises, hence a repetition of the premises occur, making our belief in our existence arbitrary: rhetorical circularity is the epistemic equivalent of counterfeiting.

What premise then shall we use to derive our conclusion in such a way that we avoid the circularity we exist therefore we exist or I think therefore I think? We have no choice but to use our reasoning to justify our reasoning, all reasoning at its base is circular. Only if we had infinite knowledge would we able use our reasoning to justify our reasoning in a virtuous circular manner, not all circularity is fallacious. Circularity must be the basis for certainty, else axioms won't be possible. Axioms are based on induction and deduction uses axioms, hence deduction is based on induction. From this syllogistic conclusion we derive that Godel's "Cretan says all Cretans are liers" doesn't refer to anything in the external world, it doesn't mediate between subject and object, any conclusion(even if true) would be a Non sequitur. Godel's sentence isn't the semiotics of any of our inductive experiences, it is a Meaningless sentence. Language functions as the semiotics of induction, what we use to express our experiences can itself not be experienced. Intelligent design like free will can't be measured but is a presuppositional belief we impose on a cluster of rocks with paint over it. All agree that such a house is designed, the structure is detected but what is used to ratiocinate about the structure cannot be detected. Testing for Intelligent design, free will and God is category mistake, we cannot test for free will and God in the same way the Laws of logic can't be tested. In Calvinism the embroided "absolutely depraved" is a dissimilar term for no free will, the conclusion masquerades in the premises. And in syllogisms involving Adaptation terms like "variation"(usually second premise) are dissimilar proxy for adaptation. Only the God and Father of our Lord Jesus demonstrates his Agrippian insight with "I Am That I Am".

Paradoxes show us that we don't know what our premises are, as such their solution will be metaphysical and not mathematical. Zeno's description of Achilles seemingly not able to reach the tortoise is because our Platonic language doesn't allow us to raise the question as to what is in between nothing and something or here and there as ideas.(Pattern or design). Sorites paradox of the heap is a variation of Zeno with the same solution: our Platonic binary language doesn't allow us to even raise the question as to when the transition from single to heap occurs. With Achilles, we reach to grab the nothingness between him and the tortoise and with Sorites the somethingness before the contact or transition, committing the Reification fallacy. Zeno's paradox arises because the law of excluded middle tautology that we use to ratiocinate about experiences is reified. You either have something or nothing, with no third option possible. Zeno and Sorites is showing us that if matter is all that exists all judgement suspends.

This suggests that all paradoxes are the result of the reification of tautologies analogous to how the "laws of physics" is the reification of Induction. This belief in "laws of nature", which don't exist, is a premise in all discussions over free will (Richar Holton, disruptor issue), meaning that any conclusion will be a Non sequitur. Even if Holton is correct, his conclusion would not have derived logically. Any solution to the free will issue must also address Hume's problem of induction and Agrippa's trilemma. Axioms are based on Genesis 8 induction, this resolves the third leg of Agrippa and Hume's problem of induction. The distance between Achilles and the tortoise is like the distance between two opposite ends of the universe, they exist only as ideas and can be instantly traversed as ideas but what cannot be done is to ask how the idea of binary opposites can merged. What is in between the succession of our ideas? Not even God can raise the question.

When we see green we see every color that is rejected, we don't know what actual green is. Maxwell's equations are a description not an explanation of magnetism. Even if we could derive the Lagrangian that maps polypeptide space into frog space or describe the billions of protein folding computations instantly calculated and enabled by quantum entanglement arising from the DNA helical pattern of genes, we wouldn't have an explanation of life itself, that which makes us conscious.

Our language is entangled with the experience of ships, tortoises and heaps, defining the limit of our experiences. The Raven and Banach Tarski paradox and many absurd conclusions in deductive algebra suggests that there is a limit to how much God will allow us to generalize Genesis 8 induction. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12 is God's way of reminding us that because deduction is based on induction and we have no inductive experience of infinity that any conclusion such as string theory will be a Non sequitur.

See the discrete nature of language prevents paradoxes. Adaptationism is nonattributism, the belief that we have inductive experience of nonapples, randomness, darkness, nothingness , noncows or nonattributes. Even if Adaptation were true, we would have no means of grasping it because nobody knows what it means to go from nothing to something or from a noncow to a cow, to acquire attributes(adapt) that have never existed. We are not adapted to anything but only express our attributes.

Ontology grounds epistemology

Having different ontologies means having different views about what exists. Ontology is the nature of existence and epistemology is the nature of knowledge. Ontology grounds epistemology: the nature of our existence determines the nature of our knowledge. There is no syllogism that allows us to go from "there is thinking going on"(Cogito) to I exist without circularity. Our existence is obvious and anything which is obvious is circular, only by knowing everything is it prevented from being arbitrary. If we can't even derive our own ontological existence without circularity then neither will epistemology make claims without repetition of the premises, therefore reasoning can't be justified empirically(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIp9OGnnfrA PZ Myers). Rhetorical excess in these Youtube debates isn't a substitute for syllogistic trope and the derogation of the philosopher logician's craft doesn't result in a state of enlightened "scientificishness" but epistemic declension.

Making claims about reality, we have to know that we are part of reality(existence). Thus we must know how to go from "there is consciousness" or "there is thinking going on " to "I exist" without rhetorical circularity in order to justify our reasoning. 'I exist' implies 'I am part of reality' because existence is part of reality.  Descartes derived conclusions and made claims about reality, which were circular(repetition of the premises) because his premise assumed he was part of reality, meaning his conclusion 'I exist' is contained in the premise. Descartes should have stated that there is thinking going on and then pointed out that there is no non-circular means means of  deriving the  conclusion that we exist or that we are part of reality. The suppressed premise in the works of Dawkins, Marianne Talbot are that they, unlike YEC are not employing circularity, which Hans Albert have shown to be incorrect, we are all ultimately reasoning in a circle,either virtuous or rhetorical.  

Thomas Jefferson formulated Descartes primacy of existence as: ".....http://newepicurean.com/ [T]o give rest to my mind, I was obliged to recur ultimately to my habitual anodyne: "I feel: therefore I exist." I feel bodies which are not myself: there are other existencies then. I call them matter. I feel them changing place. This gives me motion. Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterial space. On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need. ... To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise. - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820.....".

Jefferson's conclusion that there is no God is a Non sequitur as he stated an arbitrary belief.

In terms of the law of excluded middle vicious circularity(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition) derives its meaning as Platonic opposite to virtuous circularity. Replace vicious circularity with rhetorical circularity, it sounds less 'vicious'. The law of noncontradiction is based on excluded middle, something either is or is not a contradiction. Facts do not give us the capacity to reason, and arrive at truth, facts can only be such as determined by reasoning, thus we must know that our reasoning is valid (paraphrase of 19 dec 2008, 7:58 - Bahnsenburner). Denying logic, includes denying the law of noncontradiction. If the law of noncontradiction does not necessarily apply, then by denying logic, you are actually affirming logic, since contradictions are allowed.


For the very notion of rhetorical circularity to even exist , it must be contrasted to its polar Platonic opposite 'virtuous circularity', with no third option possible by the law of excluded middle, in the same way that God either exists or he doesn't. God our Father exists because it is impossible for him not to exist http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/transcript.php - presup transcripts.  See this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YkC5vuPI5_M between Negation of P and Colin Pearson. In the presup videos by Bruggencate he asks whether all circularity is rhetorical, a question also raised by Andrew Cling in his journal paper "The epistemic regress problem" - Philos Stud(2008) 140:401-421 where he concluded that the regress problem poses a formidable challenge to the consistency of our assumptions about evidential support, knowledge and justified belief and that this is "intolerable" because it leads to beliefs becoming arbitrary: it's not just turtles all the way down, it's circular turtles all the way down - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down. Pragmatic justification is the Platonic contrast to epistemic justification, like rhetorical tautology derives its meaning as binary opposite to Virtuous Tautology(I Am That I Am). Presuppositionalism does not commit the Loaded question fallacy as stated by Matt Dillahunty  but resolves Agrippa's trilemma. Presup, evidentialism and materialism are attempting to justify their usage of logic.

'Laws of nature' is the reification of induction

For the question why is there something instead of nothing or how did nothing turn into something to make sense, its assumption of the Platonic law of excluded middle has to be justified. Agrippa's trilemma forces us to ask the right questions: the question is not how did nothing turn into something but on what justification is the law of excluded middle bootstrapped into the very question itself? Something derives its meaning as the inverse of nothing, with no third or infinite number of options possible, or we will spend eternity evaluating all possibilities.  

Darkness is the absence of light, but this does not tell us what darkness is. Same with nothing, nothing is the absence of something, this does not tell us what then nothing is. Randomness is the absence of design, but this does not tell us what randomness is then. We know mathematically what randomness isn't, we don't know what it is .

God exists by the impossibility of the contrary, we have no means to determine what it would be like if God did not exist. In the same vane we have no means to even begin to express in our Platonic language what actual darkness, randomness or nothingness is. Asking how did nothing turn into something has the premise that nothingness was experienced, like somethingness was experienced. Because we haven't experienced darkness, randomness and nothingness we cannot raise a question that will use induction. How did something beget something a valid question to raise because of our inductive experiences of something. Hence the actual question with relation 'nothingness' is on what basis do we use induction and logic to reason about experiences if every single experience without exception is expressed as the negation of something we cannot experience?

