An interview on God and mathematics

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 17, 2021

Intelligent Design, Mathematics, theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Some of us think mathematics is the best argument for God available. Anyway, here’s Jerry Bowyer’s interview with philosopher Vern Poythress:

The standard modern culture-war revolves around God vs. the mathematical sciences. Take your choice: Faith or physics. Then there are the voices of mutual toleration, which attempt to leave room for science among the faithful and for faith among the scientific. Poythress, though, taps into a different tradition entirely, one which is seldom heard in modern debate: That God and science are neither enemies, nor partners, but rather that God is the necessary foundation for mathematics and therefore of every science which uses it.
The argument is that mathematical laws, in order to be properly relied upon, must have attributes which indicate an origin in God. They are true everywhere (omnipresent), true always (eternal), cannot be defied or defeated (omnipotent), and are rational and have language characteristics (which makes them personal). Omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, personal… Sounds like God. Math is an expression of the mind of God. Sound strange? It isn’t. Modern natural science was created by people who said that they were trying to “think God’s thoughts after Him.”
Jerry Bowyer, “God In Mathematics” at Forbes

See also: Things exist that are unknowable: A tutorial on Chaitin’s number

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments

Dead thread but Jordan Peterson is commenting on debacle on teaching math and racism https://mobile.twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1363641727479812096 New book out soon. Will he address math education? https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Order-More-Rules-Life/dp/0593084640/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=12+rules+for+life&qid=1613669904&sprefix=12+Rules+&sr=8-4jerry_{February 22, 2021
February
02
Feb
22
22
2021
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

Some rather accurate quips by Senator Kennedy of Louisiana
Comment about Cuomo lecturing us. "It is like a frog calling you ugly" This election in Ga will be the most important in history; you have nothing to worry about unless you are a tax payer, parent, gun owner, cop, person of faith, or an unborn baby! Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana describes Democrats as the “well intended arugula and tofu crowd.” You can only be young once, but you can always be immature. Americans are thinking, there are some good members of Congress but we can’t figure out what they are good for. Others are thinking, how did these morons make it through the birth canal.” Always follow your heart.....but take your brains with you The short answer is ‘No.’ The long answer is ‘Hell No.’ It must suck to be that dumb When the Portland mayor's IQ gets to 75, he oughta sell. :) I keep trying to see Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer's point of view, but I can't seem to get my head that far up my *** Go sell your crazy somewhere else...we are all stocked up here. She has a billy goat brain and a mockingbird mouth! he trusted Middle Eastern countries as much as gas station sushi, with the exception being Israel. You can get a goat to climb tree, but you’d be better off hiring a squirrel. This has been going on since Moby Dick was a minnow Don't stand between a dog and a fire hydrant It appears that he might do the right thing, but only when supervised and cornered like a rat. This is why aliens won't talk to us. Democrats are running around like they found a hair in their biscuit. Chuck Schumer just moo’s and follows Nancy Pelosi into the cow chute. Just because you CAN sing doesn’t mean you should. On Nancy Pelosi, “She can strut sitting down!”
jerry_{February 1, 2021
February
02
Feb
1
01
2021
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Jerry, at some level such have to be reasonably shown invalid or they become a platform for building a perceived case for dismissing the original OP etc as somehow refuted. I add, we are in a day where apology is treated as confession of indelible guilt to be used as a perpetual club, and where retreat into dignified silence is treated as implicit concession of defeat to be swarmed down on then by drumbeat repetition twisted into perceived fact. That is agit prop not civil discourse but even that needs to be pointed out. We saw where attempts were made to drag a thread on something immediately shown inescapable so self evident, into toxic debates. When those were declined as side tracked there were attempts to treat the side tracks as rhetorical disproofs. We had to point out such were already addressed. Then when the least toxic was taken up cross thread, it was necessary to show a natural law argument. The way in which that was ducked then twisted into a strawman caricature then provided the basis for showing the objections to be without serious weight on merits and to be a gateway into ever more toxic side tracks. Recall, along the way the objectors tried the Wilson Art of Rhetorique stunt of side stepping and ignoring demonstrations of how their own objections could not but pivot on the first duties of reason. That having been shown on record, it can now be used to document the problem onward. It is almost amusing to see an objector string out accusations of creating echo chambers and using selective censorship . . . on a case of an update related bug several people struggled with . . . but then it is sad. KFkairosfocus_{January 31, 2021
January
01
Jan
31
31
2021
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

why debate them? There is need to address, expose and correct
I'm not arguing against stating one's position. I am arguing that one only respond to valid and sincere comments. I am arguing against responding to inane/disingenuous comments. That is who shouldn't be addressed.jerry_{January 31, 2021
January
01
Jan
31
31
2021
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

