the FINAL proof is near - 2006/03/10 18:53PROP I; <b>The composition and geometry and arrangement of parts of objects intelligently designed do not form from insensate phenomena.</b>
Proof; This proposition is the grouping of two logical tautologies.
Tautology I; The composition and geometry and arrangement of parts of an object are none other than the essense of an object.
No two objects share the same essense unless they are the same sort of object.
Tautology II; Intelligently designed objects do not form from insensate phenomena.
Note; For example; a simple NOT complex; stop sign. The composition of a stop sign is usually some carbon steel with red and white paint. The geometry is a particularly thin sheet of uniform thickness in a perfect octagon.
Ask yourself this straightforward question; Can a stop sign form from insensate phenomena? For example; are there any volcanoes spewing out 2000 plus fereheight carbon steel in perfect geometries of thin sheet octagons? If so, is there any process that can place petro-chemical paints in unsmeared perfect shapes onto one of the objects sides?
The answer is no, it cannot form from any insensate phenomena we know of. Some nihilistic sophists would argue; it can form from insensate phenomena we have no knowledge of because we do not have absolute knowledge of all things. Pragmatically speaking, this level of criticism makes all beliefs unprovable assumptions because any belief can be countered from the ignorance of possibilities imagined. No matter how unrealistic. That sort of ignorance belongs to the idiocy hall of fame. Stop signs do not and never will form from insensate phenomena. It is as simple as that.
I have proven by necessity that something is intelligently designed if it's composition and geometry and arrangement of parts do not form from insensate phenomena; a posteriori and without appealing to observation of the designer/designing.
PROP II; <b>Living organisms have the attributes of intelligently designed objects.</b>
Proof; Living organisms share common genetic instance morphology and inheritence in proportion to there shared mechanisms, function, and utility.
Intelligently designed programming languages have instance morphology and inheretence. Engineering practice utilizes methods or circuits in various ways but in different implimentations or embodiments to accomplish similar tasks.
Note; These empirical observations are often abused as support for macroevolution. But NO theory of macroevolution assessed through mathematical or computational biology has been substantiated.
"while natural selection may be responsible for microchange-a trend in variations-no one can say indisputably that it is responsible for macrochange-the open-ended creation of an unexpected novel form and progress toward increasing complexity." - Kevin Kelly., Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines
PROP III; <b>Abiogenesis is a phenomena of intelligent design.</b>
Proof; All things are made of something and it is a fact that living organisms are made up of non-living matter or basic chemicals. Any claim of abiogenesis not being true is none other than the position of ex nihilo, which I fully detest.
Intelligent beings specifically humans, have developed abiogenic components in their labs. It is highly probable human developed abiogenesis in labs will one day be able to develop living organisms.
However, nowhere in the entire world is there any insensate abiogenesis known to occurr. This world is very environmentally diverse. Yet in all the diversity of environments there is not a single example of abiogenesis happening as an insensate process.
Note; Many claim that the mechanism of abiogenesis is insensate, that is it has no consciousness producing the development. Intrestingly enough this from those who demonstrate intelligently directed abiogenesis. It is infact impossible to demonstrate abiogenesis as an insensate phenomena inside a lab. Besides, such a claim is an unfounded philosophical position having nothing to do with verifiable empirical science.
PROP IV; <b>Consciousness itself can effect material processes without materialistic mechanisms.</b>
Proof; Princeton University has developed and patented a device called a Random Generator that can measure conscious intentions directed at it. It can also measure the general field of a specific group of people if in the vacinity. Intrestingly, the device can also measure the overall global consciousness as it changes over time.
Corollary; It follows that a being of consciousness of no materialistic mechanism can effect material processes including abiogenesis (PROP III).
PROP V; <b>Living organisms are the product of concsious creation.</b>
Proof: Abiogenesis is a phenomena of intelligent design (PROP III). Living organisms have the attributes of design (PROP II). There is no known insensate phenomena that can produce life or any of it's attributes (PROP III Note; PROP II Note; ). Therefore from (PROP I) living organisms are necessarily intelligently designed. Conscious materialistic mechanisms are not eternal. Therefore from (PROP IV Corollary) consciousness of no materialistic mechanism is the source of the creation of living organisms.
Re:the FINAL proof is near - 2006/03/15 05:39"this is a dialogue between me and a friend"
Thank you for your dialogue Ross. I always seem to learn something from you. I would also like to point out you are consistently one of the greatest minds on this forum.
Allow us to examine (PROP I) first.
Do you realize that (PROP I) is fully and exclusively a logical tautology?
PROP I; The composition and geometry and arrangement of parts of objects intelligently designed do not form from insensate phenomena.
(Tautology I) The composition and geometry and arrangement of parts of an object are none other than the essense of an object.
No two objects share the same essense unless they are the same object.
Graphite does not share the same essense as a stop sign.
(Tautology II) Intelligently designed objects do not form from insensate phenomena.
Logical tautologies are statements that are true regardless of the truth values of its parts. They are true because regardless of whether or not any part is true, one of the disjuncts will be true, making the whole thing true.
I will respond to the rest after you concede (PROP I) is a logical tautology.
Re:the FINAL proof is near - 2006/03/24 19:25The composition and geometry and arrangement of parts of intelligently designed objects do not form from insensate phenomena.