In the Pearson video the Atheist attempted a variation of the Primacy of Existence argument against God, but any argument either for or against God's existence will pressupose the three fundamental laws of logic(you either exist or you don't) and it is these laws which can only be justified by virtuous tautology(I Am That I Am) and virtuous circularity(Heb.6) , preventing arbitrariness - violation of law of non-contradiction(meaning you can't believe your own reality and I mine). In other words any argument either for or against God will assume that God either exists or he doesn't - law of excluded middle - on what basis is it being assumed by any world view that there is no third option? RC Sproul seems to make some sort of evidentialist variation on the Primacy of Existence, namely Primacy of Self-consciousness. 

Induction(science) like the laws of logic cannot be observed or demonstrated, only used - Bahnsenburner and is circular. This circularity must be virtuous to avoid its binary opposite rhetorical. Because we don't know everything, our usage of induction is predicated on God who knows everything.  God's word is not just the basis for our redemption but also our analogical thinking and science(induction). We can can't do science because we can't experience science, induction is used not experienced.  Our experiences can only be in a mind, or the laws of logic which we use to express such experiences would be reified.

96. When matter is expelled out of nature, it drags with it so many sceptical and impious notions, such an incredible number of disputes and puzzling questions that have been thorns in the sides of theologians as well as philosophers, and made so much fruitless work for mankind, that if the arguments that I have produced against it are not found to be perfectly conclusive (which I think they obviously are ), I am sure all the friends of knowledge, peace, and religion have reason to wish they were. http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/berkeley1710_3.pdf

Special pleading

Understanding the nature of science means comprehending the nature of Agrippian circularity because science is based on inductive reasoning and we use our reasoning to justify our reasoning - there is no other means. If this circularity is rhetorical as opposed to virtuous(Christ) then our beliefs and science(induction) become arbitrary, like for example the cosmological theories(big bangs, black holes, speed of light) that use Genesis 8 induction to infer events before Genesis eight. Logic cannot be falsifiable or it wouldn't be logic and God cannot be falsifiable , or he wouldn't be God - Flew's falsification test for God is a category mistake. The insistence that there must be empirical evidence for God is Special pleading, there can be no physical evidence for the non-physical.

Under the rubric of Science we have an equivocation between empiricism, rationality and inductionism, the future cannot be experienced. This equivocation entangles itself in arguments such that the circularity of assuming we are rational , using our reasoning to justify our reasoning becomes a suppressed premise. In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vviTuYhfa8 it is not clear what is meant with "scientific". If by scientific is meant reasoned or rational, then explain how you would justify your reasoning without your reasoning, since circularity is not a scientific or empirical concept, it cannot be experienced.

"I am scientific" is a Meaningless sentence, if not used as a synonym for Induction and if used as proxy for induction then it becomes a  Truism from which any conclusion is a Non sequitur. We are all obviously like Russell's chicken using induction, the issue is that induction must be justified to prevent having the necks of our World views rung. Stating that one is "promoting science" is like saying one is "promoting induction", it is promoting the obvious. The counterinductive chicken informed the other fowls that they will most certainly be killed tomorrow, because they have not been killed in the past. While Russel's inductive bird,  who thought he was in a state of "scientificishness" , generalized the past to infer that tomorrow they won't be killed because the farmer had not killed them in the past. Both views are circular arbitrariness(reaction to Andrew Cling's paper). Only if the roosters had known everything or had revelation from somebody who does(and can't lie), could they have generalized the past. Whenever justified reasoning is used , the premise and the conclusion are that such reasoning was valid in the past. The next major ruption is the end of the time of the Gentiles with the Rapture.  

https://www.youtube.com/user/SisyphusRedeemed is attempting to resolve the circularity of induction without circularity, which Hans Albert have shown is impossible to do as we bootstrap our premises into our conclusions in such a way that the conclusions are contained in the premises. From this follows that falsificationsism isn't falsifiable, nor science scientific(science what exactly?) Carneades.org didn't mean induction with 'science' here , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Jyj8xvOzM . He used it as magical spell casting device to bolster his argument and infuse it with a sense of 'science power'. Demand that a person define his usage of 'science'.   Agrippian bootstrapping asks what prevents our beliefs from being arbitrary, we tend to confuse our knowledge with the set of beliefs we imposed to gain such knowledge. Do you know what you know or do you believe what you know?   The increase in knowledge spins an ever denser web of circularity, only Genesis 8 induction assures us we are not Russell's chicken. Nowhere does  SisyphusRedeemed mention the bootstrapping problem, which strikes at the heart of Hume's problem of induction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kTl6Zx1SGI violates the law of excluded middle, there is no third option to falsifiability/unfalsifiability. 

A pre-cambrian rabbit will not falsify Adaptation because the circularity of the adaptation conclusion contained in the adaptation premise is unfalsifiable.

Positivism's self-contradiction

".... from the fact that something has not been proved, no conclusion can be drawn......". But since the sentence itself hasn't been proved it says of itself not draw any conclusion from it. In Antony Flew's article "The presumption of Atheism" - http://www.commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Flew-The-Presumption-of-Atheism.pdf he states

What I want to examine is the contention that the debate about the existence of God should properly begin from the presumption of atheism, that the onus of proof must lie upon the theist.

Since Flew is making the claim, the logic of his statement can be turned back on him - prove the statement itself. Where is the proof for the statement: "The burden of proof is on the person making the statement" ? On the masthead of the Daily Hitchens, there is the legend: What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. The difficulty with this assertion is straightforward. If it has been asserted without proof, why should it be believed, and if not, where is the proof? - David Berlinski. What is the evidence that all beliefs must be based on evidence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof contains positivism.

Logic can't be verified

Logic cannot be verified because the verification would have to use logic. If everything were falsifiable, we would not have reality but suspension of reason because falsifiability itself isn't falsifiable. Logic is true because it cannot be proven to be true. We only know what we can ultimately know if it cannot be proven. I Am That I Am exists because it impossible to prove that virtuous tautology exists, nor that it derives its meaning as the law of excluded middle negation of rhetorical tautology and neither can design in nature be proven.

  • p1: Logic cannot be proven because the proof would have to use logic.
  • p2: We use the laws of logic to express our experiences.
  • c: What we experience is only possible because of some ultimate reality we have not experienced.

or

  • p1: The Laws of logic cannot be proven because the proof would have to use logic.
  • p2: Heb.6, Gen.1, Rev.22 Exodus.33 are a trinity of logic, God's very nature
  • C: God cannot be proven because it would use logic. His only justification is the virtuous tautology I Am That I Am.

Van Til said it this way "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God.

The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence! - Bruggencate http://web.archive.org/web/20101018033927/http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/12/evolution-gets-owned.html?commentPage=2

This seems to be an echo of Kierkegaard

"...God’s works, therefore, only God can do. Quite correct. But, then, what are God’s works? The works from which I want to demonstrate his existence do not immediately and directly ex­ist. Are the wisdom in nature and the goodness or wisdom in governance right in front of our noses? Don’t we also encounter terrible tribulations here? How can I demonstrate God’s exist­ence from such an arrangement of things? Even if I began, I would never finish. Not only that, I would be obliged to con­tinually live in suspense lest something so terrible happen that my fragment of demonstration would be ruined. The fool says in his heart that there is no God, but he who says in his heart or to others: Just wait a little and I will prove it to you – ah, what a rare wise man he is! If, at the moment he is supposed to begin the demonstration, it is not totally unde­cided whether God exists or not, then, of course, he cannot demonstrate it. And if that is the situation in the beginning, then he will never make a beginning – partly for fear that he will not succeed, because God may not exist, and partly because he has nothing with which to begin...."

In the Colin Pearson video (1h33min) , Dr. Shook states that he is an empirical rationalist. He used the law of excluded middle to derive this conclusion and failed to point out that in terms of Agrippa's trilemma he had to assume the law of excluded middle in his premises: all reasoning ultimately reduces to some form of  circularity. Paley's watchmaker, ID and materialist Adaptation are all at some point assuming their conclusions in their premises. If we appeal to God who has infinite knowledge as the justification of knowledge then his existence is unprovable because the proof would entail more knowledge than infinity and induce an infinite regress of proofs, neither would Flew's falsification test for God apply. Proof presupposes truth, logic and knowledge and truth is what corresponds to reality, truth is that which is real but how do we know what is real? Note that http://proofthatgodexists.org/audio/chrisbolt6.mp3  22min states that there are fatal problems with the correspondence theory of truth. (Presup views truth as whatever corresponds to the mind of God)

In order to know whether anything is true, we must know that our reasoning is valid. Agrippa's trilemma applies to all of logic and shows that the only way we can justify our reasoning is by using our reasoning, hence all of logic reduces to rhetorical circular reasoning for all world views from the finite, including the "scientific" one. Only a world view deriving its conclusions from Infinite Knowledge is virtuous because it prevents what we do know from being contradicted by what we don't know. In order to come to any truth or knowledge claim we must use our reasoning: how do we know our reasoning is valid and on what basis do we invoke the law of excluded middle(valid/invalid), why precisely is there no third option?

Intelligent design isn't falsifiable

Materialists have been correct that Intelligent design is unfalsifiable, while clueless concerning their own circular reasoning. Their debates acrimonious tone are inversely proportional to their Agrippian epistemological insight. Nobody gets exasperated over Newton's inverse square law, or the cubic relationship of wind loading on structures, because lasers and strain gauges settles the matter: Design can no more be detected than the laws of logic can be detected. Rather we impose the law of excluded middle(design negation of chance) on the mouse traps, stars and heavens. The universe is designed, not because we detect design but because we impose design by the impossibility of the contrary. When we say something is 'designed', what are saying is that something is designed by the impossibility of its Platonic contrary , chance.