PS: I note, my comment on Ac 27 as a key case study and lesson, where someone needed to stand, lose an election, and wait to be the good man in a storm (but by then, needless, ruinous damage was inevitable . . . due to insistence on voyage of folly):
[On Luke's microcosm on the ship of state, Jan 1, 2013:] Entrenched highly ideological orthodoxies — and this includes successful revolutionaries, whether on institutional or community scale — that control resource flows to their benefit and which exert enormous power in institutions and society [I was speaking here about today's evolutionary materialism dominated science], tend to be very resistant to what is new and unsettling to their comfort zones and interests. Where there has been indoctrination and polarisation, we can see this multiplied by the problem of lack of logical thinking ability and sheer lack of awareness of the true state of the balance of warrant on the merits of facts and evidence. The perceived heretic, then is a threat to be fought off, marginalised, discredited and if necessary destroyed. By any and all means, fair or foul. (I find the obsession with suggestions of a threat of religious subversion of [scientific, political, education, media and cultural] institutions long since subverted by radical secularists slightly amusing but quite sad in the end. The key threat is unaccountable, out of control power in the hands of elites prone to corruption, not that this once happened with religious elites. In the past 100 years, we saw major secularist movements and neopagan movements of political messianism that did much the same to horrific cost. And the welfare state of the past generation has not been a whole lot better. [Just ask the ghosts of the dozens of millions who have been aborted for convenience.]) Where is there a solution? Frankly, at this stage, I think things are going to have to crash so badly and some elites are going to have to be so discredited by the associated spreading failure, that media propaganda tactics cannot cover it up anymore. My model for that comes from one of the red-flag sources that will give some of the objectors [to the design theory movement in science] the vapours. Acts 27. What, how dare you cite that, that . . . that . . . textbook for theocratic tyranny by the ignorant, insane, stupid and/or wicked followers of that bronze age misogynistic homophobic genocidal racist war god! (Do you hear how your agit-prop talking points are enmeshing you in the classic trap of believing your own propaganda?) Let’s start with, Paul of Tarsus, c. AD 59, was not in the Bronze Age but was an appellate prisoner in chains on early Imperial era grain ships having a hard time making way from the Levant and Asia Minor to Rome, in the second case ending up in a bay on Crete. What followed is a classic exercise in the follies of manipulated democracy, a case study that will well repay study in our time.
It was late in the sailing season, and the merchant-owner was worried about his ship in an open bay at Fair Havens, given what winter storms can do. The passengers were not too impressed by the nearby settlements as a wintering place. (Sailing stopped in Autumn and opened back up in Spring. [--> EVERYONE knew why, the ships of that day could not bear up the storms of winter, and as time wore on in the fall, sailing became increasingly dangerous]) The key technico, the kubernete — steersman, more or less like a pilot of an airliner — knew where his bread was buttered, and by whom. In the middle was a Centurion of the elite messenger corps. We are at ship’s council, and Paul, in chains, is suggesting that the suggestion to venture our with a favourable wind to try to make it to a more commodious port down-coast was excessively risky not only to boat but life. The financial and technical talking heads and the appeal of comfort allowed him to be easily marginalised and dismissed. Then we saw a gentle south breeze, that would have allowed a reach down the coast. (The technicos probably knew this could be a precursor to a storm, but were not going to cut across the dominant view.) They sailed out. Bang, an early winter noreaster hit them and sprang the boat’s timbers (why they tried to hold together with ropes [--> called frapping]) so the ship was in a sinking condition from the beginning. Worse, they were heading for sandbars off the coast of today’s Libya. For two weeks all they could do was use a sea anchor to control drift and try to steer vaguely WNW. Forget, eating. That is when Paul stood forth as a good man in a storm, and encouraged them with a vision from God. By this time, hope was to be shipwrecked on a coast. (Turned out, [probably] north coast of Malta [possibly, east end].) While the ship was at risk of being driven aground and set out four anchors by the stern from midnight on, the sailors tried to abandon the passengers on a ruse, spotted by Paul and/or Luke his travelling companion. By this time, the Centurion knew who to take seriously and the ship’s boat was cut away. He then took the decision to save Paul and refused the soldiers’ request to kill the prisoners to prevent escape (for which their lives would have been forfeit). So, they made it to a beach on Malta, having lost the ship in any case AND nearly their own lives.

kairosfocus_{January 31, 2021
January
01
Jan
31
31
2021
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

Jerry, I see: why debate them? Nazism, Marxism and Communism were very bad ideas, but energised ideologies that came to dominate countries and set almost ruinous challenges to the world. We were lucky to get out of C20 with only two cities burned by nukes. There is need to address, expose and correct, per warrant, so that bad ideas and worse tactics will stand exposed. Once that has been done, we can then point to the corrective and duly note the irrationality of those who continue to attack attack attack. Unfortunately, Marxism is rearing its head again, and has very persuasive but ultimately ruinous counsels. KFkairosfocus_{January 31, 2021
January
01
Jan
31
31
2021
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

Jerry/170
An Australian laments his country would last about 48 hours in a Biden world if it were attacked. They don’t know how to grow food any more
Anyone who actually believes that Australia doesn't know how to grow food any more just Google "Australia agriculture" and see if you think that is in any way an accurate statement.
Will Trump’s new slogan resonate with Americans
Anything Trump says that panders to the prejudices of his predominantly white nationalist base will resonate. Fortunately, in spite of what they might fantasize, they are not the whole of America, they are not even half of it.
Save America
We just did. We got rid of Trump.Seversky_{January 30, 2021
January
01
Jan
30
30
2021
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