Abiogenesis is a phenomena of intelligent design.
The genesis of life is a phenomena of intelligent design.
The instance morphology and inheretence found in some intelligently designed objects do not form from insensate phenomena.
Living organisms have the attributes of intelligent design.
There are no known insensate phenomena that can produce life or any of it's attributes.
Consciousness itself can effect material processes without materialistic mechanisms.
Living organisms are the product of concsious creation.
PROP I; The composition and geometry and arrangement of parts of intelligently designed objects do not form from insensate phenomena.
Tautology I; The composition and geometry and arrangement of parts of an object are the essense of an object.
Tautology II; Intelligently designed objects do not form from insensate phenomena.
PROP II; The instance morphology and inheretence of some objects intelligently designed do not form from insensate phenomena.
some attributes of some intelligently designed objects do not form from insensate phenomena.
The essense of intelligently designed objects do not form from insensate phenomena.
Tautology III; The instance morphology and inheretence of some objects are attributes of some objects.
Re:the FINAL proof is near - 2006/03/28 18:16Your contention that 'we can intelligently design anything that forms from insensate phenomena' would be a worthy argument.
This would get at the core of my false dichotomy... because I claim all things are intelligently designed, atleast by extention (which means nothing is formed from insensate phenomena, unless you defined that as extention of design).
For example if we made a program of the world... all objects formed in that world would be the product of intelligent design. There would be no variables or instances that could do anything except by which the program allows and facilitates. Therefore all instances and variables are the product of intelligent design.
So what exactly am I trying to prove? That a certain instance (life) requires a certain variable (consciousness) to substantiate and initialize?
This question itself is also a false dichotomy. Consciousness is not just a variable it is the very system by which the program runs.
But then again, consciousness can be a variable if it has finite being and is not the same as the infinite consciousness for which the entire program runs.
I do not believe the infinite consciousness formed life except through finite consciousness.
So, how then would I prove that the variable of finite consciousness is required to substantiate and initialize the instance of life?
I believe all things in the material universe were substantiated and initialized through finite conscious beings.
I suppose then, there is no reference frame I can look for which to deliniate my objective.
If we were born in a space station of some sorts and knew everything was intelligently designed... how in the world could you prove life itself was intelligently designed? There would be nothing to compare it with.
We are on a space station call earth.
My argument was posed in opposition to my own belief system.
Possibly I am being too skeptical.
Intrestingly enough, although my proposition will say all objects are intelligently designed... that is exactly what I already believe. So, it's not actually false... but how would it have meaning to someone like you?
I am going to investigate this further before I concede the loss of my inital argument's meaningfulness to you.
Re:the FINAL proof is near - 2006/03/29 13:11Wait a second... you cannot win this argument unless you have falsified either proposition one or two.
If you have done neither then you have not falsified the synthesis of both.
You cannot defeat a tautology (PROP I) and you cannot defeat the synthesis of a tautology and an empirical observation (PROP II).
Therefore you have not won this point. I don't care how many examples you can pull out, or demonstrate.
The only examples you can show are out of the domain of the truth functional... but that does not negate the truth functional... it only helps to further define it.
There can be only one m-shaped object produced by insensate phenomena.
Therefore the domain of my truth functional is;
Two or more objects who essense is the same and who's teleological origin is in question.
Re:the FINAL proof is near - 2006/03/29 17:12PROP I; The composition and scalar geometry and arrangement of parts of objects intelligently designed do not form from insensate phenomena.
Tautology I; The composition and scalar geometry and arrangement of parts of an object are the essence of an object.
Tautology II; The essence of an object is what the object fundamentally is.
Tautology III; Intelligently designed objects do not form from insensate phenomena.
These grouped tautologies form a truth functional that has a domain determanent on resolution of the following conditions;
(1) There are happenstance formations of unique objects; Insensate phenomenally formed, but can technically be reproduced by intelligent design. (Star Trek; replicator)
(2) There are environmentally formed objects which can necessarily be reproduced such as atoms, photons, amino acids, etc; Insensate phenomenally formed, but can also be reproduced by intelligently designing the environment which produces them.
To provide domain truth functional coherence it follows that there are at least two limits or boundary conditions for determining the teleological status of an object;
(1) There must be atleast two or more objects with the same essence for which teleological status is in question. This allows happenstance formations of unique objects to not be rendered intelligently designed by hypothetically reproducing them through intelligent design.
(2) Environmentally formed objects
insensate phenomena can produce objects that (1) We must allow happenstance formation of objects.
Truth Functional Domain; Two or more objects with the same essence for which teleological origin is in question.
Corollary I; It follows that if an object can be intelligently designed then it is indeed intelligently designed.
Corollary II; It follows that if an object can form from insensate phenomena then it is indeed formed from insensate phenomena.
Note; Phenomena of intelligent design include consciously directed mechanical manipulation where as insensate phenomena only derive formations from enviromental varients such as pressure, temperature, and energy distribution dynamics.
PROP II; The genesis of life is a phenomena of intelligent design.
Observation; Intelligently directed assembly of a genetically based organism from scratch was demonstrated in 2002; polio virus.
Corollary; It follows from (PROP I) that the genesis of life is not an insensate phenomena.
Forum 
So, it's not actually false... but how would it have meaning to someone like you?