Is logical support of theism possible?

Paul, firstly - the ps was a compliment, as I enjoy your baba in debate.Look at the construct of syllogism again. Since sytems have been consciously made by the most conscious organism on the planet - and since (if looking at those made systems) - since we can answer the questions about function/purpose in those systems, then I suggest you show a system with no functionings. Call it purpose or function if you want, it doesnt matter because consciousness answers how the function, purpose or umpalumpa is so darn cohesive. Is it coincidental that we make systems, TVs, heart machines, engines, that all answer the question of purpose, function or umpalumpa?It matters not what you want to call it because the [b]question is answered[/i] concerning systems, and it is consistently demonstratable.The only systems similar to those ones in nature with structure - are those built by consciousness. You keep ignoring this. Yet with all systems we make, intelligent input is the answer.SIMILAR functionings and structure are in nature - just why can't it be an answer of intelligence?Remember, only when we were intelligent, did we become able to create systems. Again coincidental? How many times do I have to say these things? Pardon? All of the aboce is FACT. Humans do make systems. Are you understanding my posts? And what evidence?You suggest I fail, fail fail, but then - you're grumpy and are taking things personally. but you simply haven't provided enough to rid my argument. Read this post three times please, to fully understand my argument.

In both cases in those examples from the link NOT is the negative. I have not included any nots in my one. (Where you just testing me?) I think you're just testing me eh. Naughty baba. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-06-2004 06:14 PM

I didn't say it was. Only now are you realizing what I meant by the inductive part of this. Please quote where I said that human systems having a conclusion of consciousness pertaining to all systems was deductive. But my argument isn't the strawman you're providing anyway.It is;The universe is a system (You seemed to agree with this)
All systems are purposeful and therefore consciously madeC. The universe is a system, consciously made.You are right that it's inductive to take some and then say all, hell - I'll even show an example to show how you're right;The only socks I've ever found are redC. All socks are redYou see, I really did say this previously anyway - but then I explained about coincidences. (WHY do you think I asked for examples of systems with no cohesion? because my argument REASONS that cohesion of systems = consciousness. Hell, I even said to Ifen his example was a good one. *Sheesh*.It's not that I'm not reading your posts, it really isn't -....Well, you seem grumpy - I'll leave off for now and let you cool down.(I don't seek heated debate concerning this one)You ignored message 63. It should be because of what I have previously said, which you ignored.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-06-2004 06:49 PM

System (pertaining to biological system; The appropriate action of any special organ or part of an animal or vegetable organism; as, the function of the heart or the limbs; the function of leaves, sap, roots, etc.; life is the sum of the functions of the various organs and parts of the body.Function; Something closely related to another thing and dependent on it for its existence, value, or significance. (This definition is applicable because parts of any organism depend on other things within the organism for their existence in this very fashion, and are significant etc.Since there is function in systems - as we can see, function includes significance, significance includes;A meaning that is expressed.
A covert or implied meaning.Meaning leads to;To have as a purpose or an intentionSo we can see the logical progression. We can define words untill the cows come home but if we are HONEST, we all know what I'm talking about and we already know what these words imply.PS> There are too many requests at the moment - but I think this post satisfies a lot of them. These aren't my definitions, they are the dictionaries.Also - I'm put off by Paul's belittling, belligerent attitude, and immoral position of thinking that my blood has no purpose in my body. Quite obviously then, he wouldn't mind sticking a knife in it - and letting the blood out - afterall, there's no purpose in my blood circulating my body according to him.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-07-2004 06:07 PM

Sorry Paul - Your "distinction" has been explained away. I've shown how function leads to purpose, if you can't accept it - argue with the guys at dictionary.com.As for my statement about the blood - you did say there was no purpose in blood being pumped around the body , save the purpose I invoke. This means you don't see any purpose in blood being pumped around my body - and thereby wouldn't care if it left my body. or - you can state it's obvious purpose and end your silliness.These connections I've made are all logical and any member can check them on dictionary.com if they want.I said "you don't understand my argument", then you said "you don't understand your argument" - that's how you belittle me, because quite obviously - I do, because I made the deductive syllogism. I say "you're belligerent" - then you say "you're belligerent". I mean - that's just childish.Gone on say it for the fifteenth time "mike, your argument aint valid etc etc..." - Sorry, but that won't make you right, but knock yourself out if it makes your ego feel comforted.

Argue with dictionary.com.Are you holding your whole counter on the word "or"? Oh dear Mike. - - I explained this anyway - And it doesn't say "or" value.Also I explained, that function in organisms has shown purposeful endeavor - that can be looked at my the cohesion of all parts working together in systems and sub systems. Since this constitutes "significant" in that the systems various parts are indeed significant - this really is a hinge-like proposal.The problem with you guys, is that every time you have an idea - you say my argument falls apart or my premises are weak or I am illogical.But you have all been shown to be inconsistent, as you first said I was illogical, then logical, now illogical. I suggest big claims ought to match their actions. My argument stands as my opposition is inconsistent. ANd I will prove it with quotes if necessary. (No, I didn't refer to you as dishonest)/ Furthermore - everybody jumped on this "purpose" train without doing their homework - i.e. They just agreed with the other atheists. But that won't mean anything as the atheists are inconsistent and change their minds too often.Since I agree with all the possible definitions of "system" at dictionary.com - my argument hasn't even shivered, let alone fell apart.Value - A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable.I WILL leave if people keep suggesting my argument has fell apart and continue to say it's illogical - it's atleast logical. Don't insult my intelligence.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-07-2004 08:12 PM

I formulated a logical argument myself Mike - you then said it was logical. Here is where I done that, without your help; Here. You then said, as I am about to prove - that it was correct - then Ned said it was circular - then you said it wasn't, then he admitted it wasn't, now you suggest it is yet you formulated it. Yet I knew in message #15 it was a deductive syllogism. Yet it's still circular? So let me see, if it is - I have you to blame for formulating it - according to you? As you can see - I'm quite capable of logic, and insulting my intelligence isn't necessary. Mike - the above is what you said in message #16 after I provided the deductional syllogism in message #15. Your egotistical statement; As you can see, this is either a lie - or a mistake on your part. As I formualted my argument all by my lonesome - and since the syllogism I shown in message #15 is the one I still stand by - you have not done anything for me in this regard.You say; Yet in my book - two out of three aint bad in logic. - I can still use two out of three, yet it isn't that important anyway - as all three point to purpose, and I explained clearly as to why I used "significance" in my last post to you, pertaining to an organism of systems and subsytems. Yet the systems of the natural all have function, they all exist, have value and have significance. So this really is splitting hairs in my humble opinion.Also - you made a logical error of assuming that because I am from the United Kingdom, I regard myself as having better language skills.I think you ARE being dishonest in saying you formulated my argument. I thought you were better than this.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-08-2004 10:39 AM

Addendum. I have completely satisfied the lay out of my argument since message #15, and have succesfully and patiently through reasoning and explanation shown how my argument is valid, true and sound. The attempted refutations have been shown as weak and/or not relevant pertaining to the actual truths/facts I have shown concerning organisms. Also - atheists have shifted goal posts so many times I refuse to play ball anymore.