An Australian laments his country would last about 48 hours in a Biden world if it were attacked. They don’t know how to grow food any more.
Every nation should learn Australia’s lessons
https://www.bookwormroom.com/2021/01/27/every-nation-should-learn-australias-lessons/ Will Trump’s new slogan resonate with Americans
Save America Or better Make America Safe Again
jerry_{January 30, 2021
January
01
Jan
30
30
2021
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Dalrymple article
Racial Equity, Equality, and the Bureaucrats’ Charter
https://www.theepochtimes.com/racial-equity-equality-and-the-bureaucrats-charter_3671037.html?utm_source=partnerjerry_{January 29, 2021
January
01
Jan
29
29
2021
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Kf, You are pointing out that the anti ID people who come here are at best disingenuous and probably a lot worse psychologically. They cannot accept any reasonable argument. So why debate them? The only reason to comment here if one is honest intellectually is to learn something from others. I found this is a good place to actually learn and understand science and technology. I have recently been commenting here after years of just an occasional sporadic comment because I was interested in learning about the virus. I learned essentially everything I needed to know about ID years ago. So I ask questions of which few are answered by any anti ID person. Their failure to provide an honest answer is telling whether it is about ID or the basics of human nature. But also to clarify my own thoughts and keep a record of them. So I sometimes go on just to provide a record for myself. That is what I am doing on the current virus site and to a little less on this and other sites you set up about politics. You have some very good ideas but they are hard to assimilate because trying to understand just what you are saying is difficult. By the way Dalrymple has written a treatise on how disingenuous Biden and the Democrats are about racial equality. I don’t have the link handy but will try and find it.jerry_{January 29, 2021
January
01
Jan
29
29
2021
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

F/N, o/t, back on the HCQ front. Not for a side track. Note also significance of fresh air vs re-infusion of viri here https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext Then there is a facebook appeal linked https://oversightboard.com/news/325131635492891-oversight-board-overturns-facebook-decision-case-2020-006-fb-fbr/ KFkairosfocus_{January 29, 2021
January
01
Jan
29
29
2021
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

Jerry, I don't really want to get into a secondary exchange but must note that seriously technical issues are on the table that cannot be skimmed in bits and pieces. Those issues, unfortunately are at the heart of how our civilisation is going wrong. Let me expand a little on your clipped, which in turn takes up a theme in the clip from Dalrymple:
>>The demand for absolute justification on pain of nihilism>> - from Dalrymple, as highlighted:
People who might once have accepted the moral and aesthetic judgments of others, or those that were handed down to them in religious teaching, and who had neither the time nor the leisure to examine them, now demand full and indubitable justifications for any and all judgments. If no such justifications can be found, if in fact there is no Cartesian point from which such judgments can be levered, moral and aesthetic cacophony is bound to follow: to quote the poem that is the subject of one of the following essays, the centre cannot hold and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
- the highlighted is key, and the reaction of nihilistic chaos is noted. >>is a twisted form of duty to truth and right reason>> - I have for years now been pointing to first duties of reason as pivotal and as coming before attempts to warrant claims . Even the objector is forced to rely on them to give his arguments persuasive traction. So instead we should reason inescapable, so inescapably true and self evident. Which is what the case with Epictetus illustrates - when such are used imprudently to undermine the foundation we must build on it is self defeating and chaotic. Unfortunately for many we deal with that is a desired outcome. - a couple of threads back, I devoted a whole OP to this and I am building on that now. >>, with a perverted demand for warrant. >> - I here point to what I long ago termed selective hyperskepticism, imposing double standards on warrant regarding what one wishes to accept vs what one wishes to reject. The result is to put a massive incoherence in the heart of one's philosophical theory of knowledge [= epistemology] - incoherence points to confusion, chaos, self-falsification
Now, yes, such is compressed, pointing from Mr Dalrymple's summary to a world of related themes and consequences. Those themes raise technicalities that also speak to dynamics that can wreck our civilisation. The issue is pretty much as the situation of the navigator in Plato's ship of state parable. (I have posted it here several times, but to do so would invite oh that's too long, please use Google.) And no, explanation would run afoul of the demand to be short. Catch 22. KFkairosfocus_{January 29, 2021
January
01
Jan
29
29
2021
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

Example of dense statement
The demand for absolute justification on pain of nihilism is a twisted form of duty to truth and right reason, with a perverted demand for warrant.
Such a statement should be a discussion all in itself. But in less coded compactness. I maintain that the circumstances that lead to the sentiments in your comment are by design. If it was clear just what everyone was to do, it would be a meaningless world. We would be automatons all doing the same thing. But we are not certain nor can we be certain so we explore one option after the other. So the best reasoned arguments will have little effect on what you call the hyper skeptics. They are not hear to learn or understand. The hyper skeptics are driven by something else. One time a couple years ago I brought this up and your response was an extremely long reply trying to show why a God was logically correct. My reply was it was wasted on me because I already believe in such a God but it would have zero effect on any of the skeptics here. I’m a believer in Leibniz’s best of all possible worlds. So one has to understand why a world that appears hopelessly imperfect is perfect. Voltaire couldn’t fathom it so we got Candide to mock Leibniz. I like to call it the “perfect imperfect.” Maybe it should be called the “the perfect apparently imperfect.” Given that this is true, what are the implications for our world? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worldsjerry_{January 28, 2021
January
01
Jan
28
28
2021
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

Apparently, he hoped to champion it, for he resorted to silence not gratitude.
This is what we see here constantly. Anti ID people lose their arguments based on logic and evidence constantly. What do the do? They slink off to divert, distract and nitpick somewhere else. Best argument for ID I know of. Aside: Kf, I will say this about your writing style which is unique. It is succinct and verbose at the same time. You talk in code interspersed in hundreds sometimes thousands of words. It is difficult to understand just what you are saying. Either it is so condensed or full of repetitious arguments. I have to read it several times to understand what you are trying to say so that I more often than not don’t read most of what you say. Case in point is your last two posts which are actually relatively short for you. The essence of the Dalrymple and Francis book is that if their is no God who created us for a reason, then the world is an absurd one. For this Christmas I ordered a hard cover of a book for my son that was recommended as one of the best books ever written and the author is alive and relatively young. A pdf version exists so I started to read parts of it to see why it was so highly recommended. In it this author said life was meaningless. He had a good philosophy of treatment of others but essentially was vapid on why. I never gave the book and actually got my money back from Amazon.jerry_{January 28, 2021
January
01
Jan
28
28
2021
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