Design, like Induction(science) isn't detected but used to express our experiences. This leads to the conclusion that we don't have knowledge, but a set of beliefs. There is no measurement tool calibrated between design and chance, these are beliefs(Christian mythological archetype) we impose on the evidence. In Automated Selection, Automated selection usenetPost Howard Hershey insisted that we know a factory is designed because we have seen the designer, but have not seen the Designer of the universe. This is Special pleading, neither has Howard seen or measured the Law of Identity with a strain gauge, God cannot be the exception to the rule that there can't be physical evidence for the nonphysical. What we experience is confused with what we use to express such experiences. Gradualism or Adaptation stems from the belief that originally there was 'nothing', violating the law of excluded middle. There has to be a somethingness as binary contrast to nothingness.

TAG

The transcendental  - (Douglas Willson) argument for God's existence derives from the following premises: 

  • 1 God is our virtuous circular conclusion because he knows everything and we don't. Hence the only way we could know anything is by either knowing everything or having revelation form God who knows everything: this prevents what we don't know from contradicting what we do know. We cannot start with Platonic opposites(God either exists/non-exists) separate from God because such will in turn demand some sort of justification, inducing Agrippian infinite regress. Only by knowing everything can infinite regress be avoided. All arguments against God's existence assume the laws of logic in an Agrippian circular and regression manner. 
  • 2 God identified his nature as the three basic laws of logic non-contradiction(Heb.6) , Excluded middle(Gen.1, Rev.22) and Law of Virtuous Identity(I Am That I Am) - Exodus . These laws form a trinity of logic without which our language has no sense. We were made in God's language image.
  • 3 - The statement I could be wrong about everything is included in everything and is thus self-refuting, hence we do know some things for certain and that such will be unfalsifiable. Certainties such as the laws of logic are defined as being unfalsifiable. Our ultimate reality, existence cannot be subject to Popper falsificationsim preventing regression of reality. If you could be wrong about everything, could  you be wrong about God's existence? Wittgenstein stated that if you are not certain about the meaning of your words, you cannot be certain about anything. Thus we must be certain about the meaning of the words in the sentence "I could be wrong about everything", revealing it as a reductio ad-absurdum. 
  • 4 - To know something, means to know that it is true, but truth itself has been shown to be undefined by Tarski's semantic theorem of truth and our inability to define truth is the very nexus of all our philosophical problems - Philosophyideas.com . Is it true that truth is undefined? 
  • 6- Agrippa's trilemma unresolved status means that our beliefs are arbitrary(Andew Cling's journal paper) and we will find ourselves in a perpetual state of violating the law of non-contradiction, since this is not the case in reality, there is an innate certainty that prevents us from an infinite suspension of reason. Certainty is a property of a proposition that cannot fail to be true, there is no relative certainty. Neither can there be reasonable certainty because 'reasonable' would be a dissimilar term for relative, given the context. 

Conclusion: Because we do know things for certain without knowing everything, we thus have innate revelation from somebody who does know everything: God the Father of our Lord Jesus. Hence the proof that God exists is that without him we could not prove anything. Providing evidentialist arguments for God's existence is like showing a dictionary to a person who believes words(ideas) don't exist, nobody needs proof that ideas exist.  This TAG argument constrasts  to the evidentialist arguments for God, because evidentialism assumes the laws of logic without justification:ontology grounds epistemology. God can only be derived from God and no other principle or such principle becomes higher than God himself inducing epistemic regression, hence we can only assume the laws of logic by assuming God first. There is no such thing as the laws of physics, because physics equations are falsifiable; laws of logic are not falsifiable. Materialism is the belief that matter is all that exists and constitutes reality. Atoms consist largely of 'empty space'(whatever that is) and as we proceed smaller and smaller(quarks, leptons) we evetually arive at nothing, meaning that reality  consists of nothing - this makes no sense - (David Berlinski)  

Induction implies knowledge about the future. From Genesis we know that the seasons, sun rises etc. will be like the past because God ordained it as such by saying so - that makes it so. Only because of God's divine will, shall the sun rise tomorrow. Not being able to justify reasoning in the world means any knowledge claim is inconsistent with what one professes to believe, and inconsistency undermines reason. All of science is based on 'induction,' basically stated that 'the future will be like the past.' Induction cannot be accounted for apart from God. To say "The future will be like the past, because it has always been like that in the past," is rhetorical circularity. If the Bible were not true, ‘truth’ itself would be without meaning, the infallible truth of the Bible is the necessary precondition of intelligibility. As far as science goes, science is dependent on the uniformity of nature, or no scientific prediction could be made. Problem is, no atheistic worldview can account for the uniformity of nature, the very foundation of science. In Genesis after the flood , God established the uniformity of nature, seasons ,sun rises etc. we experience by his word, he said so and that makes it so because he knows everything. Call this Genesis Eight Induction, we are in this dispensation. All the arguments about the Big Bang, speed of light, decay rates etc. is based on a type of induction established in Genesis 8: what type of induction existed before  God established our present uniformity - what type of science existed before Gen.8 ?

Gen8:21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. Gen8:21,22
http://theweek.com/article/index/256163/in-defense-of-creationists wrote "......All orthodox Christians agree with the theological statement that God created the world ex nihilo — that is, out of nothing. And so it is a kind of nonsense to say that the fundamentalist is refuted by the fact that the speed of light travels thus and so, and we can see light from stars much, much further than 6,000 light-years away. Do we really think that a God who daubs the great blackness with burning stars cannot hang their light as well? It would be like saying a carpenter cannot paint a piece of crown molding before it is installed. A thought experiment helps here. If we could time-warp a team of scientists to the sixth day of a universe according to the most childish reading of Genesis, the geologists would look at mountains shaped just days earlier and say they showed millions of years of geologic change in their formation. Biologists would stumble over a naked man who looks about 30 years of age, when he was plopped there a few hours ago. This conundrum belongs to all theists, not just fundamentalists. Any theory of creation, even one that leaves maximal room for today's most authoritative scientific theories about the origins of the universe and man, is a deus ex machina......"

In an interview(Humphreys) with Ian Juby (Wazooloo) channel on Youtube he stated that the whole speed of light declining over centuries have now fallen flat and communicated this to PHd Setterfield. In this article http://creation.com/how-can-distant-starlight-reach-us-in-just-6000-years  YEC creation.com don't state what conclusion they are assuming in their premises. http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA206.htm

Arguments involving our origins will have circularity at some point. When God created Adam 6000 years ago a full man of lets say 18years of age, how long did it take him? One second, 18 years or does the concept of time even apply. God established times,seasons and the experience of linear progression, but does such apply to God himself? Extend that question to all the cosmological, evidential arguments - what conclusion is being assumed in the premises.

God is not falsifiable

God the Father can't be subject to falsificationism and all his conclusions are virtuously contained in his premises by necessity, because he knows everything. The question is not raised who made God because infinite knowledge prevents Infinite regress , the premise dictates what questions can be raised , preventing an infinite regress of question raising from which no conclusion will ever derive. Knowing everything, the virtuous tautology "I Am That I Am" is God's sole justification or he would not be God , not all tautologies are fallacies. This Virtuous tautology is the justification for the tautological laws of logic that we use to express our experiences and ratiocinate about our measurements. Infinity is contained by Antonymity, something either is or isn't infinite. Prof. Michael Moore's(Israel Institute of Technology) view on this specific tautology in his journal paper is erroneous. The paper's take on John 1 confuses Pleonasm with tautology and the majority of the rest of the paper as well.

"....And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.Exodus 3:14-15..."

"...For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. Heb 6:13-15..."

God the Father here invokes himself to justify himself, which is virtuously circular because "....he could swear by no greater....". It is logical to justify yourself by yourself if you cannot appeal to no greater. Obviously man cannot do this and must therefore appeal to Infinite Knowledge in order to justify his usage of logic.


http://proofthatgodexists.org/why-is-god-necessary.php ,

Knowledge: Unless one knows everything, or has revelation from someone (God) who does, something we don't know could contradict what we think we know. How do we know what reality is? By knowing everything or appealing to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who knows everything. All world views are faced with the Münchhausen infinite regress and rhetorical circularity problem and cannot justify their world view, without resolving this dilemma. Ultimately, reality and truth cannot be grounded in the finite because of the regression problem, this is a foundational issue. The Agrippian epistemic regress problem is considered the most crucial in the entire theory of knowledge and it is a major concern for many contemporary epistemologists - Ref#2

Truth: If our thoughts are the mere by-products of the electrochemical processes in our evolved brains, you would not get "truth" you would get "brain-fizz." Chemicals do not produce "truth" they just react. As Doug Wilson said, it would be like shaking up a can of Mountain Dew, and a can of Dr. Pepper, opening them, and watching them fizz. Neither fizz is "true," they just are. For truth you need someone (God) who transcends the natural and physical realm. Philosophyideas.com states that we cannot define truth in a language and thus arithmetic is 'incomplete', meaning that we know it is true but cannot prove it.

