Detecting design or intent in nature

[FatAndFaithless]

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).


[The Grand Nudger]

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.

As I've already mentioned, my opinion is that your inductive argument is terminally weak for the very same reasons that a deductive argument along those lines is invalid. This isn't always the case between a deductive or an inductive argument along the same premises or leveraging similar statements..it just happens to be the case with your specific arguments. Calling an argument inductive doesn't make it any stronger. Deductive arguments, as I had hoped to show you with the example of shipwrecks, aren't always certain even when they are valid. They are only true insomuch as they are expressions of the consequences of a system which, we hope, adequately describes the relationships of this to that in a demonstrable manner. Both inductive and deductive arguments have conditions to meet if we are to assign any measure of confidence to them (which, rather amusingly, you implied was irrelevant). I have no confidence in your arguments - no matter how we structure them- and I've explained why.

IOW...your arguments have been considered exhaustively. We simply cannot get from here to there. Not by deductive reasoning, not by inductive reasoning. The statements you chose to make are required to have some relationship with each other that we can draw conclusions or convincing reason from - regardless of validity or soundness, regardless of structure-this must happen first. They do not. You -could- address that.......or, you could bitch and moan and call me a dum-dum. Up to you.

I have goals or I do not have goals
Many of my shits have come into existence
Many of my shits have since been flushed
Flushing has no purpose
Therefore I have no goals.

Convinced? Of course you aren't. Deconstruct my argument for me, tell me why.

(I hope your instructor flunked you btw. If not, I'd be looking for a better instructor, or a more productive way to spend a year of my life)

[Alex K]

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).


[StuW]

[LostLocke]

It's like someone learned a bunch of big, but mostly meaningless words, and just slapped them together until they formed grammatically correct, but also mostly meaningless, sentences.

[Chili]

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.?

Wait, we have a language problem here maybe. It is true that we eat for our good health, and is that why you say is implicit before seeing the end?

I use Being in being, with good health assigned to the Being that is prior the material framework in which we are. Our body is the embodiment for the Being inside, which so is a by-product and therefore the material cause.

[FatAndFaithless]

This just in, from the random Depak Chopra quote generator: "The universe grows through species specific photons"

[Alex K]

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.?

Wait, we have a language problem here maybe. It is true that we eat for our good health, and is that why you say is implicit before seeing the end?

I have to sincerely apologize to you. I didn't understand a single word of your huge text and ironically made an equally meaningless and arbitrary correction to it, just to make fun of the fact that I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[Chili]

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.?

No, it has to be Being in being, or Joyce could never be "pregnant with despair." In other words, pain and sorrow could not come about.

[LostLocke]

This just in, from the random Depak Chopra quote generator: "The universe grows through species specific photons"

Ooo, ooo... my turn:
"Infinity is the womb of positive destiny"