TEST, getting inconsistencies. KFkairosfocus_{January 28, 2021
January
01
Jan
28
28
2021
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

PS: On the pessimistic induction, PI: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1943/1/PMI_and_Two_Fallacies.pdf Wiki gives a bit of an overview:
Scientific realists argue that we have good reasons to believe that our presently successful scientific theories are true or approximately true. The pessimistic meta-induction undermines the realist's warrant for their epistemic optimism (the view that science tends to succeed in revealing what the world is like and that there are good reasons to take theories to be true or truthlike) via historical counterexample. Using meta-induction, Larry Laudan argues that if past scientific theories which were successful were found to be false, we have no reason to believe the realist's claim that our currently successful theories are approximately true. The pessimistic meta-induction argument was first fully postulated by Laudan in 1981. However, there are some objections to Laudan's theory. One might see shortcomings in the historic examples Laudan gives as proof of his hypothesis. Theories later refuted, like that of crystalline spheres in astronomy, or the phlogiston theory, do not represent the most successful theories at their time. A further objection tries to point out that in scientific progress we indeed approximate the truth. When we develop a new theory, the central ideas of the old one usually become refuted. Parts of the old theory, however, we carry over to the new one. In doing so, our theories become more and more well-founded on other principles, they become better in terms of predictive and descriptive power, so that, for example, aeroplanes, computers and DNA sequencing all establish technical, operational proof of the effectiveness of the theories. Therefore, we can hold the realist view that our theoretical terms refer to something in the world and our theories are approximately true. However, as articulated by Thomas S. Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, new scientific theories do not always build upon the older ones. In fact, they are created by an entirely new set of premises (a new "paradigm"), and reach vastly different conclusions. This gives greater weight to the proponents of anti-realism, and illustrates that no scientific theory (thus far) has proved infallible.
The point is, we have a track record that grand scientific explanations have been successively replaced and run into sharp limits. The fate of classical modern physics 100 years past haunts us, after it overthrew the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic view. What is far more certain is observed empirical accuracy, though of course there is the issue of gamut shown by the rise of quantum and relativity. So, what we have is models that at best are reliable in a tested gamut. That, we can be morally certain of, without going beyond the modesty of a model to the far stronger claim of truth, near truth or fact. Models are useful fictions. That is good enough for government work and courts of law. For real certainty we must look to self evidence, core logic and the power of necessary being, as has been on the table about core math. Which, let us note, inveterate objectors have typically adroitly side-stepped. Aha, a sign of an Epicctetusian moment of truth, by way of a Wilson, Art of Rhetorique side-step. (Since c 180 ad, they learned how to move on beyond embarrassed silence.) A telling sign.kairosfocus_{January 28, 2021
January
01
Jan
28
28
2021
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

Jerry, I found a key clip from the opening sample, from Mr Dalrymple's Introduction:
Though we are forced by our existential position, so to speak, to make judgments, the metaphysical basis on which we make them is for most of us uncertain. Moreover, the very [number?] of people who consider the question of the metaphysical basis of judgment has increased enormously with the spread of tertiary education. People who might once have accepted the moral and aesthetic judgments of others, or those that were handed down to them in religious teaching, and who had neither the time nor the leisure to examine them, now demand full and indubitable justifications for any and all judgments. If no such justifications can be found, if in fact there is no Cartesian point from which such judgments can be levered, moral and aesthetic cacophony is bound to follow: to quote the poem that is the subject of one of the following essays, the centre cannot hold and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. But we cannot live in anarchy; and we always need urgently an answer to the question of how to live. In my opinion, no purely naturalistic answer can answer questions such as What is the good? or What is beauty? or How should we live? The three great quasi-religious movements of our epoch, Marxism, Darwinism and Freudianism, tried to provide ‘scientific’ answers to these questions, and no doubt the neuroscientism will also soon make its attempt to answer them . . .
Of course, we by now readily discern the first duties in play, at both the author's level and that of those he remarks on. Indeed, we hear the echo of hyperskeptical professors and behind them the philosophers who spun up this drunk web like spiders, out of their own substance. The demand for absolute justification on pain of nihilism is a twisted form of duty to truth and right reason, with a perverted demand for warrant. The key diagnosis is failure of prudence, due to poor epistemology and lack of understanding of worldviews. The intent is of course selective, to undermine the received Judaeo-Christian legacy. One hardly ever sees the latest popular speculations on Science or on policies promulgated while wearing the lab coat challenged like that. The selectivity is at once fatal, as scientific explanations and policy rationales face the iron force of the pessimistic induction and can never amount to moral certainty. At best, the advocates of the latter struggle to build a critical mass of support and to often resort to agit prop and lawfare. As for science, the very existence of multiple revolutions, especially in Physics, speaks. Decisively. Scientific models in tested domains may make adequate predictions, but that just gets us to empirical reliability. And in too many worldview, culture agenda and policy shaping contexts, even that is not achieved. Back to Epictetus, who taught our civilisation a sharp lesson in a short exchange:
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]
Here we find something that is both inescapable and by how that inescapability arises, antecedent to inferential argument, "proof" or warrant. If such is regarded as dubious, nothing further has any basis. So, we see inescapably, certainly true, worthy of trust, indeed self evident. The silence of the man who raised the matter is proof enough of the recognised, patent absurdity of his view. Apparently, he hoped to champion it, for he resorted to silence not gratitude. This is precisely what we see today, sadly. However, we see here a paradigm of warrant: inescapable, inescapably true, self-evident. Now, refocus the "Ciceronian" seven first duties of reason: to truth, to right reason, to prudence [including warrant and recognition of our limits!], to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice, etc. Inescapable, even in the speech or writing of objectors. The attempt to justify and that to object, alike, are inevitably inextricably entangled with these appeals to duty. That is, we literally cannot prove or disprove as such attempts already turn on them; a sure sign of a first truth. So too, "Epictetusian" self-evident. That's easy enough, indeed right reason is the case Epictetus highlighted and it is a microcosm of the wider whole, a facet flashing from the contributions of the others and in turn contributing to them. That's not hard to see, save to those determined on epistemic and axiological nihilism. Are they hopelessly abstract, too remote to be practically relevant? If that were so, why do we so readily detect them in concrete cases, even in objections? No, they are directly practical and highly instructive. Indeed, they help us reconstruct sound bodies of knowledge and best practice. Which seems to be the real problem, one man's reformation is the next man's threat or rebuke so he will resort to any culturally acceptable clubs, to strike back or ward off the threat. Let us now re-open our thinking and let us move to sound reformation. KFkairosfocus_{January 28, 2021
January
01
Jan
28
28
2021
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