The proof that everything in scripture is true is that without scripture we wouldn't be able to prove anything(transcendental truth). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxsES_M88Ho) 14min: Proof presupposes truth, something that is false cannot be proven. (ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_DW_YddZRQ&list=UUQy8MZmdj7GKd7LSnMLyyBw#t=276). Truth cannot be arbitrary because one world view coming up with its own 'truth' will contradict another world view violating the law of non-contradiction: we cannot each invent our own reality. Presuppositionalism#Debates

There are only two world views, God or not God in terms of the law of excluded middle(either A or not A). In all Atheist polemics this foundational logical truth is assumed in their conclusions without justification. Every argument against Christianity , borrows from Christianity 1:06 premier radio mp3

Any world view which defines something as untrue must do so by a standard of truth. Truth is justified true belief, it is whatever conforms to the mind of God. Christ is a necessary precondition for logic , people know things , therefore God exists. Without God, we can't know anything. The only way we can justify our senses is by appealing to God, or else we have rhetoricaly circular senses justifying our senses. Logic cannot be perceived or experienced(Bahnsenburner#Vagon_and_Sye), it can only come from God, it is reflection of the way God thinks. The uniformity(Hume) assumption makes the inference that physical laws cannot change, which is circular reasoning: physical laws won't change because they wont' change. Without God our world views reduces to absurdity. Atheists are forced to borrow from the Platonic(law of excluded middle) Christian world view in order to object to it as Dawkins did in his book The God delusion. His unstated conclusion is that we are to accept and not reject his thesis that design/chance are not our only options. Dawkins designates himself as part of the "Brights" which in terms of the law of exclude middle(Platonic opposites) derives its meaning as the contrast with those that are not so "bright" as he is: from what premise did he derive this law of logic in such a way the the conclusion is not assumed(circularity) in the premise?

Universal, immaterial, unchanging logic: For universal, immaterial, unchanging logic, you need someone (God) who is universal (Psalm 90:2), not made of matter (John 4:24) and unchanging (Malachi 3:6). Without God, who has universal knowledge, we could not know anything to be universally true. Without God, who is Spirit (not made of matter), we could not make sense of immaterial things. Without God who is unchanging (and logic is a reflection of the way He thinks), we would have no basis for expecting logic not to change. The very concept of evidence is evidence for God - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGd9e6LeO6g 45min . Materialism is the metaphysical belief in a solid world whence life and consciousness arise as epiphenomena(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism).

".....O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen....." Romans 11:33-36

From God, through God and to God are all things and this includes the concept of evidence, God is the necessary precondition for the concept of evidence. To give evidence of that claim without assuming God would be to deny that claim.

"...Facts do not come with interpretation tags, telling us how to view them.... Both sides haggle over the facts. Both sides raise accusations , yet it's a rare day indeed when both sides acknowledge that their differences stem from something much more basic than facts. Their differences are rooted in opposing worldviews , which in turn are permeated with philosophical assumptions commitments..." (ref: William D Watkins , "Whose Facts Anyway"," Christian Research Journal(24:2), 60
Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Calvinism violates law of excluded middle

Bill Vallicella bootstraps the law of excluded middle without seemingly aware of this: "...First of all, consciousness cannot be an illusion. Consciousness cannot be an illusion for the simple reason that it is a presupposition of the distinction between reality and illusion. An illusion is an illusion to consciousness, so that if there is no consciousness there are no illusions either. There simply is no (nonverbal) distinction between the illusion of consciousness and consciousness. If one is under the illusion that one is conscious, then one is conscious, really conscious, and therefore not under any illusion about the matter...." ref http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/05/could-freedom-of-the-will-be-an-illusion.html Reality is the negation of illusion. 

See Baptism and time. The view that we have free choice but not free will violates the law of excluded middle, there is no third option to free will (free choice).Free choice or free will(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will) as the binary opposite to randomness(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism). In this context free choice is a synonym for free will. The universe either made itself or it was made: there is no third option. Calvinism will turn out to be some sort of verbal confusion. The question is not how did nothing give rise to something but on what basis do we conclude that nothing derives its meaning as Platonic opposite to something and the same applies to Aquinas cause/uncaused assumption. God can only be concluded by starting out with God. Calvinism asserts that the gifts of the Holy Spirit came to an end with the death of the last apostle John and can't provide any scripture for this view. One cannot receive the baptism of the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues if one isn't saved - born again -  to begin with. Because Calvinism is the belief that one doesn't know whether one is saved until after death, this cessation of the gifts is one of  its premises. Taken to its full logical conclusion, it makes life itself an horrific experience and meaningless, probably explaining why Stephen Law was so animated as Bruggecate shredded his atheist logic to pieces. Calvinism denies the power of God and commits the fallacy of hasty generalization: because William J. Samarin, Paul de Lacy, Felicitas Goodman and over 70 journal articles on Glossolalia have shown that the subjects they have studied are uttering a form of speech that is fundamentally not language, does not mean that there aren't any persons on this earth who cannot speak in tongues in the same way that all swans are white were falsified by the Popper discovery of black swans. At the very least it shows that God in his mercy has provided us with  falsifiable signs and wonders. 

Benny Hinn engages in auto suggestive hypnosis on ill people, convincing them that God has healed them, which is a form of mental health malpractice. The person is bewildered when his medical condition returns the next day as the effect of hypnosis wears off. Licensed hypnotherapists also hypnotize subjects relieving pain etc. but their professional ethics and medical boards prevent them from claiming that God was involved. Calvinism shields the adherent from failure of belief and from realizing his underlying unbelief in the power of God. It makes the effects of faith unfalsifiable.

  • The unmeasurable laws of logic enables the expression of the experience and numbers the ratiocination about the measurement: numbers and logic cannot be measured preventing Agrippian regression of reason.
  • Which of your experiences was the experience of the flow of time ? The author at Time suggests that we cannot experience the flow of time.
  • Which of your experiences was the experience of free will?
  • The Darcy Thompson Composite Integrity of a mouse trap isn't experienced, rather we impose our presuppositional beliefs about functionality on the mouse trap. Bootstrapping the law of excluded middle, we impose the religious belief that either the mouse trap is optimally functional or it isn't , under all observations the inductive inference was made that this always involves a set number of parts and their interaction within a redundancy constraint and might contain additional constraints such as aesthetics. The bionic boxfish is more functional, based on the boxfish, reducing drag but not as aesthetic as other vehicles. The part "...might contain additional constraints ...." is a mode of reasoning that Popper identified as unfalsifiable.
  • We cannot experience energy, only measure or experience the difference in energy . (Ref: John Lennox, youtube debates)

Our existence is the continual interface between what we can experience and cannot experience and how we express these experiences using what we cannot experience(logic). Free will like Irreducible Functionality seems to be one of those subjects that we can't experience - because we have endless debates over it - and thus whatever your view might be, it will be like logic an unfalsifiable belief.

Conflict between world views arises when we have to make a judgment about something we cannot experience. There isn't endless debates about the wind loading on structures because we have falsifiably determined that it is proportional to the cube of the surface area, using a strain gauge. Behe's IC is unfalsifiable because an IC measurement machine doesn't exist. ID has muddied the waters of demarcation between logic and experiences.

Can free will be experienced, or is it something like logic we use to express our experiences ? The laws of logic has the property that it enables the expression of our experiences, but cannot itself be experienced. In order to deny logic, one must know what logic is, likewise denying free will means one must know what it is. As a syllogism:

  • P1 Free will like logic enables the expression of the experience and can't therefore be experienced itself.
  • P2 One must know what logic is , in order to be capable of attempting to deny logic.
  • C: We thus have free will or else would not have been able to attempt to deny it.

Subject and object

Without scripture there is no subject/object relationship(Heidegger) , ontology dissolves in unto itself. KJV manuscript copies are the oldest writings we have that describes law of excluded middle in Genesis(light/darkness) and ends with it in Revelation last chapter(Alpha and Omega). God stated that he cannot lie, which means he is the personification of the Law of Non-Contradiction. His virtuous tautology "I Am That I Am" is the Law of Identity from infinite wisdom justifying our appeal to him from the finite. God the Father of our Lord Jesus is the three fundamental laws personified http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/593494/laws-of-thought , http://storage.carm.org/demos/demo3/2_logic/3logic.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought#The_Three_Classical_Laws

The Masoretic(KJV) talks of the ‘laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25) and accounts for universal, abstract, invariants.

"Jeremiah 33:25....Thus saith the Lord; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;..."

We have been given the capacity to reason, and in fact, are commanded to reason .

(Isaiah 1:18) ".....Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool...."

The Bible clearly states that all things are “from God and through God" (Romans 11: 36), and “all things” necessarily includes the laws of logic.

Romans 11: 36 ".... For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen...."

Mind in a vat ?

Stephen Law law in a blogpost debate with Bruggencate asked how does Bruggencate himself know that he is not in a mindvat or that his brain is addled? He assumed the law of excluded middle: either Bruggencate is in a mindvat or he isn't - no third option. Because Prof. Law doesn't appeal to a God with infinite knowledge he cannot justify his circular logic virtuously, it is rhetorical. The question raised by Law is probably the most potent counter argument against Presuppositionalism, until you realize the circularity of assuming the laws of logic from the finite in the very rebuttal itself. Law cannot justify the the laws of logic in his question without rhetorical circularity, the very issue at hand. As he and Bruggencate spawns multiple pages on the issue of justified belief, Law revealed what he was demanding from Bruggencate: Derive meaning and truth without circularity. As a professor of philosophy he very wells knows that Hans Albert have shown this to be impossible. A simple thought experiment will suffice: Attempt to justify your reasoning, without using your reasoning. Prof.Law believes that there are people in this world and that their reasoning isn't valid - how does he know that he isn't one of them? Extend that question to every inductive and deductive inference ever made. 

