Okay, all well and good, now if you could elaborate on our various points of disagreement? Show me where I've made an error? I've put my cards on the table, what I know is there for anyone to see - rip it to shreds, I positively invite the experience into my life. You're just claiming to have some cards...behind your back..in your pocket....I don't know where. You say they exist though, so I guess that's that. hrugs:

If this is going to be a pissing contest lets make it a pissing contest between -claims- at the very least, eh? Otherwise, I've got a real big dick, and are you sure this is the hill to die on? We're both interested in the same thing. A sound deductive or solid inductive reason to state that nature has no purpose.

Look, if you can acknowledge the weaknesses in either argument and say "I still think it's decent" - then we have a simple difference of opinion. If you think those weaknesses simply aren;t -present-...then please, make that case. It would be great to have yet another strong argument in favor of nature-with-no-purpose.

Rhythm, you disagree with fundamental basics of logic. What's the point mate? You actually don't understand what you're talking about. You caught a few things here and there from internet debates and you think you're the man now huh?

Bullshit.

No, I don't. I disagree -with you-. More specifically, I disagree with the method you've used to generate two conclusions (while simultaneously agreeing with your conclusion for reasons entirely separate). Cmon.

Regardless of where I picked up what I know (doesn;t really matter, does it?) - is there some issue you'd like to elaborate upon with what I've said...rather than with me, personally?

I don't know how to continue a discussion on this topic with you because you disagree with what I spent the whole of 2014 studying.

If a doctor prescribes something and you reject it, how is the doctor supposed to continue? You have irrationally and due to ignorance rejected my statements. How am I to continue?

There's nothing wrong with where you get your knowledge because knowledge is knowledge. But to deny what is as if it were not is ridiculous. That's all I got bro.

Then I suppose we're at an impasse, if your exhaustive study of logic hasn't granted you any insight as to how you might explain the situation to me. I guess I'll just continue to be wrong, so sayeth Mason, wishing that I could only figure out how to be right? How unfortunate for me, eh.

Dude, it's clear to me that you don't understand the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Deductive arguments are 100% certain and therefore valid. Inductive arguments are not. When I make an inductive argument you apply deductive criteria. This tells me you don't know what you're talking about.

Wikipedia Wrote:Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof
of) the truth of the conclusion. While
the conclusion of a deductive argument
is supposed to be certain, the truth of
the conclusion of an inductive
argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given. [1] The philosophical definition of
inductive reasoning is more nuanced
than simple progression from
particular/individual instances to
broader generalizations. Rather, the
premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the
conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.
In this manner, there is the possibility
of moving from general statements to
individual instances (for example,
statistical syllogisms, discussed below).

The problem with "inductive reasoning" is that it's often a euphemism for made-up bullshit.

You just don't understand made up bullshit!

Yeah nice, I like that better

That's not a comment on the argument. I've given up trying to figure out what this is all about.

(January 13, 2015 at 9:28 am)bennyboy Wrote: The problem with "inductive reasoning" is that it's often a euphemism for made-up bullshit.

That is why neologic induction is not in the sandbox and is why God is always Formal first cause.

Creation always is the Formal Cause in being that needs an Efficient Cause to make known the Material Cause in the Final Cause. It so spells essence precedes existence = outside the sandbox from where the Formal equals the Final, i.e. Formal is always "the God said" and therefore is home sweet home for logos (and hence all roads lead to Rome).

But, inasmuch as a dead man is not a man logos is not a syllogism until it is engendered in the Efficient to be made worthy in the Material to exist in the Final that we could call 'come to rest in our soul' where it is absorbed (not adsorbed) in our RNA. This spells the difference between parousia and synousia from Plato's Twelfth Epistle in 'to be', that in the Universal has a plural in 'ta onta' and therefore yields the pyramid model of Rome.

This is where God is first cause, Lord-God second, like-god third and God as man in the fourth re-created as updated each generation again (as per Gen.1 ,2 and 3). Then notice that the material cause is the re-source for the efficient cause to make manifest the fifth where nature is the fullness as Being in being that we would call evolution as seen after the fact.

In other words, if the four causes have reason to be it will be made manifest in the fifth and that is for the seer to see. For example, this would be where 'to our good health' is greater than the components of the meal itself, as designed first, then as formed and as presented to us because we must eat to stay alive only because life is prior to us.

This where Hyletic vision is the material cause as dumb and later bewildered (think woman here as womb of man, or prior in nature while chomping at the bit as responder (and ready for a lay or a nourishing meal = same thing as intercourse, we can say)). Note here that Hyletic is also known as hylic that is curious and wants to know [with a thousand shades of grey in between].

Kinetic vision is the efficient cause as the primary origin of change to be made. This is where the idea is seen as a cause that is prompted by woman in the beauty we see (as what I call the vapor of truth that is prior to us), and thus we go for the charm to find out what it is all about. It is just human to be curious, and that is why woman is the source (the flash), always subliminally ours that leads to Kinetic vision right from the start. (Aloof this also is where emergent properties come from that bring evolution about).

((This first mover can be trauma also, but that would be less natural as designed like a good meal would be, but still is effective in nature as part of the future we see simply because we are consciously aware that we will die.))

In the end it is fair to say that the changer is the cause of what is changed, and for the changer to be moved into action the material cause (that we call nature but I call woman as the material cause/RNA) is the negative stand for creation to be that so leads to the conflict we see and therefore is ex-nihilo created to be. From this follows that this conflict is what we call God as prime mover of all. And be reminded here that what the ancients called "the "Fifth" is seen by us all and therefore we say only the fittest survive, but in the end means that God is the leading edge in us when a stand is made between two opposites out of which at least a change can be made, or comes about in the dark while in oblivion that we would call sin.

We would call this Telic vision in the particular here, in which the change made was good for the maker, which so is where the Formal Cause comes to rest in the Final for the good of this particular (hence is a shepherd image for him).

From here Eidetic Vision can follow where not just the particular is seen but also the Universal and it is from there where neologic induction is made in full force when Noetic vision is found. This is where the preacher would be an imposter if he tells us that we must die before good things can come about because for Noetic to be only a change of vision needs to be found (or the idea of shepherd could no longer be as subset of the Universal in this).

While that is not part of the argument here, Telic vision is just one of those twelve and that is where involution is the negative stand to bring the next change about because Noetic vision is real (or telic could not be). This is from where the idea of God is introduced as a promise made by 'the' woman in us by whom eternity is seen as the leading edge of infinity in us (and therefore "my Lord and my God" in the Gospels someplace).

For clarity let me add the substance itself is 3rth cause in this line "In other words, if the four causes have reason to be it will be made manifest in the fifth and that is for the seer to see. For example, this would be where 'to our good health' is greater than the components of the meal itself, as designed first, then as formed, and as presented to us because we must eat to stay alive only because life is prior to us" that becomes the source as resource and we must consume our equal to stay alive and therefore the bread of life is our equal in this.

OK, here we go:

In other words, if the four causes have reason to be it will be made manifest in the fifth and that is for the seer to see. For example, this would be where 'to our good health' is greater than the components of the meal itself: 1 as designed first, 2 as formed, 3 from ingredients made, 4 as presented to us, and 5 we must eat to stay alive because life is prior to us," and that becomes the source as resource and we must consume our equal to stay alive and therefore the bread of life is our equal in this.

Chili Wrote:Then notice that the material cause is the re-source for the efficient cause to make manifest the fifth where nature is the fullness as Being in being that we would call evolution as seen after the fact.

Wouldn't one rather say that the material cause is the framework for the efficient cause to make implicit the fifth where nature is the fullness as Being before being that we would call evolution as seen after the fact.?