Here is the UD page for the book by Dalrymple and Francis. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/theodore-dalrymple-and-ken-francis-on-the-terror-of-a-naturalists-existence/#google_vignette Generated little response 15 months ago.jerry_{January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Kf, I’m fine. Posted yesterday on C19 thread. On Monday my wife and I were driving all over northern New Hampshire. The White Mountains are very white this time of year and while not the Rockies or Sierras are splendid. I have my own small business so have the freedom to roam when I want. Relative to this thread you can read for free on Amazon the introduction to Dalrymple and Francis’s book on existence. It’s relevant to your thesis. The book is a series of essays that are often obtuse. But the short introductions are very clear. The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Existence-Ecclesiastes-Theatre-Absurd-ebook/dp/B07JRGHCB3/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Dalrymple+Francis+existence&qid=1611750670&sr=8-1 Denyse had recommended it on some thread recently.jerry_{January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

Jerry, are you around? I trust things are well with you. KFkairosfocus_{January 27, 2021
January
01
Jan
27
27
2021
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

Folks, Mathematics is pivotal as an example of a realm beyond the mundane that also pervades our experiences. In my reflections, I was led to infer that we start by recognising that as a discipline, Mathematics studies the logic of structure and quantity, which in turn is rooted in certain features of distinct being that show a core that is framework to any possible world. That starts with the natural numbers and extends across N,Z,Q,R,C,R* and onward into relationships and structures. We also see traffic the other way, day to day experiences or explorations suggest mathematical facts or structures that we can tease out. Latterly, computers allow powerful extensions of that. Beyond, axiomatic systems spin out logic model worlds that can be useful analogues to our world in certain aspects. However, they also can point to framework entities necessary to existence of any possible world which are universal across actuality and possibility. These two factors point to the power of math in our world. KFkairosfocus_{January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Jerry, I think there is a difference that needs clarification. I had hoped to return to a focus on the Mathematics and worldviews issues but I clearly need to document for record. I clip from your opening words and comment: >>What happened in England [c. 1688-9]was not inevitable, >> - I never have said it was. Agency is the opposite of inevitability, and contingent circumstances at kairos force choices. - I have pointed out that the rise of printing opened a gateway that fed into the ferment triggered by the Reformation, which was theologically rooted but engaged the full spectrum of cultural agenda across what say the seven mountains model as adapted maps. - through that ferment, we had rising literacy, circulation of scripture, texts, books, pamphlets, tracts and bills then eventually newspapers and the rise of coffee shops etc as centres for discussion. Such allowed the emergence of a reasonably informed public, which is the mainspring of democratisation. - that is why I pointed to the window from 1650 to 1787 - 9 (building on 1775 - 6] as the period in which modern constitutional democracy could and did emerge in the anglophone Atlantic world. >>was not planned,>> - no one has pointed to a human planner, save emergently and contingently. >>was not part of a movement>> - actually, there was a broad movement which has not been given sufficient credit, tied in the first instance to the theology of a double covenant of nationhood and government under God, drawing on scriptural historical patterns and direct statements in esp Ac 17 and Rom 13. Duplessis-Mornay's widely banned -- and widely read -- Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos 1579, was pivotal. I excerpt a key summary:
"Now we read [especially in the OT] of two sorts of covenants at the inaugurating of kings, the first between God, the king, and the people, that the people might be the people of God. The second, between the king and the people, that the people shall obey faithfully, and the king command justly." [English Trans., A Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants. Ed. Harold Laski. Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith, 1963, p. 71
Let me cite Bamberg on the significance:
[b]y means of the first covenant, the people form a religious covenant community. By means of the second, the political state arises. This political covenant assures that people will obey the ruler's commands as long as they are just. If the ruler does not fulfill his obligation then the people are absolved from their vows of allegiance. The fact that God includes the people in the parties of the compacts demonstrates that 'the people have a right to make, hold and accomplish their promises and contracts.' [--> this answers absolutism] The people are not slaves without rights but are responsible to fulfill certain obligations as well as enjoy certain privileges . . . . The concepts of compact, tyranny and resistance are popularly attributed solely to the Enlightenment figures of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. To be sure, this was one means through which these ideas were disseminated, yet, they are actually much older. The language and arguments Adams employs [and this of course includes that collaborative work, the US DOI of 1776] bear striking similarities to the Vindiciae contra tyrannos. . . . [which] does not argue for anarchy. It recommends resistance to tyranny based upon the authority of lower officers of the state [i.e. through their interposition as equally God's agents to do good and protect the community and its members from evildoers, including tyrants by usurpation, corruption or invasion]. As such, it should be considered an argument for a conservative revolution. At the same time, it brought the contract theory into play against the claims of divine right absolutism. In this way it contributed to later contract theory . . . . Any revolt must proceed along orderly lines