If this indeed were true that each of us could possibly be in some mindvat , each experiencing a separate illusion, then it raises the question whether any of us would be able to communicate the issue to one another in the same vane that Wittgenstein stated that even if lions could talk, we would not be able to understand them and how we would avoid violating the law of non-contradiction. Our grasp of the laws of logic separates us from animals.

The very statement - 'There is no free will' - raises the question as to whether we should believe the statement itself. Thus positing that there is no free will reduces to a Reductio ad absurdum because the statement itself wasn't generated by free will. In a Dawkins and John Lennox debate Dawkins stated that he has no beliefs, the only way he could know this is by believing it, thus Dawkins believes that he has no beliefs. This is not on a point of "scientificishness" but an inference of logic.

The tendency of a concentrate of energy to become uniform(increase in engineering entropy) applies to both open and closed systems and thus the laws of thermodynamics apply in both open and closed systems(Information). A 'concentrate' of energy tends to become 'uniform' over the medium - there are no third option(law of excluded middle), hence thermodynamics is an incantation of the laws of logic. From George Berkeley, matter and energy don't exist , only ideas exist. In the beginning was the Logos, only logic exists. Concentrate is the Platonic opposite of uniformity. (Engineering entropy is a term I coined to differentiate it from information entropy, the single term 'entropy' confuses multiple issues and I will get back to this under Information as time allows).

There are no other gods besides God, he cannot lie, is truth incarnate and has infinite knowledge. By logical necessity we as beings with finite knowledge can therefore be certain about what is revealed in scripture(Bible isn't defined). This view is known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics. We are certain that we aren't in some mindvat experiment because God with infinite knowledge have revealed certain things to us through scripture such that we can be certain about it: this is the starting point of all logic. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding Prov.9:10"

In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqLd0lFyRfA Mathew Steele vs. Bruggencate, Matthew bootstraps the law of excluded middle into his conclusions and does not realize this on the "mind-in-a-vat" issue. All world views bootstrap the laws of logic into their conclusions, the journal papers on Agrippa shows that this can only be justified  by either knowing everything or having revelation from somebody who knows everything. One more additional requirement is that God must not even be able to lie, or we would not be able to believe anything he says, inspite of knowing everything.

Can God not make a stone so that he can lift it?

Intelligent design's attempt at proving the existence of God scientifically(falsification) is fallacious, God would have established science and cannot therefore be subject unto it himself. There can be no physical evidence for the non-physicalEmpirical claims require empirical evidence; however, God-claims are not empirical claims. To demand that empirical evidence be provided for non-empirical claims is to commit a gross categorical error. It is akin to someone demanding that the Law of Non-Contradiction (a non-empirical claim) be proved with empirical evidence. The nature of evidence must correspond to the nature of the claim - evidentialism. Fallacyfiles dot org  ".... The fallacy of Special pleading occurs when someone argues that a case is an exception to a rule based upon an irrelevant characteristic that does not define an exception...

See pdf doc from discovery institute http://www.discovery.org/f/494 "Intelligent Design is Falsifiable" where they make the case that ID is scientific. Scientific and non-scientific are used in the pejorative sense by those unfamiliar with the regression and circularity problem that all world views are subject unto, including the 'scientific' world view. Evidence are evaluated in terms of presuppositions and all presuppositions in turn must resolve the regression and circularity problem because all reasoning is either virtuous or rhetorical circularity.

Asking for proof presupposes truth and you can't have truth or make sense of truth without God who became flesh 2000 years ago and said(John 14:6):"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." The very concept of proof, proves that God exists because we can't make sense of proof without him. Evidence as a concept is evidence that God exists. God is subject to logic because his nature is logical and he cannot contradict himself. Can God make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it is as meaningless as asking can God not make a stone so that he can lift it or asking whether God can lift something he can't lift. Self-contradiction is not an element of omnipotence in the Christian world view (as that is a weakness not a power), however if the interlocutor do want a ‘god’ who could contradict itself, then yes, such a ‘god’ could make a boulder so big that it could not lift it. “AHA” the interlocutor would then say, “There is something God can’t do, He can’t lift that boulder.” A self-contradictory ‘god’ can lift a boulder that it can’t lift, demonstrating the absurdity of the question. The laws of logic prevents the endless raising of questions.

It is Reductio ad absurdum to posit a God who can do the illogical. Any discussion presupposes knowledge , we have to start with God to know anything at all. Arguing for God's existence can only be logical and not evidential or God would not be God. Science are descriptions about nature that are falsifiable.

All empirical science is beholden to the senses. We can't imagine how 1+1 could not equal 2 because our senses was formed according to logic, we did not invent logic - Logic invented us. We have faith in logic and math because our senses are the propositions of Logic. Numbers were not invented by man but discovered by man, they are preexistent to our consiousness - Carl Jung. Each and every observation is the direct result of non-empirical hypotheses, all observation are immersed with theories that decide what the translation of the observation will be. Werner Heisenberg said "... what we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning...atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or probabilities rather than one of things and facts...." and Niels Bohr "....everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real...". What the sense organs registers is dependent on non-empirical theories, on logic. Concepts are not derivatives of the sense organs, a bridge is built with scaffolding but is not part of the structure. Matter has its form imposed on it by the mechanisms of mind, no materialistic formulation can explain a material body . What we experience is not matter but the imposition of our volitionalism on matter. - - Ref#1. "The philosophy of schopenhauer " , Bryan Magee , p. 113 Noam Chomsky ref/ 18 ..... what we experience is unexplainable in terms of experiential input, the notions of learning and learning (Skinner) fundamental to empiricism are mistaken. This is central to the thought of Noam Chomsky, he made it central to our acquisition of language but this is general to everything. (See Men of Ideas Bryan Magee, p. 218 - 200) magee references p. 99 - 104. In the book Black Mischief , first edition by Berlinski interviewed Chomsky that ".... empiricism lacks an object ..."

Poincare stated that the entire edifice of mathematics is a round-about way of saying A=A. Logicians determine whether conclusions derive logically, not "scientifically".

We can't be wrong about everything

A reaction on Wittgenstein#Certainty 114,115,126,158,160,163: If you could be wrong about everything, you cannot be certain of the meaning of your words either and cannot make knowledge claims. Whenever we test anything, we are already presupposing something that is not tested nor can it be tested, preventing regression, such as Popper falsifiability itself, numbers and the laws of logic. Knowledge claims and judgments cannot transcend the certainty about my words and presupposes something that is not testable such as God. Not being certain about anything is self-refuting because I possess the certainty of the doubt, testability isn't testable and objectivity does not need an object(this last part I got in some journal paper that I can't remember now)

If you claim you could be wrong about everything you know, you have given up knowledge and can't know anything, meaning you can't make knowledge claims(this interprets Wittgenstein#Certainty). The very concept of knowing something means that what is known is true, it is impossible to know that Elvis Presley is the current president of the USA because it is not true. How do you know your reasoning is valid? If you don't know, you can't be certain about anything. In order to have any knowledge you would have to know everything or have revelation from God who does.

  • Logic is not made of matter, is universal and does not change.
  • If the laws of logic are man made, then is it possible that the universe could have both existed and not existed at the same time before man? (violates the law of noncontradiction)
  • How is what the brain comes up with a universal law?
  • How does what happens in your brain apply to anything other than what happens in your brain?
  • On what basis do you assume that the laws of logic will apply 2 seconds from now? (Genesis 8 induction)

Relativism

The relativist(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism) view that there are not absolute truths raises the question as to whether relativism itself is absolutely true. Is it objectively true that truth is subjective?

Christians must assume God as a necessary truth and derive their ontological conclusions in a virtuously circular manner, by implication the Atheist world view is incapable escaping the vicious(rhetorical) circularity I think, therefore I think. Atheists can utilize logic but cannot justify logic, they are using the Christian world view. Never give up the presuppositional world view in any context or any condition, not even for sake of argument. For example Atheists deceive Christians into discussing morality, "problem of evil" from their rhetorically circularly entrapped logic, making Infinite Wisdom the defendant and finite knowledge the judge. If we are to discus morality with anybody then it will be on our terms as Christians - logically.

Virtuous circularity derives its meaning as the antonymic reflection to rhetorical circularity. Deriving any conclusion which involves infinity must assume an incantation of such infinitism as its major premise.

Both the Atheist and Theistic world view have baked into their respective conclusions the antonymic structure that God exists or does not exist as our only options. From what syllogism was this antonymity derived? If God himself constitutes the major premise and our antonymic language created in his image, then he must be antonymic in his essence(Gen.1, Rev.22) and identify himself as such or we would not be able to comprehend him. The tools of analytic philosophy allows the logician to determine whether world views derive logically and unearth unrecognized premises, his concern is not whether a world view is ultimately true but whether it derives logically.

A contradiction derives its meaning as the antonym of non-contradiction and not any other options or an infinite regression induces. Antonymity prevents an infinite regress of premises in all syllogisms, without which no conclusion would ever be reached and we would be in a state of infinite suspension of judgment.

The Lord Jesus Christ said: I am Alpha and Omega ..... Christ claimed to be God and his last words were to define himself as Antonymity personified in flesh.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22%3A13-21&version=KJV

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/begging-the-question/ equivocates between virtuous and rhetorical circularity, much like Haldane(journal paper on SoF), Wilkins etc. equivocated between logical and rhetorical tautologies.

Irreducible Functionality (IC) is not empirical because it is an incantation of the Law of Platonic antonymity. 

Can anything happen?

Why are there things that won't change? From the finite the only answer is rhetorical circularity that things won't change because they won't change. From the Infinite there will be regularity because God said so in Gen.8, if this were not so, God would not be God. 

Impossibility of the contrary

How do you know the contrary is impossible? Is it possible for God to reveal himself in a book. Infinite knowledge cannot derive from finite knowledge. All attempts at deriving God's existence without assuming his existence is logically flawed.

Are all axioms valid ?

Are all axioms valid? (Paul Baird  or James White did not answer and neither responded to ".. can anything happen...." . The atheists are caught off guard by Bruggencate's questions(van Til, Bahnsen insights), they just sit there stunned or change the topic. 

Counter arguments against Presuppositionalism

Presuppositionalism is a take on the Münchhausen trillema and resolves this trilemma. The mistake all rebuttals to presup take is the failure to recognize this, materialist and Atheistic world views have to resolve the circularity and regress problem and especially explain on what basis their conclusion assumes the law of excluded middle: God either exists or he doesn't - no third option. Obviously the laws of logic being assumed in the respective conclusions are contained within the premises of all world views.

Blogger KnownNoMore from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcDebJuWcww&list=PLosPU1tNxECsyPYzhmJAbmn2eVuiqhrka assumes that *understanding* and non-comprehension are our only options in his conclusion and rebuttal of Bruggencate: from what premise was this derived without circularity? Answer is none, which is why the Münchhausen trillema is designated as an Unsolved problems in philosophy on Wikipedia. If the Presup argument had never been formulated then it would not have absolved the materialist nor any other world view from explaining how the circularity of assuming the laws of logic in all conclusion in the premises, are to be resolved. Evidences, facts etc. are evaluated in terms of our presuppositions.

In a discussion with Prof. Burkhard from Edinburgh University on this very matter , his view is to designate the Münchhausen trilemma(Agrippa's trilemma) as "uninteresting" and to reject the very notion of foundationalism and asked me why there would be anything wrong with an infinite regress. He understands what is at stake better than most and commits the Positivist error: his foundation is that he has no foundation, much like Dawkins believes he has no beliefs.

Any attempt at avoiding the horns of the trilemma is self-refuting because the laws of logic are in the conclusion that rejects the trilemma and it is precisely this(accpetance/rejection, interesting/uninteresting) conclusion which is being assumed in the premise as stated by the the trilemma.

If we had followed materialism this far with clear ideas, when we reached its highest point we would suddenly be seized with a fit of the inextinguishable laughter of the Olympians. As if waking from a dream, we would all at once become aware that its fatal result --knowledge-- which it had reached so laboriously, was presupposed as the indispensible condition of its very starting point. - Schopenhauer. Note that Schopenhauer considered Hegel a fraud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUqfq_B8Gq4 coin flipping analogy example is incorrect because we do know for certain that either heads or tails will result. If I say the speed limit outside is 30 but that I could be wrong about it, then I don't know the speed limit. 2min TheGlobalAtheism author is not aware of Tarski's semantic theorem of truth, namely that it is impossible to define truth. But if it is impossible to define truth then how do we know that everything we say isn't therefore undefined? We know it isn't because Truth himself became flesh 2000 years ago. - Philosophyideas.com#Truth_can.27t_be_defined

http://www.goddiscussion.com/113706/answering-the-fool-film-promoting-presuppositional-apologetics-slated-for-national-promotion-aug-6/, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb6IjGYmjDA All through their attempts at refuting presup, they assumed the Law of excluded middle in their conclusions, namely that either we are an "Ace" in some Sim's game or we are not and fail to explain the circularity of deriving the laws of logic from the laws of logic. Comment on ....9min .... they invoke the - Extremely Advanced Computer god - but of course don't believe such exists attempting to switch from Atheist to computer god theist mid argument. Bruggencate's videos deals with this specific tactic by pointing out the the person is now no longer an Atheist, his original position. All these types of arguments display a high degree of exasperation and anger towards the presup Xtian, clueless concerning Agrippa's trilemma. Presuppositionalism isn't "disingenious" as the blogger claims, but a resolution to our rhetorical circularly entrapped logic.

Comment on ...10min... The Law of excluded middle transcends any simulation we might be in, since God himself defined himself as the three laws of logic we use to reason, we therefore know for certain that we are not in some human controlled or space alien controlled simulation. Pending: http://www.nickbostrom.com/ phil papers on being in a simulation.

Agrippa's trilemma takes precedence over Euthyphros Dilemma because it demands that the circularity of the laws of logic be resolved before any other problems can be addressed because all other dilemmas and paradoxes will assume the validity of Platonic excluded middle, law of identity and non-contradiction.

Solipsism

This section is work in progress, contains rough notes from Bruggencate interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCXFxrmqIpQ&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

11 soliphism .... why do i have to prove anything to your mind .....

proposition assumed without proof or evidence as a basis for some further conclusion.

13min soliphsm means you cannot make any truth claim about things outside your mind.

debating user LiveLife8072

16min .... we could be wrong that everything we assume could be wrong ..... is the absurdity of saying ... we could be wrong about everyhting ....

17min .... could you be wrong about me being wrong ....

20min LiveLIfe8072 finally like Stephen Law reveals his Agrippian problem: derive rationality without circularity, which is impossible. 

Resolution of Münchhausen Trilemma

The prevention of infinite regress is the virtuous tautology(virtuous law of Identity) 'I Am That I Am'(Exodus 3:14-15), God's infinite knowledge preventing suspension of reason by regression. Rhetorical circularity is avoided by the virtuous circularity of God's infinite knowledge justifying that all his conclusions are contained in his premises.(Heb 6:13-15). Axioms are based on Genesis 8 induction, this resolves the third leg of Agrippa.

All the variations of the Ontological argument for the existence of God, bootstraps the Law of excluded middle without justifying it first. God's existence can only be derived by assuming God's existence - justifying the trinity of logic that is the fabric of our language. (Gen 1, Rev 22, Heb 6, Exodus 3 ). Agrippa's trilemma implies that no matter how sophisticated an argument might be, the conclusion are already contained in at least one of the premises. Thus the only way we could know anything and justify the circularity of our own reasoning - preventing arbitrariness of belief(violates law of noncontradiction) - is only under two conditions:

  • Revelation from God who knows everything.
  • and cannot lie, or we would not be able to believe God, in spite of him knowing everything.

Rhetorical tautology

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 arguments that bind the premise to the conclusion is guaranteed or that, by defining a dissimilar or synonymous term in terms of another , the truth of the explanation cannot be disputed,any conclusion is a Non-sequitur. Consequently, the arguments conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable. This doesn't mean that the conclusion is either falsifiable or not but that it didn't derive logically from the premise via the arguments. It is a way of formulating a description such that it masquerades as an explanation when the real reason for the phenomena or conclusion cannot be independently derived. A rhetorical tautology should not be confused with a tautology in propositional logic. Rhetorical tautology derives its meaning as Platonic inverse of Virtuous tautology(I Am That I Am) .

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-(Fleeming Jenkin). Numbers themselves cannot measured and have no physical location(David Berlinski).

Emprical experiences are ratiocinated about in terms of antonymity, this Platonic contrast cannot therefore itself be empirical precluding infinite regress of empiricism: the unscientific, unfalsifiable, untestable enables empiricism . Creationism, IC or Irreducible Functionality by logical necessity cannot therefore be scientific. Thompson's Composite Integrity is not scientific because it enables the well reasoned explication about empiricisms and must be unscientific to avoid infinite regress of science. Therefore being unscientific isn't irrational because non-science enables science, falsifiability is a subset of unfalsifiability. Science itself cannot be scientific if it is to avoid infinite regress of science or rhetorical circularity(testability is itself not testable).

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. A number like seven is the means of expressing antonymic decreasing/increasing . To get from 7 to 8 you increase and from 6 to 5, decreasing. Seven is the metaphor for: Though shalt express all of existence as increase or decrease. All of language functions as metaphor, nothing has a literal meaning, because meaning has no physical location. Number exists only in the mind. The same thing is described by different numbers according to the mind's viewpoint. An object can have an extension of one, three, and thirty six, according to its measurement in yards, feet, and inches -George_Berkeley#wikisource.

Rhetorical tautologies state the same thing twice, while appearing to state 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 Münchhausen infinite regress of tests on the logical validity would be avoided. The Münchhausen trilemma, one of the Unsolved problems in philosophy, proposes that any world view reduces ultimately to the choice between un-provable axiomatic assumptions or infinite regress of language, reasoning, logic and metaphor.


Circular reasoning

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). Rhetorical 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, meaning that the conclusion is assumed in the premise from the finite. We conclude only with what we assumed to begin with. Rhetorical(vicious) circularity is deriving a World view conclusion from the finite in such a way that the conclusion is equivalent to the premise, meaning that at some point in the argument we repeat ourselves. In this context circularity is a subset of tautology. Tautologies states the same thing twice and is true due to its logical form independent of any premises and conclusions. Thus the view that tautologies and circularity are not the same is a bit hazy, all circular arguments are tautological but not all tautologies circular because not all tautologies occur in the context of deriving conclusions from premises.

Virtuous circularity is deriving a World view conclusion from Infinite knowledge(God), such that the conclusions are equivalent to the premises by necessity. Our reasoning is in the grip of Agrippa's trilemma and thus we have no choice but to use our reasoning to justify our reasoning, either by appealing to God who knows everything(virtuous) or the finite(rhetorical): in order to know anything you must know everything, or appeal to God who knows everything, because what you don't know might contradict what you do know..