through the lower magistrates . . . . In America, the elected representatives of the people, town councils, Continental Congress or the lower houses of the colonial legislatures were responsible to oppose the tyrant king and Parliament as well as the loyalist lower magistrates, i.e. Massachusetts Governor Hutchinson. Adams felt that the American Revolution met these qualifications. On the other hand, he had nothing but animosity for the rabble revolution in France which claimed the American Revolution as its model. Adams, appalled by the mob rule in Paris, denounced the tyranny of the majority in that revolution . . . . The social contract theory of civil government [in this context] was an amiable theory to men raised on the covenant theology of New England as Adams had been. The influence of Locke seems evident, but he was welcomed by the New Englanders precisely because he had reformulated the familiar ideas of the Calvinists . . . . Adams, like other American Whigs, derived his theory from the English Civil War tradition which was itself informed by Vindiciae.
Within three years, this bore fruit in the first modern Declaration of Independence on charge of tyranny, the Dutch DoI under William the Silent of Orange, 1581 -- a document and context admitted as studied and directly ancestral to the US DoI and indeed to the 1688 Bill of Rights under the second noteworthy William of Orange, husband of Mary daughter of James II:
. . . a prince is constituted by God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression and violence as the shepherd his sheep; and whereas God did not create the people slaves to their prince, to obey his commands, whether right or wrong, but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects (without which he could be no prince), to govern them according to equity, to love and support them as a father his children or a shepherd his flock, and even at the hazard of life to defend and preserve them. And when he does not behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges . . . then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view . . . This is the only method left for subjects whose humble petitions and remonstrances could never soften their prince or dissuade him from his tyrannical proceedings; and this is what the law of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives. . . . . So, having no hope of reconciliation, and finding no other remedy, we have, agreeable to the law of nature in our own defense, and for maintaining the rights, privileges, and liberties of our countrymen, wives, and children, and latest posterity from being enslaved by the Spaniards, been constrained to renounce allegiance to the King of Spain, and pursue such methods as appear to us most likely to secure our ancient liberties and privileges.
- so, no, there was a theological and ideological framework coming from the Calvinist and Arminian world of theological analysis, answering to Absolutism and framing how transparency, rights, mutual duties and justice frame sound, lawful liberty. >>and definitely was not the result of some ideology written and discussed over time using a set of basic principles.>> - I have sketched out a slice of relevant ideology, considered here as worldviews rooted, cultural and policy agenda framed expression of a theology. A theology rooted in sacred history. - the basic principles are the double covenant view of nationhood and government under God further set in context of duties of justice and sound law, with the underlying theme that though fallen, we are all made of one blood in God's image, with accountable agency. >>Whatever basic principles appeared evolved>> - basic principles coeval with our humanity are recognised, they do not evolve. Recognition is obviously partial and subject to further development in our understanding. - in the case of the first duties of reason, I point to recognition in Cicero, with significant partial endorsement in Paul in Rom 2 and 13. Cicero points to a summary of received thought already ancient in his day, as I just excerpted to MNY:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man [--> we are seeing the root vision of natural law, coeval with our humanity] . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for . “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” . . . . They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . [T]he origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality.
[--> this points to the wellsprings of reality, the only place where is and ought can be bridged; bridged through the inherently good utterly wise, maximally great necessary being, the creator God, which answers the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume's guillotine argument surprise on seeing reasoning is-is then suddenly a leap to ought-ought. IS and OUGHT are fused from the root]
This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
- Paul writes:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . 13:9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]
- Neighbour love is the pivot of justice. That's how we come to Locke in his reflections on/justification of the principles drawn out in the Glorious Revolution, in a key cite from Hooker, which I extend:
[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]
- such principles are longstanding but were then in a position to enable motion beyond oligarchy with ever immediate danger of lawless tyranny. - ties to the first duties are obvious. >>not drove what happened. >> - principles are inert, it is agents sensing duties who breathe fire into them. >>It was not the result of a particular religion, but the result of accommodating conflicting religions.>> - Both Catholicism and Protestantism are legitimate expressions of the Christian Faith, as is Orthodoxy. They have their warts and all, and the history of Christendom is a mixed blessing, but this is a debate in the main across competing theological perspectives with broader principles associated. - The clash of diverse views leading to some sort of settlement is a common theme of history. Often the hardness of hearts means the settlement is far from ideal. I trust, my concerns and citations noted for record will be enough to show why I think they need to be reckoned with. KFkairosfocus_{January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

@Kairosfocus You are arguing higher level understanding, of how people should live, I am just arguing fundamental understanding of what the logic of fact is, and what the logic of opinion is. Socialism is caused by people not understanding what emotion / choice / opinion is. It is clear enough when you look at socialist writings, that these are fact obsessed people clueless about emotions, choice, and opinion. Therefore to get rid of socialism, it is not the point to teach people higher level understanding that they should not murder and oppress, the point is to teach the difference between fact and opinion. The oppression and murder is a natural consequence of fact obsessed people throwing out emotions. If the rule is to throw out everything for which there is no objective evidence, and materialists actually say to live by this rule, then by this rule all subjective things are thrown out. And I notice that you did not actually do the job of systematically defining terms in a logical way, like I did. If you would play by the rules, critically evaluate definitions of terms, then creationism wins. Because there is no doubt about it that the fundamental categories of creator and creation, perfectly correpond with the categories of all what is subjective, and all what is objective. Then creationism would be taught in school, because teaching the diference between fact and opinion is already an accepted education goal, and solely creationism explains the difference. Then creationism wins everything. Academics in it's entirety, both science and humanities, would be founded on creationism. They would be founded on the concepts of fact and opinion, validated in the creationist conceptual scheme. Total victory for creationism.mohammadnursyamsu_{January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

Kf, You keep on missing the point. What happened in England was not inevitable, was not planned, was not part of a movement and definitely was not the result of some ideology written and discussed over time using a set of basic principles. Whatever basic principles appeared evolved not drove what happened. It was not the result of a particular religion, but the result of accommodating conflicting religions. Why you keep on fighting the obvious when it supports your overall thesis is beyond me. It happened. It was unique in human history . It led to some amazing things. Somehow humanity found a better system by happenstance. And now we want to throw that system away and return to a potential chaotic future. The class system in England lasted a long time and still persists to some extent. But the breakdown of the strictness of it led to the Industrial Revolution. In the colonies the class system never took hold and innovation accelerated even more.jerry_{January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

MNY, On subjectivity, I am aware that we are all subjects [so, agents with in-built freedom to choose], with bounded, error-prone rationality. This is further limited by our tendency to irrationality in various ways. The challenge of objectivity then arises, to clarify what may be perceived or believed as so (or even what may have been overlooked or doubted or previously rejected) that has good reason to be taken as credibly so. That challenge is an active one, it is not passively decided. The property of error or delusion is that it is conditioned by the inner and outer circumstances of a given subject. It is in the end perceived or believed but without due warrant. I here contrast ignorance of what may be yet discovered that would force us to revise the state of our knowledge base or pattern of reasoning. I am using knowledge in the weak sense, warranted, credible [so, so-far reliable] belief. Taken as credibly true enough to be responsibly acted on, but open to clarification, amendment or correction. To err is human, even in what we generally take as knowledge. Where, to withhold consent from what is well warranted is itself a choice and likely an error. Well warranted, here, can be one person against the world. That is how powerful it can be, the many can be wrong and the one right, hence part of why freedom of opinion and discussion are key. Compounding, the most persuasive argument, appeal to emotion, is particularly error-prone. 99% of arguments of more serious nature appeal to authority but such are no better than their facts, logic [and so, underlying assumptions and axioms]. So, to the merits of fact and logic we must ever go. In context, yes opinions are key [and are often perceptual and emotion-laced]. They may or may not guide aright, hence duties of prudence and fairness, so too the duty to neighbour. We must be aware of the potential gaps between emotion, opinion, warrant and truth. On love, romantic sense, we contrast true deep love with superficial infatuation. The latter is usually taken as triggered by immaturity and reaction to surface attractiveness. It is proverbial that women hold that generally, men can see a lot better than they can think. Seduction, triggers emotions and in-built reactions out of control. Infatuation can deepen, but is not a sound guide. The world of advertising and marketing pivots on extensions of such themes, well aware of how superficial and information overloaded we are in today's world; hence, how to break through the filters. Agit prop takes this further. Dangerously further. Hence, my call to core first duties of reason that are inescapable. Inspect your thoughts and arguments and those of others. Why should we give them credit, or what moves us to be responsive, beyond emotion and blind loyalty to our favoured authorities? The answer comes back, first duties of reason. Duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so too to fairness and justice etc. These breathe fire into cold words and equations. These drive us to examine and assess, or even just to listen or read (especially those we are disinclined to hear out). They drive us to ponder, and maybe even to change our inclinations. They give traction in the real world in ways that manipulation or sheer imposition of power cannot. Further to this, they are inescapable, the very act of trying to object or sideline is inevitably riddled with lurking appeals to these duties. Attempts to prove them, likewise. Since Epictetus, we have been familiar with this, it is the signature of a first truth, a self-evident first truth. And indeed, Epictetus was speaking to item two on the list:
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]
We are here at root level, hence, first duties. Duties that are therefore law, coeval with our rationality. Duties, that are moral, that morally govern the very act of reasoned thought, much less voiced or written argument. Reason is inextricably intertwined with moral government, something that gradually burned its way into my consciousness as I pondered Cicero in De Legibus on root law, especially as he cited and responded to received authority:
. . . we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man [--> we are seeing the root vision of natural law, coeval with our humanity] . . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” . . . . They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . [T]he origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
Those words resonated in my mind, forcing me to ponder and with some augmentation and amendment, I was led to see the power of recognising first duties. KFkairosfocus_{January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