Rhetorical circularity derives its meaning as Platonic opposite to virtuous circularity - not all circularity is fallacious. God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ assumes all of his conclusions in his premises because he knows everything. Without a premise there can be no conclusion, many sentences are position statements formulated tautologically but are not a conclusion to anything, since no premise is specified. Behe's mouse trap reduces ultimately to Platonic action/reaction. A reaction makes no sense without an action. What existed before the world itself existed was antonymity.

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 conclusion is already contained in the premise usually in disguised form in order to obfuscate that the argument despite its length and complexity merely repeats itself. (pending: the evolutionary adaptation,acquisition conclusion is contained in the premises with dissimilar terms such as "variation" ).

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 Platonic 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.

The context of Aristotle's combatitive "begging" was a court setting where the one side would 'demand' or forcefully point out that the other side were deriving a conclusion from a non-specified premise. Hence "requesting the premise" should be used as it less confrontational. Aristotle did not specifically address the issue of circular reasoning it seems. His own works as with the rest of Greek philosophy(Democritus, Lucretius) are laced with the poison of rhetorical tautological arguments: Greek philosophy's conclusions are non-sequiturs. Thus they would not have known the difference between circularity and tautology. The virtuous "I Am That I Am" tautology derives its meaning as Platonic contrast to rhetorical or vicious tautology.

But do you see what has happened here? By ignoring natural, chaotic fluctuations in clouds, researchers have come to the (mistaken) conclusion that there is no need to look for clouds as a cause of climate change. ...They ended up concluding only what they had assumed to begin with... http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/circular-reasoning-in-the-theory-of-manmade-global-warming/

An aging population and expanding social net leaves the governments of the world desperate for additional tax income, they already concluded that human activity equates to warming the earth because of the desire to regulate and tax human activity at the carbon consumption level and in such a way that companies cannot extricate themselves from it through tax loopholes. Global warming became "climate change" when it emerged that the earth is actually cooling , hence the theory that human activity influences the climate is Popper unfalsifiable because the climate always changes and any cooling or warming ebb and flow will be attributed to human activity in order to justify a global consumption tax.

Measurment

In quantum mechanics any result of a measurement by a quantum observer(cat, human) of a real dynamical variable is one of its eigenvalues. An observer always causes the system to jump into an eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is being measured. In a sense quantum theory is exclusively concerned with the results of measurement. When the system in question is the whole universe the Observer is God the Father of our Lord Jesus. "Esse est percipi" ("To be is to be perceived"). http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/George_Berkeley#.3D_Treatise

Measurement, is a dissimilar term for consciousness. Attempting to measure consciousness with MRI is like measuring the temperature difference between two telephone exchanges switching information: where the traffic is routed is not where it is generated. When a human or Schrodinger cat observer collapses the wave function we are not causing anything but experiencing a state caused by God. Thus we can't invent our "own reality" as New Age quantum theorists assert.

Consciousness, like numbers has no physical location, the empirical is only possible because of the unmeasurable, the only thing that exists is consciousness. George Berkeley. http://books.google.co.za/books?id=I1ypyLl76lsC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=george+berkeley+tautology&source=bl&ots=NvgSL6U_Rv&sig=RowHmw2bVrX70ziwlBtjL0U4tmI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bv7FUaDhD6rb7Aa8oYDgCg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=george%20berkeley%20tautology&f=false . When the supernova is detected for the first time by a device , it reaches back across space and time "instructing" the photons to form an image on the photographic plate, based solely on the act of measurement or consciousness.(Quantum erasure experiment) 

God the great Antonymic Measurer continually ratiocinates about everything enabling thermodynamics(concentrate/uniformity), numbers(increase/regress), force(action/reaction). The empirical heat/cold experience is not "reality" but only an instantiation the Platonic Measurer's observing and calling those things that be not as though they were(faith). Matter consists largely of empty space, dividing an atom into smaller and smaller parts one eventually arrives at nothing, implying that matter consists of nothing which Berlinski noted makes no sense. Differential equations as language is all that exists at the most fundamental level of quarks,leptons etc. Anything that exists , exists only because a consciousness knows about it. Matter is an effect, materialism confuses cause with effect. God generates these sense perceptions and gives them to us by routing it through our brain.

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". 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. God the Father is ultimate reality and cannot have an explanation or he wouldn't be ultimate reality.

It is a well known principle in philosophy that ultimate reality cannot have an explanation or the explanation itself becomes ultimate reality ad-infinitum: the best explanation does not need an explanation.

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. Information is any functional system that represents something other than itself through a Platonic encoding/decoding mechanism. In the paper - "The mathematics of matter and the mathematics of mind" - Berlinski argues that the division of ordinary experience between material and mental objects finds itself mirrored in the division between continuous and discrete mathematics. That human language is the expression of a unique computational system, one that is entirely discrete. I have not read the paper yet, but from the abstract he seems to be saying that matter and energy continuity is an illusion created by our mental processes that are computationally discreet, there is no state between nothing and something. The world is a digital simulation, as we go smaller and smaller we don't approach nothingness but non-locality, there is a limit to how small things can become and how short time can be. See http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1768100.1768102&coll=DL&dl=GUIDE&CFID=231843751&CFTOKEN=78650802#

Platonic opposites justification are that the Münchhausen 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. In order to perceive 'nothingness', there has to be a 'somethingness'. Before 'nothingness' would ever be reached, an infinite suspension of reason will take place. Science or empirical observation derives its meaning as the antonym of the non-empirical and it is this antonymic assumption that http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design doesn't address. Hinduism states that all are one and that we must strive to reach a state of Nirvana. This means that we are already in Nirvana and is thus self-refuting.

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.

Kierkegaard wrote:

In short, to demonstrate the existence of someone who al­ready exists is the most shameless assault. It is an attempt to make him ludicrous. The trouble is that one does not even sus­pect this, that in dead seriousness one even regards it as a godly undertaking. How could it occur to anyone to demonstrate that God exists unless one has already allowed himself to ignore him?

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 Münchhausen 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 Münchhausen trilemma as its major premise for the logician to determine whether the conclusion derives logically. 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.

Richard Dawkins book the 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 and violating the law of excluded middle. Richard Dawkins premise is that God's existence is improbable,but because his arguments induces infinitism and violates the law of excluded middle, 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 blogosphere, 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. Verbs are equivalent to "computer functions" that operate on input data(nouns), expressing intent analogous to a mathematical function mapping the domain to the range. (ref: http://paleoglot.blogspot.com/2012/04/on-computational-nature-of-syntax.html) To kill the mouse with Behe's IC mousetrap, crank the engine or make juice a number parts are arranged forming a composite integrity, enabling a desired function. The parts needed can be increased to form Rube Goldberg , decreased to a bare minimum or optimized for cost and engineering redundancy. All these mechanical devices are a subset of Newton's third law - action/reaction , cause/effect. This unfalsifiable a priori Platonic anonymity enables the ratiocination about empiricisms and cannot therefore itself be empirical - objectivity does not need and object and testability is itself not testable.

The nature of logical necessity is Platonic antonymic unfalsifiability, without it we would not be able to describe empiricisms in terms of cause/effect. We can be no more "scientific" ourselves than we can be calibrated between a zero and span, the only thing that we are is composite atonymic integrity. Atheists and ID theorists asserting that they are scientific are formulating meaningless concepts. Scientists are confusing their descriptions of nature with an explanation of nature itself. When God the Father stated "... I am that I am...." he meant: I am that I am because I have no Münchhausen Trilemian explanation. God the Father is therefore not falsifiable in his essence. Antony Flew falsification test for God. If this were not so, it would raise the question as to how a Münchhausen infinite regress of tests on a falsifiable God are to be avoided. A testable God would raise the question as to how such test in turn would be testable, inducing infinitism. Therefore falsifiability is a subset of unfalsifiability which avoids infinite regress of testability. God isn't scientific because he established science, preventing infinite regress of science(empiricism). If God were to be scientific , he wouldn't be God- if his existence could be proven he wouldn't be God.

The IC concept of Composite Integrity or Irreducible Functionality can't develop gradually because God did not develop gradually - God is unscientific antonymic composite integrity(Behe's IC or Chomsky's innate universal grammar). IC like God has no explanation, it is not an empirical concept but an unfalsifiable logical antonymic necessity facilitating the ratiocination about empiricisms. If numbers themselves could be measured then it would induce an infinite regress of measurements.

Darwin recognized Behe's IC or Thompson's CI principle in Aristotle's description of the formation of teeth and objected to it by formulating a claim of logic from which he concluded that the acquisition of attributes realized gradually from the premise that the present attributes in organisms weren't in the distant ancestors. D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson's Composite Integrity or IC traces back to Kant, Alexander Pope and Aristotle. The IC principle(revived by Behe) was recognized by Darwin in Aristotle's theory of the spontaneous - PunkEek - generation of teeth as opposed to its gradual formation, which was Darwin's position. His rhetorical questions on "...half a wing..." with the Victorian demeanor of the time, was not a championing of Irreducible Functionality or IC but an acknowledgement of the concept so as to counter it with gradualism, a position held by the surgeon John Hunter and presently by Richard Dawkins.

Age of the earth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGB-PfFSV2w&feature=relmfu Wazooloo.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ Journalist and Researcher Richard Milton presents a case that what we have been taught about Darwin's theory of evolution is totally wrong and that this most fundamental belief with respect to human origins should be completely re-evaluated by main stream scientific and academic institutions. Author of the book "Shattering The Myths of Darwinism," Richard Milton does not represent the Creationist movement either. He simply states, that Darwin's theory of evolution does not stand up to logical scientific scrutiny. Get the facts in this original uncut interview that was filmed for the production of the NBC Special Documentary "The Mysterious Origins of Man - Rewriting Human History,"

Begging the question

Tiktaalik. How does one know whether he had kids or not, if he had no offspring, how could he be the ancestor of anybody? Many fossils are arbitrarily classified as being not of the same species, how do we know they weren't of the same species like a Great Dane and Chiwawa are.

Gould's PunkEek confuses the issue, it deals with a perception of scale but doesn't escape the circularity of the argument. A fossil of a Great Dane on Australia and a poodle in the USA are of the same species(kinds?). Many fossils found on different continents are classified as separate species after tossing a coin, from the bones themselves it can't be deduced. Their theory don't allow for the same species to be discovered on different continents and thus arbitrarily classify fossils which might be the same species as different. The way the word "adaptation" as used by the Neo-Aristotelians also begs the question, their premise with it is that species did in fact transform into others, but this is the very issue that needs to be demonstrated. Something which will remain impossible to do because we don't know whether a single fossil anywhere is the ancestor of anybody.

Lets presume that every single fossil ever found died as a result of a flood, then the notion of different species descending from such fossils would be impossible. It might be that species transformed into others with no ancestor fossils left behind, but there would be no way to falsify such a notion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Reinhold_Treviranus (Transmutation) used transmutation, today common descent is used which is a game with words: It depends what is meant with the terms. Vernacular for simian,ape, Bonobo is "monkey".

http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/logical-fallacies-circular-reasoning-aka-the-tautology/ is incorrect - a tautology isn't circular reasoning. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

Notes

Who made God?

The YEC God is defined as not created, thus lets rephrase the question: How was a being who wasn't himself created , created?

The question can be generalized:

  • Why is a phenomena, that is defined as possessing a property not have that property?

Materialism is dangerous to one's mental health. The best explanation doesn't need an explanation or the explanation itself would need an explanation ad-infinitum - William Lane Craig. The irony in Dawkins space aliens reply to Ben Stein is that the question who made God(infallible) applies actually to space aliens(fallible) because they are not God. God is the best explanation and does not need an explanation , but space aliens certainly do.

Antony Flew's falsification test for God

IF ultimate reality(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_%28philosophy%29) or God were falisifiable, it would raise the question as to what would then in turn falsify such test and then such test in turn into Münchhausen Trilemma infinitism.

A logical tautology(Tautological assertions is a statement which is true by its logical structure: A or not-A and must be so by logical necessity. The question as to how one can construct a falsification test for Tautological assertions isn't raised because it would induce infinite regress - Logical fallacies#Who_made_God.3F.

infallibility is defined as unfalsifiable. If something is defined as having a property, it is a claim of logic that falsification tests can't be devised for it and thus no questions as to how one would make it falsifiable is raised.

An invisible pink unicorn is defined as unfalsifiable. Flew seems to be saying that if a deity has unfalsifiable attributes(invisible) and falsifiable attributes(pink) a series of questions attempting to falsify the deity can be raised. Fleeming Jenkin pointed out that in science we measure things using numbers that themselves can't be measured. Thus falsifiability itself must must assume an unmeasurable and thus unfalsifiable concept; David Berlinski stated that numbers have no physical location. In a sense Popper falsifiability is itself not falsifiable.

God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is defined as infallible and thus Popper unfalsifiable: this must be so by logical necessity, if God could be reduced to falsifiable construct he wouldn't be God. Therefore Antony Flew's series of questions to falsify God isn't raised to begin with. An infallible Creator is the best explanation for the universe and the best explanation doesn't need an explanation or we induce Infinite regress. Should a deity have weaknesses or liabilities such a many of the other gods in mythology then indeed Flew's series of falsification questions applies to them. The reason why God forbids images of him being made is because infallibility can't be represented within our conceptual reference frame. Those religions depicting their deities with physical attributes are wide open to Flew's Popper falsification test.

Begging the question, not the same as tautology3

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

In the Atomism-premise debate there is a tendency to separate any potential mechanism from the definition of Life1 itself. Life1 itself isn't defined in terms of materialist premises, hence any discussion about a mechanism isn't possible. From the YEC premise that no attributes were acquired but created 6000 years ago, they are merely expressed, the question as to a mechanism that would result in acquisition of new attributes that would result in new species isn't raised.

. A paragraph,essay or book constituting an argument about the origin of species has a premise(EpiCurus-premise or YEC-premise) and a conclusion. The mechanism that enables an organism to express its attributes will be dependent on the premise. See Only sentences can be tautologies , Stanford tautologies, Ken Ham and Polar bear not adapted to anything.

Other

  • Equivocation between redundancy, vragility, innovation,  functionality and complexity in discussing Irreducible Functionality.
  • Using volitional type language from the Pattern or design context, but rejecting the Platonic binary opposites that such language represented before the Age of Enlightenment, resulting in Meaningless sentences.
  • Authors using oxymoron terms like 'natural selection' and not knowing whether they use it as a metaphor or not and if a metaphor can't explain what this metaphor represents in the knowledge context pre genes(Darwin) and post genes.
  • Using concepts such as Life1 itself as if it was defined: Life1 itself isn't defined within materialist premises and thus the term Biology - study of life isn't available to them: one can't formulate theories about water without knowing that water is defined as H2O as per Prof. Cleland , see - Life1.

False analogy

On usenet I asked the question: What did the first talking monkey's mommy look like? The response was : What did the first speaker of French mother speak? This is a false analogy because the first speaker of French, mother would have the same morphological features, while the first talking monkey's mommy(who could not talk) morphology would have been different.

notes

  • Innocence by association - Fallacy used when erroneously trying to equate F=ma with a tautological proposition, in order to associate a fallacious tautological argument with it and thus extract it from its tautological implications. JohnWilkins attempts to do this( get citations at some time) - Physics equations aren't tautologies
  • retrospective specification - fallacy used to bypass arguments about how it will take more than eternity to get a cell formation, never mind an elephant.

notes

http://www.ephilosopher.com/philosophy-forums/philosophy-of-science-forum/natural-selection-is-a-tautology/6/

.....The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....

Restating the premise in the conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.

Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise.

notes

On Jan 9, 2:14 pm, Burkhard wrote:

NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....

  • >
  • > > Restating the premise in conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.
  • >
  • > circular reasoning has the form A, B, ....Xn |- A.  Since this holds
  • > in all models (is true in all possible worlds), it is indeed
  • > tautologous in the technical sense.

.... Those that proliferate , perpetuate their descendants... . Which one is the premise and which one the conclusion? As far as I can see perpetuate and proliferate says the same thing twice in all contexts whatever your premise and conclusion.

A tautology can't be refuted , nor verified in any context. With circular reasoning , if it can be shown what premise , not clearly stated by the formulator is being assumed then we can make his conclusion conditional on exploring the validity of his premise and thus perhaps agree that his conclusion follows logically from his premise. With rhetorical tautologies, any conclusion is a non-sequitur, not so with logical validities and virtuous tautologies(I Am That I Am).

With the evo debates , we have two issues: 1) It is assumed that fossil dead bones had babies that made it to reproductive age, something we will never know. 2) To obfuscate this fact a struggle theme or battle between the creatures is introduced which can't be falsified.

> > Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise and I was amazed to see people with philosophy degrees confuse this with a tautology.

Videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoBUdwfQFX4&feature=youtube_gdata_player 23 Dec.2013 AaronRa and Sye debate

  • aaronra - on truth 7min: .... truth is whatever we can objectivily verify .... but in another video on other dogma debate show he stated that  "...truth deals with wisdom...."  (citation to be added later) 
  • Aronra - that if something cannot be measured it isn't real
  • 15min aronra violates law of excluded middle, either he can reason rationally or he can't, there is no third option. Not sure why Sye did not pick up on this.
  • 19min fallacy of irrelevant thesis
  • Aronra - 21min - "..one cannot know things that cannot be demonstrated ..." , this is incorrect as the laws of logic cannot be demonstrated , yet we know they are true. 
  • Sye ...22min  justification is only a constituent of knowledge. Knowledge cannot be demonstrated, it is justified true belief. (transcribe better)

links

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/01/jerry-coyne-on-why-you-dont-really-have-free-will.html Free will Maverick Philosopher

Laurence Krauss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQvL8U0f-NA states that he does not have certainty and commits fallacy of hasty generalization. William Lane Craig states that he is not certain that God exists and exclaimed it with a no! 4:10min

Pending ideas

  • In the same way that imaginary equivocates with fictional in the complex numbering system, entropy equivocates with randomness. In one context imaginary is a dissimilar term for meaningless. One's bank account is not projected at an angle of 30degrees(x + yi), but at 180 - straight line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number) by convention, anything else would not symbolically represent either a negative or positive cash balance between signal receiver/sender. What the square root of -1 represents such as a force acting at an angle isn't imaginary or fictional, nor meaningless. A force is something that acts in all three dimensions, ones bank balance isn't a force but linear concept represented not the plane as with complex numbering but on a straight line using Real numbers.

Those not versed in Fourier transforms would mistake Hawking's usage of "imaginary" with fictional or even meaningless in his popular books for the general public.

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.