Jerry, the glorious revolution was triggered by the birth of a son for a king posing a threat. The incident was a case study in the clash between freedom and order, where the issue of rights turned out to be a pivot. Hence, Bill of Rights. Notice how careful the drafters were to highlight them as ancient, there for a long time. Without saying so explicitly, innate. Further to this, lurked the concept of the two covenants, nationhood under God and government under God with consent of the governed. Here, the succession was decided against adherents of the school of theology most -- as opposed to solely -- associated with absolutism and supremacy of a foreign power [the pope], Catholicism. Ideologies and policy agendas were intertwined with schools of thought within an overarching worldview and ideologies could not be settled by simple discussion, so power balances were in play. All of this led to the recognition (again) that justice must balance duties, freedoms and rights. Where as noted, it was on the table that individuals had built-in rights rooted in what they are as persons. The duty to justice lurks. As to, oh, it's all an accident vs it's an inevitable chain of iron forces in action, both are wrong: we are agents with choices, we face opportunities and trends, deep principles lurk and will guide the prudent. Over all, the 2,000 years long comment by Paul at Mars Hill lurks: God uses the hinges of history to stir our hearts and minds to grope for him and his voice of truth and right. In our exchange, the governing duties to truth, to right reason, to warrant [a key aspect of prudence given our error-prone limitations as cognitive agents], and to neighbour lurk just beneath the surface. Indeed, these duties are what give the cold words and principles of logic etc real-world traction; often through the voice or sense of leading of conscience. Which needs to be sound. KFkairosfocus_{January 25, 2021
January
01
Jan
25
25
2021
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT}

@Kairosfocus Duty may be to the love in marriage, happiness, so subjective things. 1. The proper way to investigate these kinds of philosophical arguments, is solely to critically evaluate the definition of words. See that there are no logic errors, like errors of contradiction. 2. Your definitions of subjective and objective are wrong, my definitions are right. Essentially you use a materialist idea of subjectivity, in complaining about it. 3. It is important, on a par with basic reading and writing, basic math, to know the difference between fact and opinion. To make an error about it, leads to errors in all what is built on it, which is much. Definitions: choice : to make one of alternative futures the present spiritual : the substance of what makes a choice material : the substance of what is chosen creator : what makes a creation come to be, by choosing it creation : what is chosen to be, by a creator opinion : a statement that is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice fact : statement that is obtained by evidence of a creation forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it in the mind subjective : statements of opinion objective : statements of fact Which establishes the creationist conceptual scheme: 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / fact So choice is the mechanism of creation, how a creation originates. Demonstrating the logic of opinion. To say a painting is beautiful. The opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thus chosen, and the opinion expresses a love for the way the painting looks. So it identifies a love for the way the painting looks as what made the choice to say the painting is beautiful. To say someone is a loving person. One feels what emotions are in the heart of that person, and then expresses the feelings by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thereby choosing an opinion on it. In this case the opinion "loving" is chosen. Evidence may be used for subjective issues, but only in the form of supporting opinions. Not in the form of evidence forcing to a conclusion. I saw him help a stranger, that was very nice. The opinion it is nice to help the stranger, is in support of the opinion he is a loving person. But one could also have chosen the opinion that it was inappropriate to help the stranger. So it is not evidence forcing to a conclusion, but just freely choosen opinions in support of other freely chosen opinions. Demonstrating the logic of fact: To measue the circumference of the moon, it's mass, what it consists of, the craters on it's surface, all these facts together provide a 1 to 1 corresponding model of the moon, in the mind.mohammadnursyamsu_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

There is nothing in your link I did not know. That it was bloodless in the end was a contingent outcome, as many supporters defected from James II.
It was mainly bloodless. Many of James family defected. James was an oaf and scared a lot of people with his ideas. What triggered the invitation to William and Mary was the birth of a son. But the process that led to freedom was a happenstance and had been progressing since the death of Henry VIII. There was no philosophical movement, no documents nor any inevitable set of circumstances. There wasn’t anything like “Common Sense” which really did precipitate the US revolution. It was a once in a history happenstance that took place in England over a period of 200 years. As I said it wasn’t inevitable but it did change the world like nothing else before it except maybe religion. An aside. Few ever think where the modern world came from and why. I was one of those people who had heard of the industrial revolution but never under why it happened. Then I read Jonah Goldberg’s book, the Suicide of the West. He said the modern world was due to a once in a history event that happened mainly in England. Then I watched a Great Courses lecture series on the Tudors and Stuart’s. This documented the rise of Parliament and decline of the monarchy in England and the concurrent religious conflicts leading to more freedom to most. This freedom led to the industrial revolution. It happened no where else except in the English colonies.jerry_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

MNY, the voice of conscience is subjectively perceived but testifies to an objective duty. KFkairosfocus_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

In discussing about free will, some evolutionist defines the verb choose as to select, and defines select as to choose. So then I complain that it is an error of circular logic, where you don't get to the meaning of choice. Then all 3 of the evolutionists involved say, words don't have to be defined in a logical way. They just don't care if the definition is logical or not. So in the end, you have to still subjectively appreciate logic. And be disgusted by illogic, and reject it. In the end the subjective spirit rules.mohammadnursyamsu_{January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply