W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for this Volume What is New
NOT THE DECLAMATIONS OR DISTILLATIONS
BUT THE DOCTRINE OF DEITY
The APOTHEOSIS OF NOTHING AND THE
FUTILE DISMISSAL OF THE INERADICABLE INTEGRALITY
OF WHAT LIVES: OLD RELIGION IN NEW DRESS
I could not forbear any longer. After all, he had been holding forth with nothing, like a baby in his arms, for some four hours. A few questions seemed apposite to this apostle of nothing, this priest of the apotheosis of nothing, this tribal elder for the eradication of truth.
You have system, I said.
Yes, he replied.
You have multiplicity of systems, I continued.
Correct, he answered - such terseness was inexpressibly a relief from the former entangling alliance with confusion, which he had seemingly so savoured.
You have echelons of system, I proceeded, meta-information about how information is to be used, rather like a dictionary, or directive manual: you have all this in your DNA*1.
Without doubt, he amiably meandered, his eyes softening.
Information has never been found making itself without intelligence, only remaking the products containing it, transcription without input, mutation without new entries.
It is so.
If ever NOTHING were all there was, this would be all there is.
I disagree. Nothing could have invented matter, then mind and then spirit, and these three could have arisen as stars do, out of nothing.
How do stars arise out of nothing since the mode of their arising in discussion is to look at the prevenient situation and to trace how it is supposedly happening!
Correction. These three arose out of nothing, the way stars don't.
Define nothing, please.
What is not there.
So what is there arose out of what is not there.
It is difficult really to say.
That is your scientific hypothesis about how this happened.
Let us proceed then. How do you define what is not there ?
Something that is not.
How could it be something, if it is not ?
It could not, that would be a flat contradiction.
How did it do it then ?
By a miracle, I suppose.
What is a miracle ?
It is something beyond nature.
It is a thing then.
Of course, what else ?
So nothing arose out of a thing that is not there.
If it is not there, then it cannot be contacted; otherwise it would not be true to say it is not there. It cannot act or react, since it is not there; it cannot contribute for much the same reason. It is unable to give rise to anything, since it is not there to do it.
So when it gave rise to nothing...
But you see, that is obviously a contradiction in terms.
Revised version ... So it did not give rise to nothing ?
Not if we are going to use logic, I suppose.
Cease vaguely supposing if you will, and give me a concrete, scientific hypothesis, with some basis - or else tell me that you are mouthing some religion of irrationality and desire. To be sure, in that case, you would be like so many others, those who are scientistic being merely one group of them, often habitués of actual science; or perhaps that you sing The Irrationale to what happens to be modish while the civilisations disintegrate, as brutal to one another as to reason and truth.
All right. Nothing came direct, out of ... the void.
Void of what ?
Of anything of course.
If it had place, or position, or dynamic, or resource, it WOULD be there in that regard, then ?
I suppose ... ah, yes.
So if it is not there it can give rise to nothing.
But that's what I just said.
This sentence has two meanings. Would you like to hang your 'science' on an ambiguity, an alogical slide ?
So the two meanings are these.
1) What is not there is without power or ground for producing anything. That is the first possible meaning.
2) What is not there can produce a thing called nothing, an entity, an existent being, 'nothing'.
With which then of these two do you agree ?
The second is mere verbal play. It would imply that what is not there is productive of what is power, being, dynamic and structure to present: let us be scientific.
So that is wrong. Not there, it has not even air.
You wax poetic. Let's have some science.
All right, then, what is not there is without power or ground for producing anything.
But it does so anyway ? That after all, was the thrust of what you said.
I suppose ...no, ah, it obviously cannot do it, since whatever we propose in it as source, cannot be there, since the generic, the whole thing is not there.
So nothing did not arise from what is not there.
So it just was.
No future or past, potential or capacity, no being.
That is certainly what nothing is, and has.
But it produced from the potential that was not there you and me, for example.'
Ultimately ? What about immediately! What was the first step by which what had no capacity in any time to do anything whatsoever, in stages or in realms? What indeed, since at any time - as you correctly seemed to see, we attribute anything for this action, we acknowledge that THAT is not nothing. In this, breaking the definition of nothing we would be found smugglers. You cannot get there from here: you can't get anything out of an entity without being or potential, since if you did, it would simply prove that you had used an incorrect term for what you had in mind. It would have to be, instead of nothing: an entity which is equipped with potential.
But what is equipped with potential has to BE, in order to equipped with anything.
I struggle to follow you.
You seemed to understand what "equipped with potential" meant, since you called it correct to say that the non-nothing that had to be there from the first, had this quality.
Then you need struggle no more. This thing that was there, call it something else than nothing, was equipped with potential. It had what it took either to become or produce something, and in order to do this, it had to be something - in short, with potential.
Potential for what, then ?
Why obviously for all it took, could take or did take to make you and me, and other things too.
What is to be found in you and me ?
You tell me.
Matter, mind and spirit. Step one. In matter, law and contrivance, are to be found code and command. Some of this is in the DNA, some inherent in the constructions and their environmental emplacement. The former has orders for the arrival of materials, the construction of materials, the synthesis of materials and the construction of assembly lines or modes of progressive sequence which allow various simultaneous or structured conceptualisable and commanded entities to produce other entities. It involves information about command, about the disposition and application of command, meta-information about the serviceable modes of manipulating information, all in code, all in one type of code, all with meaning, all with method, with results which produce in life, certain things.
What do you mean by 'certain things' ?
Well, to be more polite, certain entities, like you and me.
Why mention us again ?
Because we are talking.
I suppose that gives us some realism in discussing ourselves.
Besides, only as examples are we in focus.
I suppose .. yes, I agree.
Why did you mention us, people, specifically ?
It conserves us from undue abstraction. We know what we do because we are doing it now.
I wish I knew what I am doing.
You are discussing your scientific and/or scientistic theories with me.
Thus entities 'arise'. That is not a good word, however. They are - as we have just been tracing on the basis of research that is most common and extensive and progressive in unravelling more and more domains of order, meaning, code and consequence of a concerted character in our DNA - what ? They are entities and arenas made, produced, caused to be functional , so that there are highly specific and specialised results from this ultra-complex thing*1A. We have the production of entities
What do you mean by the production of entities ?
I mean that multiplied conceptualisable formulations in code for command construct things which are not mere assemblages of irreducible complexity, being productive altogether or not at all, but of ineradicable integrality.
I am, then, an example of this ineradicable integrality.
What if I have a nervous break-down then ?
Then you have the spoliation of a production, as when two cars crash. This has nothing to do with the question of the making of the cars, only with conditions sufficient to ruin the product.
You are an integral thing.
Thanks, I suppose ... yes, I DO operate as one personality, it is true.
You are a multi-functional integrality.
Why not integrity ?
It is because that has moral overtones, not here relevant, and to prevent, to preclude ambiguity, always important in science and still more in logic, its very specialised domain being clarity, we hence cannot use it here.
Integrality then ?
ALL your systems cohere for a point, they are systematic correlative for a consequence. This is not amorphous, if you like to use a chemical analogy, but crystalline. It is not haphazard, a term incorporating the sense of happening without government; it is organised, it is multi-systematic with conceptualisable synthesis of one KIND.
What kind am I ?
This one kind operates as ONE, though its contributory systems are MANY.
It is an example of integrality then, of the state or condition of being extant as ONE meaningful, functional, operational reality, which AS ONE, has a meaning, point, purpose, disposition of functions which allow for expression as a character, something with character ... just as matter is, just as any one system, say a neuron, is, just as any one larger system is, say the brain with billions of cells, organised as ONE for operation BY ONE, so that the character of the operator may be shown through his actions.
Or, leaving gender out of it as a sole determinant of differential, the child's or the adolescent's.
In other words, you are saying this: there is a character in matter, with its neutrons, electrons, protons, positrons, and quarks, systems and contributors to its totality; in mind with its logic, in spirit with its decisions, and there is character in the totality which is mankind, in each one of them, and you call this 'integrality'.
Yes, except that this term has a point of reference in our charting. It is ONE way of several which might be used in order to characterise ourselves.
What is another then ?
Integrality means the union, unity, operational singularity of what is multiple, seeing it as it were, being manufactured from the ground (physical and of course logical, since without the differentials of logic, words could not mean anything) upward. Spirit, or a term capable of ambiguity, personality, is a term which is suitable for looking from the point of view of the CONSTRUCTION ITSELF, without being pre-occupied with its modes of construction.
Let me however, for one moment, follow this up. In a similar way, you can know where every brick is in a house, being an artisan in its building, and have measurements to hand of the angle of every passage to another, and you can visualise every wiring structure and its relationship to structure, and reflect meaningfully on the relationship of the constraints of time and place under which you operated as a builder, to the results. On the other hand, you could with architectural eye, observe the relationship of roof to shade, of geometrical result to environment, of walls to porch and verandah, of the aesthetics and the faculties for use. You can conceive as per construction, or as per architectural designation, the functionality at any level you choose. You can have a physical preoccupation, a means focus, or a personally approbative approach, assessing the nature of the thing from its overall capacities.
In the latter case, then, you look from the result down, and engage in understanding this as it is, not as it is imagined to have come ? You are in other words, being empirical, not basing yourself on inoperative imagination as source. .
Yes. Instead of seeing, in the naturalistic fallacy, nothing reluctantly yielding to law-girt matter, reluctantly having arise from its 'navel' or other non-existent source, then mind so that it can analyse itself, and then from this, spirit, so that it can deny itself or anything else it feels like omitting or distraining, and all of this from nothing as its basis, step by step intervening to create something, though it is not there: now you have a different way of regarding realities. That is, you see them without blinking them away. You see what is the operational fact about man, and conceive the origin of that as an entity. It is not bits which are the operational focus now. It has them. It is a construction of significance, to be found in its profundities of art and science, logic and architecture, literature and music. So it operates and so it is.
You have a car ?
I am thinking of selling it because Australia uses some international concept of price arrangement, and it costs so much for petrol. That is the cause of my thinking of selling it.
You conceive of things, look at perceived need, consult with resources, look at your own purposes, and then make a decision ?
I hope so.
That is how you make integral decisions, with much below the level of assignable result, but yet contributing, and yet not so only directively, but this only as you yourself APPLY YOURSELF to the point, so making decisions, rather than being a place for them haphazardly to occur.
What else ? I am not a zombie.
Nice old word. Then your manner of operation is not as a series of resultants of your liver, stomach and the messages on thousands of points, through your neurons, but as a director of the powers these systems provide.
Of course. There is a director for systems, with conceptualisable commands, put into one only code type or language, the language of life, and this exhibits an integrality of concept in the result: this is not haphazard by any hazard, but actually COMMANDED. A command is the opposite of a happening. The latter occurs for no assignable reason, or without relevance to the recipient; this occurs by coded command, with total relevance to the recipient of the DNA. I then COMMAND what the DNA has constructed to do what I, in turn, command. That is, I use the created resources as I will.
Then commander Smith, you are working with the conceptual consequences of what was commanded you into existence.
Let's be clear. Conceptualisable things have a reason for being so.
I suppose - why of course, you cannot conceptualise what you do not understand, or material outside the purvey of your intellect, knowledge and ideational formulations.
What is conceptualisable is so then, because of what has had the power to invade and what has the capacity to reciprocate by being so invisible, meaningfully and with operational success, the two being correlatives, construction and constitution, and desire and its own dynamic ?
It could not do it without it, the object could not so yield to the subject, nor could this domain exist without such basis.
Thus the Conceiver of your integrality, and not merely of your multiplied sub-entities, synthesised by separate systems - synthesised in function, but not in aggregative confusion - is the commander of what you are.
What else ?
You are commanded to be by what is causally sufficient to order matter about.
Yes, the universe has many facets.
Is it a facet of the universe to be produced by nothing ?
We went into that rather thoroughly I thought.
Since it is not so, the universe was produced by something which is causally sufficient to order matter about.
It never was nothing, nor was the totality of what is extant, ever nothing.
Emphatically not, that is nothing short of ridiculous.
Hence something with power to command matter commanded you into existence.
True. but perhaps indirectly ?
How ? Was it by making irreducible complexity to deny itself, and ineradicable integrality to happen consistently, while leaving no trace of its pains, only plans of its results, intellectually compressed into marvels of functionality and intricate schema, subordinated to the resultant as operator ? Does operational law 'arise' from systematic irregularity ? Does the architecture of operational unity come from the bricks ?
By MAKING it, in the first place, you bypass the complexity of the result and are author of the integrality in the end.
In other words, we now see that the results before us as well as the grounds for them, are all of one tissue of thought. What cannot happen bit by bit, being devoid of integrative purpose and control, in language and in correlative meaning, and what cannot escape conceptual reality in functional operation as one, so that all systems are conceptually subordinate to the overall power to decide, which man now has, himself a work of coded command connected to conceptual capacity, which in turn has conceptual capacity to issue commands of his own, to be obeyed by what it causes to be assembled: this DID happen.
I have happened.
True. So we are not in the realm of scattered resultant but creative command, however limited any one command may be by itself (which it never is).
My thoughts may scatter, but I command them to order. Sounds good, doesn't it!
It certainly does, and it is one of our functions to reduce disorder to order by application, intelligence and clarity of concept, imposable in practice and formulable in language. Failure to do this, in thought, as in material system as a product, or in any product, means scattering. Bits do not have entrepreneurial capacity, but capacity to be subjected to this.
Fascinating thing, language, code, the symbolic, the signifying, the conception traced in verbal or linguistic form!
Code, language, requires symbolic representation, which requires work, initiative, selection, imposition, correlation with capacity to understand, to respond to the concepts implicit in and represented by the code; and the work is to stylise the manipulable, the concepts and materials to incorporate their symbolic products, to subordinate symbol to meaning, and coordinate meaning out with impact in! Conception is its milieu, symbol is its means, and conception is the stuff of thought. The choice of thought is the stuff of will. What works is the stuff of power.
This is another aspect of our integrality, I suppose, that what is founded on a linguistic domain of conceptual command - such because its symbols are invested with consequences as well as ingredients which offer themselves to such formulations by us, since they are transparent to them, and this is their nature, their cosmos - is given power to imitate what makes it, but in a lesser way.
In what way lesser then ?
In this, that I cannot command mankind or any other living thing into existence, but I have been commanded into existence; and for all that, I CAN command thoughts into existence, with the added joy that I can survey my own thoughts and CORRECT them on the basis of the type of logic which is implicit in the command with which I have been made.
Thus we do not embrace the apotheosis of nothing, the calling of what is not there, to do the work of creation (or of course, ignoring science and reason and just PUTTING it there and ignoring little things like getting it done, and by what, the question-begging facade). Why not embrace it ? It is because this is irrational, and if we abandon reason, then we and all others who do so, have no case to make for ANYTHING, and stand defeated, and so fall.
I certainly do not. Of all the egg-headed evacuations of reason there could be, this sort of pseudo-academic telepathy with nonsense is about the worst you can have.
Common for all that. It is a disease of the intellect, being bemused, unwilling and cornered.
But what should we believe in ?
What is there.
It has always had to be there, this sufficient something.
Undoubtedly, for otherwise, nothing would be here to talk about it.
It has always been capable of conceptualising, for otherwise, it would have nowhere to go to get this (being the author of all being other than itself, and eternal, since it HAD to be there always or we would not be here ever, yet we are).
Nowhere to go ?
Nowhere to go to get the conceptualising power. When you ARE all that is, that is one of the results.
I am not all there is.
No, but the something was.
How do you know ?
First, it had always to be there, SOMETHING.
IT always had to be sufficient, or we would be talking of an eternal something which being insufficient, did what was sufficient, a logical self-contradiction.
Thus it always had to be sufficient...
I see: sufficient for all the systems and logic, and irreducible complexity which is another name for cohesive creation, and the ineradicable integrality, which is another name for creation,
Yes, and in fact, there are many such phases which are features of creation, since each comes from a domain, a discipline, a cosmos if you will, an ordered series of comprehending considerations which are found applicable to reality, and consistent with logic, and so rationally are required for life, as are their several domains insistent rationally on grounds. All have one: creation, the integration of the integrality, the combinations productive of it, the basis of all order, law, design as defined and operational functionality. This is so for each domain internally, and for all synthetically, but for each totality in terms of ectype, that is, what it is as one whole in functional felicity.
What are the other phases then ?
There are for example*2:
inter-and intra-systematic proliferation,
coherence of logic and symbolic notation with
executive receptors, skilled to catch meaning and execute orders,
continuity of sequence from
connotation, to denotation, to implementation,
in a series of systematics
incomprehensible except in totality,
meaningful in comprehensiveness,
in part arraignable by will.
In other words, codes commanded are one type of thing, consequences observable are another type of investigable field with its causal bases required, and the strictures for structures require commands to produce them, whether coded or direct, from what being THERE, can act with the SUFFICIENT power it has.
God in Himself does not have gender, since this is a reproductive aspect of creation.
You would not think so with all male marriages and the like ?
This is simply dysfunctionality socialised into connotational existence: it is not denotational functionally.
That is an example, I suppose, of freedom FROM design, by the conceptual capacity to make commands, such as is illustrated in the conceptual consequences of what operates functionally in that level. That is, in other words, a conceptual domain ?
Man exhibits from himself, in imaginative will, a conceptual domain; and for himself a conceptual domain. What he is and what he does are thus partners.
What then of the persons of the human race ?
They are both expositors of concept and receptors. They act that way; just as their own beings are actually made through command domains, correlation domains, integration domains, ectype domains, synthetic domains, and in the end, the spiritual domain, which in turn in measure, is accorded them. This is for their participation in their own direction, an access granted by the Creator, for man to have, in part. Thus man is partly occupied in the directing of the product of command and cause, himself, in his chosen ways.
Isn't this rather like building a space ship ?
Yes, you see the NEED for the design to operate in the MANNER you need to achieve the RESULT you want, and figure out what systems and what codes of control and what management devices and what synthetic operational felicities and what separate modes and modules you need; and applying whatever control mechanism you want, you make the thing. Then you might put a man in it in order to operate it to do what in particular you want done, if human agency is the point of your exercise, or involved in it.
Could something other than man make the commands that allow us to command at our own imaginative level, whether in opposition to our own design, or in conformity to it, at our own will ?
In this, that we are discussing the causal necessities back of man, it is necessarily the case.
This something has no gender then, since reproduction is a delimited and confining thing, imposed, which works because it is there.
No, nor has it any body, since matter is just the same*2A. It is no less to be accounted for than the things with coded commands, life, because code is only one causal device for achieving a creation. I can make a code which instructs a printer what to do with a disc in a computer, and automatise things; or I can handle the controls myself. The point is indifferent. The causal capacity for the thought for the program, for the conception, for the integration of concepts, for the logical validity which makes these things work, has to be there. You can have as many extensions and deployments of it as you want, or rather as it wants.
The construction of all these things, such as man with his mind, matter and spirit synthesis, with intervening will a function of the last, least controlled, requires a power to understand what they are in order to formulate, conceptualise and create. It incorporates in power no less than it dowers therefore, and in order to MAKE man and the universe, and conceive the CREATION of it, it must be far more creative than man, who has never in several thousand years of BEING HERE, done as much, even by copying!
It is superman then ?
It is not man at all, since man is a creation.
Is it then the man-creator ?
It is not a gender he, but a pronoun working as pronouns do, to signify a personal entity.
Could this entity not be more than personal ?
In the sense that we are persons, He must be more!
Why ? is it just because He is more creative, imaginative and capable, than we are ?
No, it is because when you ALWAYS are, and all is derivative from your entity, you are in a position categorically different from our own.
In what way ? oh, you mean, dependent on nothing.
Again, we need to avoid ambiguity here!
Yes, most true. We do not mean, He depends on what is not there. No, we mean: He is so independent of all things, that no thing is there to deprive Him of total liberty.
He is not constructed, BEING ALWAYS THERE.
If we said a system constructed Him, then then the cause of that has to be found, and so on ad infinitum, so that we cannot escape. SOMETHING without constraint, delimitation or control had to be there always, for if it HAD any of these things, while being there always, then this would require what FORCED these into the situation, and then this would need its cause. Therefore, eliminating the puzzle, of eternal succession of what is not able to answer the necessities of our being here, but would merely illustrate its need of its own source, we simply state that the something is eternal, God is eternal.
Hence what HE IS, is eternal.
AS independent, He is eternal.
HE depends on nothing, that is, nothing is to be found to control, diminish, pinch, constrain or define His actions. He is Himself, and nothing else is there.
How do we know that something did not always exist with Him, as derivative from Him, and causally of course dependent on Him, but still always there ?
You are assuming for such a thought, that time always was: time as we know it, a patient perseverance of occurrences so that you have to wait for one to come, on another which must come first, and so are under a constraint, and this as always requires a causation. Such is contrary to what God at least, necessarily is, and hence is on another model, a naturalistic one, which being confused about what the Something is and its products, is out of bounds and hence not importable to a conception different in nature from that. Mixing models is confusion, not thought.
So nothing was there with Him, that is, He was alone. Creation is His work.
Systems are His dispositions of programmatics, or some cognate ?
And laws are erections of order to enable progression into any form of creation.
Like having a house in which to put your computer ?
You could put it that way. Construction of constrictions, limits, constraints, commanded laws, whether codally or by other conceptual means, or simply by direct action, indeed, of events by direction action or by any manner of means: these are the works of imagination. It is not hard to see it, we use it all the time, and are doing so now, as we envisage causal necessities. This is the generation for such objects of thought.
Does this mean that our topics are imaginary ?
No, we discourse by means of the imaginative, and this is constrained by the evidence.
Could we not imagine other worlds in which life is programmed to improve itself ?
Of course we could, for it would simply be an extension of programmatics, or their correlatives.
But this one shows no evidence of that ?
We are in fact progressively retarding by mutant disablements as interestingly shown*3.
Same thing as with other designs in a universe so designed that the Second Law of Thermodynamics works.
Yes, this is the unexceptional manner of it, and it mixes with logic in this, that if you conceive and command and impose your thought by materially-savvy means on the lower realms of creation, like matter, or on programs which mirror but do not share mind's capabilities, then the various events not being ordered to protect your creation, they will impose various stresses on it, and eventually tend to destroy it. Hence care and conservation and management are necessary, whether of dams or of our skin: it is all one in this causal relationship.
But how could anything come by what decreases ?
Poor Gould came into the domain of facing that! *4
What did he do about it!
He made an exclamation in heaven's name about the decreasing number of major design systems, over time, as his research indicated to him, and the oddity of trying to find why they were increasing!
It is strange to try to find out why a student's marks are increasing, when the empirical fact is that they are decreasing. Many scientistic scientists, and philosophers alike, are trying to do this and it is so ludicrous.
Naturalism IS odd. It denies the necessary, and HENCE necessarily finds itself in collision, endlessly with reality.
Whether in Hitler's racial concepts, or any empire's self-elevation, as if it were intrinsically better, when what is better is the Creator, and all His creation is merely coming and going, according to detrimental happenings, which He can increase or decrease, and which can come also from simple breach of laws for their protection, as in any design. Violating these, is vicious towards the design. Man's life has no code of guarantee; but it has in the Bible a code, a conceptualised series of commands, about its care.
That is good. But what is the use of having this, when you do not know WHY you are alive. I mean, if you say, It is to glorify God, then how ?
We only use the 'He' I suppose, in this, that it is a mode of referring to person, and man is the begetter, so giving a certain ease for the conception, and so on. Why doesn't this person, or more-than-person, but not less, TELL us what we are for ? In fact, if He did not, I can see this: He would be erratic, irresponsible, giving us powers in a partially adverse universe, relative to our design, fostering on us attrition over time, and yet leaving us to work out for ourselves what we CANNOT know unless He tells us. I mean, we can know the extent of His power, infinite, and of His knowledge of creation, the same: but its purpose!
I agree. If He omitted this, it would be merely to create pain, duress, distress in His creation, gifted with consciousness of its environment, itself and its God, though not so often a direct apprehension of Him. Why would this thing be ? It would be either because He likes to hurt His creation, which as He is absolute Creator, would mean He was dissatisfied with Himself, in Himself, and so constrained by His own being to be what He would rather not be, and hence a creation, or in other words ...
In other words, such a Being could not be God.
So this is not what is happening. The things just envisaged are NOT what He has done, is doing. He is not like that. This is not the answer.
Then there must be some other communication than that constrained by conceptual symbols to make conceiving beings, man ? DNA is not the end of Creator-communication.
Yes. I know, you are going to say the Bible.
Just because it is inerrant over millenia, foretells for Jews in detail, and for Gentile in overall direction, and for the last times, in detail, what is to be, you say it is the word of God.
It is because of these things certainly, just as it is because I am breathing, that I say I am alive. That however is not the sole reason, or even the chief, for either designation. It takes much more than breathing to convince me that I am alive, for first I have to know what it is that is being said to be alive: I!
You imply then that the word of God, the Bible as you say it is, has much more than prophetic results and time-defying knowledge of what is past and to come, to show whose it is, who spoke it ? who was the originating cause of it, whatever means of record and production may have been chosen ?
Yes, if it were not the word of God, which the evidence demands, then God as the writer, could not be. It would be some other being. No other being however has the knowledge to do this. The marvel is this, that having it, we find what He is like, what He wants, how He wants it and what He has done. We are no more in a blight, a plight, a wretched site for seduction through ignorance, like parading soldiers in the midst of battle, wondering what is the call, each one.
Tell me more. This is something to be found out about.
Hence since we have the necessity He should speak, that the evidence attest it, for failed communication is the same for an omnipotent being, as a failure of desire, and hence due ground of a character attack, a signal of default in Him, personal insufficiency, and an indication the speaker is not God: then certain things follow. In evidence, concerning testable presentations as the word of God, there is only one which can indicate the necessities of knowledge which the Bible does, requiring God. If it were not He, nobody else could have done it; since it is He, it must be right. If it is right and we need to know, it must be testable. It is. Hence when empirically it passes tests which only God could meet, then we know that it is the word of God Himself.
I see: HE MUST have spoken, so it must be there, it must be recognisable, there is only one Book, communication system which does this, hence this is it.
That is the scientific procedure.
But where does metaphysics fit in ?
In this, that science insists on testability and viability under test, and verifiability of what is in view; all of which the Bible supplies*5. Metaphysics insists on thinking further back; and finding with the logic which we use whether in science or in engineering, it discovers whether we contradict ourselves, omit aspects, fail to produce adequate reasons, are slick in conception or superficial in connotation, and the like.
Reason, then, whether in empirical or intrinsic dress, says that the Bible is the word of God, the eternal, self-sufficient, entirely free being who has need of nothing but creatively has made man by His own decision. He is not cruel, as if to satisfy a cleavage between ability and desire, and needing such a stimulus from outside Himself, the situation of a delimited and created being; and He does not lie, since His words and works would contradict only on a similar ground, that in Him desire and doings did not match, the 'must' exceeded the 'thrust', a disparity for a limited creature only. Satisfaction from deception similarly would imply an inadequacy within Himself, creation a means of completion of will's inadequacy in itself, and hence a created being. God is not this, but the Creator as we have seen. That would merely mix the models, a work of confusion.
I see. That is good that is. This is better than having various people telling me from day to day the way to go, based on perfume or psychology or pleasure or economics, or some guru, here today and gone tomorrow, or some non-attested and unverified document or other.
Do you know God ?
How could I possibly do so. He is as we have seen, far beyond me in my little logical cocoon.
Yet we have also seen that your integrality, your ectype, your being which operates as one using all systems, whether connotational or denotational, for its will, has this feature, that reason is behind its making and can be behind its breaking.
You mean if we misuse our equipment, thought, or will ?
Yes. All designs are like that, in this universe.
Other universes could be different, according to the imagination of the controller, conceiver and matrix maker ?
Yes. You could have a universe in which at a programmed point, logical grounds would become irrelevant. That is, all would be disconnected from its nature, so that we would never know if this or that would happen, even when it had been shown that given its construction, it MUST.
How could that be ?
It could be so programmed that contrary forces intervened on a basis unable to be formulated by man, or the Creator could directly intervene, rather like a man using a hammer on the hub of his tyre, because frustrated, or a child, because interested to see what would happen, or a scientist, to illustrate the unknowable for little man. In this way, direct designer power would purposely break circuits. It would still be strictly causal (cf. Causes), but there would be a certain unaccountable freakishness, because this was sought.
What is created depends on its purpose. It could be an intermittently disrupted and devastated system. The REASON for it would in the mind of the Creator as with any other design, but this one would be unlimited.
Mercifully, we do not have that.
A maker of pianos gifted with the hammer, not on the string, but on the casing, would be a compromised one.
But what if the piano did not work properly.
That would be a fault of design in a world under the Creator's control.
What of man ?
He has been given as part of his integrality, a will of his own.
Is that not a design fault ?
Not at all, it is the very perfection of design
Try creating something, at which you do not have to stand waiting all day, and so program or control it in some way, and then make it so that whatever you intend, it will ignore that whenever it wishes, or even choose to act on the delusive basis of your not being there, or not being a sound artisan, or not competent, or anything else however ludicrous, and so intentionally so act as to do despite to your constructive media for it.
Like suicide ?
Or false religions.
Yes. That is one of the powers of the integrality, the ectype, the distinct and individual, characterisable creation called man.
We could not do this, since the means to achieve what it is would militate against our having it do what it wants.
Want ? That requires formulable, conceivable, envisageable considerations, an intellect and a spirit for disposition of events according to imagination and conception! Hence in view here is a spirit, not programmed but operable on its own horizons, which can be to construct things for its own part, either carelessly, invidiously, in conscious and meaningless rebellion because of vitality on the march, or for any reason at all.
In other words, what we are, of necessity we cannot create.
Yes. We could try and try, and make ever more responsive robots, but the free ones, which are not programmed as to the limits, nature and stimuli configurations to which they react, would not act. They could not be. What we are is ultimately spirit embodied, and only Spirit can understand this nature, its own, and only He can confer it, and only He does so.
So we need to study His book, the book of the Lord, to find out how to be what He has designed and how to avoid spoliation ?
Of course. The Bible tells us this, but it also tells us that we are already astray, hence our world is, that we needed a Saviour from the very first misdirection of our spirits and of course, wills, and that God who made us, whose word and works coming from one, agree, will forgive us this marvellous thing, the free operation of our spirits witlessly or evilly, on one condition.
Ah! a limit.
Yes, for us, but not FOR Him, but like so much about us, FROM Him!
And that ?
It is the result of the diagnosis of our condition.
You mean, it forced itself on God.
No, not really: His truth demands what conforms to it. If we break our natures, in will, spirit, imagination, all supplied but abusable, then to fix them requires His handiwork, just as our creation did. Since He is now dealing with our spirits, it requires personal communication. It is like a patient seeing a doctor. There may be a CLASS CURE for a certain disease, but each patient has to accept the diagnosis personally and individually and for what is seen to be the truth.
So there is a class cure for design misuse, mental manipulation, spiritual declivity ?
Yes, God loved what He made, as well He might, though He could have had enough of it, and in one way, He has; but love is like that. Instead, He has given it the answer, the Gospel. It involves that eternal Being, three in one, The Sending God, The Sent God and The Spirit which moves to commune, to apply, three persons all of the same nature as whom God moves.
In what way is He involved then ?
In this: He has done more than take thought. He has worked again, not this time as Creator but Redeemer. This Being, equipped as PERSONS in infinite intimacy (Isaiah 48:16, Matthew 28:19-20), and gloriously active, has provided in the person of the living Word of God, Jesus Christ. He is ALL His expression, a living One, Himself foretold and identified through a Book, the Bible, which is in propositions rather than being personal. Through Him, God being God, He is able to deliver man. As to the Bible, it SAID. As to God, HE DID! It told what He would do, what He did, and what He plans for man and why.
That makes of the Bible something more precious than air to the lungs!
Indeed it is. It shows the truth concerning the will of God, the Creator, and how He has acted. In this way, through this Sent Saviour, He was able to have the law, the truth, hit Himself, and so, as a Person to cover for persons. Therefore, He could beautifully bring grounds for excuse, that He has borne it all Himself (Galatians 3, I Peter 2, Matthew 20:28, Ephesians 2). This is like someone not just banging back into shape, a battered car, but one becoming a car in order to remove the old and donate the new one. He has absorbed the evil in order to impart the good.
So this is how you talk about being 'born again' ?
Yes, your old nature is transfixed as the culprit, together with Him as the conqueror, and as He sacrificed Himself, so He in principle achieved for you what can be supplied for you: a paid pardon and a just pronouncement, that you are now ONE OF HIS OWN!
But there is one objection.
What is this ?
You don't just take the new car. It COST Him to die vicariously for you (if you are His, and then only, does His offer apply so that only in that case does He actually take your evils, errors, and being battered, bring them back to newness of life). Hence there are two reasons to be sorry. Firstly, you spoiled your equipment (your heart is what it is, not only because of the way it was made, but it also bears the scars of your errors, being equipped via mind with memory, and via causation with psychic and other RESULTS within you). Secondly, you brought the need of a huge undertaking of redemption on the Creator.
Certainly this shows His love, but equally, it shows our follies ?
I am glad of that. If there is one thing I cordially detest, it is cold charity.
There is nothing cold about free flowing blood, dripping away during progressive strangulation and suffocation, on the Cross. The body, before death, keeps it warm
I see. SO I have to DO what ?
How can I, since I am I and this what I am ?
You have imagination ?
Imagine this, that God is able to know you beyond yourself. He can move in you, and in fact foreknew you, one of the results of being unlimited and uninhibited in understanding, in nothing. Wisdom is His, His greatness and His understanding alike, are infinite (Psalm 145:3, 147:5). Hence when He will, He can change you on the basis of knowing. He wants to save all His creation, but not without repentance, not without integrity as well as integrality! You see how it goes ...
In other words, if I want God, good, take Him and seeing what it cost, repent. It is all His work, and I could not do it if it were not for Him. Be thankful and receive what He gives. I would not even want it if it were not that His love has been able to invade me! This He knew before that little invention, time as we know it, and now I am seeing it happen.
Yes, but don't muse your way into inaction. Repent and put your trust in Him.
NOTES and EXCURSIONS
into EXCELLENT PREMISES:
Those of the King ...
HAVE YOU MET META-INFORMATION AND ITS MAKER
WALKING AROUND ITS GROUNDS
The concept of meta-information, as it were a book about how to read a book, a primer on language for those to employ or deploy it has been carefully evidenced in the Journal of Creation as set out in *3 below. There the sites for access are provided.
In this end-note, however, we are looking at the implications of meta-information, in that magnificent transformation now set before our mental eyes, as knowledge increases, and words reflect more closely the facts. The new import for our consideration, the new meta-file, it is from what was deemed 'junk' DNA. Now found in this location is increasing testimony to meta-information, directive symbols about the direction of symbols, particulars about pathways, investments about activities, agencies for action.
Let us consider this phenomenon, surely most usual in any discipline, one here merely specialised in the sense that it is a programmatic device for operations, rather than a manual for operators. It is simply one more step in sophistication upwards, while a step down in direct involvement in the architect of the information correlatives.
When a data set, a systematic segment, like a liver in the body, HAS to operate in order to enable all the rest to operate, not only an integral part of the system but incorporating a directive methodology, then it cannot come in bits WHILE the rest functions; for in this double information bank system, the meta-segment or phase is both integral and necessary for all. It has methodology for procedure. In this case, it pours not its juices into a chemical composition like the liver, but instead is correlative to a vast multi-systematic intricacy. Its modes affect the systems for their enablement. It appears more principial than partial; but the enormity of its omission from any outline of DNA activity is not the less clear for that, but the more so.
This adjunct, this meta-information bureau or data base, or order capsule, or enterprise delimitation, it must be functional AS a system for system information about information, in order that information can be effective. Keys for codes are one of the things that distinguish codes from senseless chatter.
If you don't start the motor, it does not go. If you don't train the eyes aright, you do not see what is to the point.
If you do not interpret the words you use, then they are gibberish. This you may do, by spelling out the meaning, conforming to the dictionary and being lexically correct, semantically acute, or by inventing a program imbibing the concepts from your cognition, and operating at an automatic level with these perspectives back of it, and enforced over it.
Information of matters uninterpreted is like Pentecost without effective power, UN tables without interpreters or interpretive devices, words without a dictionary, a small voice on dull ears without a microphone in a massive hall, an unbroken code chattering on a spy-network, or directions for a child in tertiary language.
Without information on information, you are like a ship without a sea, a space craft without space, thought without a mind, a child without a home, baseball without a base.
Not merely however must the meta-information be there, for the information to work, it must be operational as well as present, a separate system to dock with system, so that either might be effective. As dictionaries accomplish nothing practical without things to translate, so things translatable do little without definition. These are intimate correlatives, joint partners, an operational duet in a song of harmony and power.
As each is for the other, and neither works alone, so the development of each is a pre-requisite for the operation of either; and as they are separate, specialised systems, a point by point operation of either in a graded upwards series is not only absent from sight, but impossible to render operational. You need the dictionary, the procedures distinct and fully functional, before you operate meaningfully; and the very essence of the activities in the DNA is system, method, precision which when it comes to amazing miniaturisation, is the more intensively relevant.
What does not operate is dead, and no base for life.
This is one aspect of integrality, while the total point of hte whole being is the other main feature.
Creation is like that. These are specifics of its mode, elements of its definition, criteria for its specification
1) There is a
spirit of imaginative enterprise, whether direct or coded for convenience.
2) That leaves
focussed an additional work:
3) There is a
notional securing of divers means in different spheres of operation and action,
3) There is a
unification of aspects and attitudes, through constraining means toward ends.
prelude to the practical, the actualities a mere ring-in,
Requisites can have many forms; they must however be functional for the result.
Creation assembles its servants: mind instructs - orders, commands, exhorts for the institution of the case, spirit inhabits, constrains, elevates, impacts with vision for conception, these jointly calling forth ever closer aptitude for the vision to move from form to fact, where knowledge finds means for the movement from conception to reception and from reception to reality.
These modes of creation are illustrated in workings of our human race in this domain, attested in our products, just as they are compressed into conceptual constraints of integrated codes, in those of the Lord. The better at it we are, the less bulky or rough are our means, and the less the need to make experimental models. There has shown NO experimentation in the creation of which we form a part. There has been extreme, systematic, brilliant methodology in miniaturisation, non-bulk for a given plan, and its underlying modes in plans, both in language of life and semantic constraints required, are constant in type, consistent in mutual contrivance.
For this, you do not look for oddities, anomalies and even less, rule by anomaly; for that you look where there is no law, or where it might exists in little clusters. You look rather for conceptual constraint and authoritative enforcement, visionary modelling and knowledgeable overview and oversight of the lower orders of natural things; for when creation is in mind, this is the type of thing which in view.
When it comes to modules, to modes of securing results, complexes like packages of dynamic, you would expect these to be used with sophisticated inventiveness in the divine creation, so that what works in one alignment may be APPLIED in another, all expenses paid for integration of the feature whether in the one or another format, creature. You would not expect misalignments, misnomers, feeble efforts, ineffectual attempts. These feature are what is found (cf. SMR pp. 252H-J, Denton Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp.109-110, cf. Ch. 14). Thus there can be an enablement of what merely uses a finished product, a segment (cf. power steering in a motor car), in order to be effective at a higher level, where it can be made to serve.
What is NOT found, Denton affirms, is any gradualism in the components! Fitted complete, they function at once in a functional domain germane to perfection (Ch. 14 Denton op. cit.).
If you are wise and of a status superior to what you are using, what need for experiment when you create, what call for a long list of lack-lustre failures on the way, for erratic methods of 'speech' in your codes, semantics in its assessment and implementation and oddities of transition! These things are what is not found, and it confounds what envisages what lacks these powers. That is direct verification of the logical necessities noted, and direct refutation of other types of accounting. Divine creation is not an option. It happened.
Indeed, God is not man that He should flutter or fail (cf. Let God be God! esp. Ch. 2 , SMR).
In fact, the shores of history are distinctive in this: there is no example of tentative transition, bits and pieces like paper thrown in frustration into the waste paper basket, or blown there by the winds which leave the desk a mess. There is no such litter on the littoral of history. There is no evidence of a wisdom in development by trying hard, or ludicrous forgings in the domain of mentality by non-mental ingredients into practical outcomes!
Boeings do not take off without power, and their conceptual brilliance does not come without constraint; nor do aerodromes 'arise' for correct weight provision. No cosmos of technology, of discipline, whether mental or physical or material or spiritual, invents or induces what it lacks. The confusion is so obvious, but it has become endemic in poisoned, late-era culture, as foretold in the Bible (cf. II Peter 2-3), to make miracles of invisible transitions to 'arise' from marvels of absent relevant powers so that present attestations of style and power and method might be denied, that reason is scarcely relevant any more. It is like an obsessively rebellious school class: reason is the more hateful since the desire is the more clamant!
What is, works. What works is not micro-biologically sequential in mode, but decisively typed in kind (cf. Denton, op. cit., pp. 304ff., 290, 280, 302). Order and hierarchy are the nature of the impress of authority that accompanies the modalities of the code. Things are categorically grouped, discursively compacted as by an engineering brilliance, using now this and now that feature with a fluency of thought both astonishing and delightful. Happenings are as far from the case, as in any other book, from any other writer, whose rationality and organisation are prominent. It is so except in this, that the divine creation vastly surpasses all other comparisons in terms of the creativity of man.
As to that however, it provides an a fortiori argument, for the more amazing (though decisively lesser than those of the Creator of man) are man's creations, the more extensive his knowledge, the more correlative his savoir-faire to that which is inherent in his own construction, the more staggering is his type, read 'kind', as a product, then the more impressive is man's design, the more sheer is the vertical ascent to the Almighty Creator which such an empowered race as mankind categorically implies. It is easier to BE than to create; and when what IS has eminence, what MAKES IT SO has transcendent eminence.
Denton is almost eloquent on this irrelevance of 'chance' (op. cit. 312ff.), as he surveys almost endless seeming fields, convergent on order, control, constraint, impact by impress in the world of life. Even from a mathematical point of view, simultaneous combinations of prodigies of co-operation in marvels of construction with celllular engines and motors of conveyance and energy sources specified and integrated into the whole, for each cell, with combinations for each organ and the totality in its integrality; and even within one cell, these things compared in complexity to New York city, to be correlatively abstracted into existence in simultaneity is like asking for a city to be built and organised into operational sufficiency and efficiency so that it IS a city, and this without intelligence. This is simply to deny to intelligence its nature, to design its definition and to reality any differentiation from fantasy.
It is not merely that it does not happen, is a mathematical absurdity, but the REASON for this exhibits still more the folly: it is that given systems have to possess what it takes to construct machineries of composition at a level outside their own operation, and matter is not found to be of this type in evidenced capacities, design provisions or actual occurrences. Whipping a dead horse may be fun to the exasperated, but it will never bring it to life.
In fact, it is necessary to reflect, the things described, they are the perquisite of creation, not indeed of some elevated spectre crying to creation to come along, like a boss with his puppy, for the work is DONE already, and not in continuity (cf. News 57). Just as chance is divorced (cf. Ancient Words, Modern Deeds Chs. 7 and 9), so is acute intellection and discrete deposit attested; and this, it is not something continually moving as an influence, but not now proceeding, though once articulate in construction and the provision of processes. That is the nature of creation. You are doing it or not; when you do, its products roll off; when you are not, it is as absent as a breeze for the ship of the Ancient Mariner.
Continuity (that is, merging movement from this lower type of biological unit to some higher one, in terms of specialisation and functional complexity and ability) has a place for its existence. Where is this then ?
It is found, Denton declares as an observational biologist and micro-biological specialist, in summary, this continuity of living forms, this merger from below to above, "never" in nature, but has its place "in the mind of man." That is caustic wit and apt.
This is one of his conclusions from a rigorous examination of evidences (cf. p. 353 op.cit.), especially those arising in the micro-molecular level.
Whether he is dealing with the gross features of objects (and he notes that NO mergers are found, only discreet use of fully operational modules, in this or that way, none experimental or 'on the way'), or with the molecular evidence of protein variation in the amino-acid sequences that help to constitute them, there is a certain decisiveness. Indeed, speaking on the "pattern of diversity at a molecular level" (p. 290), there is what he calls "a highly ordered hierarchic system". That of course is the way of mind, not accident.
Indeed, at this level, which is not subjective as distinct from some morphological attempts to classify, "Each class at the molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates."
Denton has this to state on the topic (p. 131 op.cit.): "... direct evidence for evolution only resides in the existence of unambiguous sequential arrangements, and these are never present in ordered hierarchic schemes." What is found in the molecular fulfils predictions to be made from the impact of creation, as does everything else.
Again - "At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives." Nature, he says, seems to conform to the "same non-evolutionary" patterns discerned by leading comparative anatomists of the 19th century. We progress by going backwards! Put differently however, the reasonings of creation and the attestations of knowledge, as it increases, have a mutual affinity which is one of the constraints imposed by truth itself.
With cells, it is the same: none are primitive, none progressive on the way, all are compositions of coherence and effectuality, none point the way (p. 250). "The size, structure and component design of all protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, " there is no "living system" to be categorised as "primitive or ancestral" relative to any other. There is in fact, he declares, "not the slightest empirical hint" of an evolutionary sequence, look as you will, in the diversity of earth's living cells.
Logic requires such a resultant. The empirical supplies it.
Science that is not servile to philosophy, simply recognises these things, in terms of its method. The scientist variant from science, increasingly common in this religious, this creation field, does not. In sites of extreme emotion and significance, financial, domestic, family, there are often to be found such impediments to normal insight! The courts often hear their machinations, and this not without grief.
What then ?
Experiment by omniscience is a contradiction in terms, and as to that
omniscience, we have seen it often enough as requisite (cf. SMR,
Deity and Design...). In complete
parallel, the results of seeking to avoid this omniscience of the
categorical Creator are to be found in interminable antilogies, antinomies and
the like, just as in imperious empirics, which do not deign to descend to the
denial which the theory seeks! (cf. Deity and
Design ... Section 8). The more
they are sought, the less they are found.
Empirical science finds such an empirical fact delightful and marries it with the product of the wedding, sound teaching.
The wedding is poorly attended. Empirical science is in such areas as one captive, to a large degree, and indeed, in a boisterous manner (cf. Beauty for Ashes Ch. 3, TMR Ch. 8).
Absence from the wedding, or more precisely from that of the Author of its conditions, the Creator and in particular the Redeemer Jesus Christ, is naturally not lightly viewed. It is to precipitate dismissal of the domain of deity. Only by a species of confusion sad to behold, a sort of operational dementia, can one come to worship a King to whom one attributes a cruelty in mode and a crudity in method which is totally absent from His word and from His works.
The wedding in the parable of Matthew 21, when Christ as the King's Son, is seen to be the subject of the King's invitation to people to attend a wedding, an occasion most dismiss for various obviously insincere grounds, was a significant one. The eminence of the occasion made its guests and non-guests a matter of depth.
One person did not neglect the wedding, but came to it uncovered. That is, the required wedding garments were omitted, as if he could come in his own right, and not by the grace of invitation and all that this implied. He covered himself with his own works and wisdom, and hence ignored the point of the wedding, the worship of One worthy, the Son whose death opened the pardoning grounds to the grace of God.
What happened to this person ? He was thrown out with misery. It is the face of God that creation exhibits, despite the curse which sin brought; and to create a Creator who did not so create in the teeth of evidence, both logical and empirical, or to deface Him with hideous, imaginary qualities, comes close to idolatry if you worship, and inhabits confusion even if you do not.
It is not a position to embrace. Creation is not like this, and God is not like that.
Only fairy tales can adhere to such propositions in the face of the facts. Violate facts, ignore evidence and invent scenarios never confirmed, never realised in any method of research, of survey, of past review, of present attestation, of laboratory occurrence, of theoretical constraint, of rational discourse or sustainable conceptual cosmos, and this becomes one more mode of crucifixion of the grace of the glorious God, of distortion of the face of The Son.
Without excuse, it is captive of culture, victim of scientistic delusion now, as of other naturalistic myths in the past (cf. Spiritual Refreshings ... Ch. 13, SMR Ch. 4 Extension E, The gods of naturalism have no go!).
See on this, Hallowed be The Name Ch. 7, Hapless Hitches and Holy Healings ... Ch. 4.
SYMBOLS AND MEANING, INTIMATION AND INTEGRALITY
A set of symbols must have a set of meanings, if they are to be functional. Life is functional: it works as integrated realities, entities, act, each one in its mode and nature, as one whole, one being. Meanings do not exist like leaves in Autumn, flying around: and indeed, even those leaves have meaning as ex-tree, and trees as pro-oxygen production and so on, their flutterings merely being a manner of discard from one system, into another, soil enrichment, and these merge with many others.
Meaning requires mind to make it exist. Otherwise actions just happen. The symbol-meaning interface requires mind. The meaning-action interface also requires engineering, that is the systematic correlation of provisions for action, with power for action and direction for action. This requires interference with the mere existence of matter, in bringing it into conformity both with mind and directional commands. These involve assertions of will, for matter does not command, merely obeys its intrinsic structure.
The availability of meaning on a consistent basis, as of materials for its implementation and of mind-products for the combination, and the provision of an integral, one-only code in the billions of orders involved for man's construction, requires a work of intention and convention. Rules are formed, forged, imparted, and kept. Laws are made and organised into functional orientation, products tied to provisions, both to symbols and these to meanings. That is the nature of language: that it gives index to meaning, and if the power is apt and the understanding correct, then the symbols work in what is the understanding receptor.
In the case of man, he in turn can reject the obvious intent of the meaning, at will. That is not part of the programming, since programming depending as it does on will, has that of the programmer's will. Provisions for variable reactions if this or that happens, relative to code and language, this is merely indirect will. Programming by its nature cannot produce will in the product.
Hence more is needed. Will-production, a spiritual phenomenon needs to occur. This requires a spiritually alert, apt and cognisant source. This is called a spirit. Man has one by which he does all his mad things, and marvellous ones, for reasons of obduracy or inspiration, of kindness or cruelty, of psychic scar tissue zealously preserved, or forgiving heart, delightfully at work. His integrality, or ectype, or overall operative nature is the domain of spirit, not programming; and if he were programmed, he COULD not know it, nor could truth be his result (cf. SMR Ch. 3, Barbs ... 6 - 7 ).
The interface of code and meaning, content and material, material and directive for its usage, correlation of multitudes of such affairs, chronological succession indexes and sequential inditements all work as is normal in any programmatically produced design, defines design when in addition, these things all work to a specifiable end, which enshrines an integral result which functions as such.
This, in this case, is called man. He quite naturally surpasses himself in this, that the structuring and facilitation for his being, far exceeds his own powers of creativity: but the material side is merely the least, though it is magnificent. Beyond all this categorically is the fact that since he merely HAS spirit, a donation, a datum, he is in no position to make one. He did not even participate in its construction!
He can pass on what is required for one, but cannot originate such a proceeding. It is one thing to BE something; quite another to know how to make it.
Man is in this position, as is quite normal for designs. His difference is this: that he is aware of this fact, and often would like to breach its limits, some even, while apparently quite sane, wishing to become gods. That is, they want to be outside all limitation and make subservient worlds of their own. They do not succeed because what they ARE is a product, and what is able to produce spirit has to be spirit-originative in NATURE, capacity and understanding. As spirit, man can understand what spirit has, but not within his own capacities, can he make and model its mode and power of construction, which HAS to be ultra-programmatic.
The source of spirit is very great, for it not only must understand the realities of liberty, of being non-determined (cf. *2A, below), but must know how to provide such a situation for others. This is to make elemental spirits, of necessity limited, for if they were not, then many gods would limit each other, and the originator would merely have created a self-limiting resultant, further limited by His own existence.
As to that, no liberty can end it, since time is His invention, a prescribed requirement which were it His own, would make of Him a product, and hence represent a mere contradiction in terms. He is beyond time; events do not control, limit or even retard Him. He waits when He chooses and not when He must. Even so, this is in the time zone created for His creation brilliance, like a book or poem, an architectural wonder or a floral magnificence.
To Him, the future is not and cannot be innovative to His mind.
To be this source of spirit, the One concerned needs to be everlasting, unhindered by circumstance, unconstrained by necessity; for what is not free is no source of freedom. Eternal and without other entrants into His estate, He must be. Man is not so. He may be given a future of this type, and it is available in Jesus Christ; but he, man, in fact began. He is not God! From that status in this realm he is objectively excluded.
Architecture, of course, and purpose for it, these are not found in the body, except by the attestation, as normal, whether it be a building that is stone, or a living one. Programmatic receptors of meaning, of course, are not only possible but are to be found in our own bodies. The programming of something so far from eliminating understanding, is an exceedingly demanding exhibition of it. It is to take the meaning of symbols and forge it into what contains the directives correlative to it, and to take the requirements of the directives, and to make them available to what directs, order on order, and constraint upon constraint, time sequences in subtle and complex liaison. All modes of conveyance of meaning, thought, integrality production with specifiable functions surpassing the input, and a unity of a new kind, may be implemented by a power which has automatic results.
This is what happens when a President presses a key which activates a system which produces his desire, or else speaks to his secretary, or acts more intimately as the power of the one performing these things increases, He may however perform what is needed in person. In this case, for example, the President would get up and taking the hose, start watering the garden. He could have sent someone, or pressed a button to activate a contrived, created, purpose-built, programmatic system.
Programs only execute; they do not institute. Programmers do that. Some programmers are visible; some are not, and this for various reasons.
We may not discern where they live, how they act, their means of existence, their mature powers or their modes of activation; or we may even be unfit to be introduced to them, in any case (cf. Jeremiah 7:8-15). This has nothing to do with their work. It has only to do with our recognition of who they are.
We may deduce as in a spy network, their existence and even some of the modes of their instituting programs, depending on how astute and acute we may be, and how nearly our wits may come to being able to discern the operation of theirs. Our dulness or otherwise, however, has nothing to do with their operations, only with our illumination.
Language, communication with exclamation, command, exhortation, description, designation, all conceptual in character, may be applied in many ways. When its system is readable by our conceptual logic, scannable by our interpretive comprehension and effectual in creating organised non-oddities which coalesce in grand scale into total entities for which any of the parts might when alone, seem almost unimaginably irrelevant; and when this is able to be conceived as to the nature of the final actuality, the product, where do we come ? It is then that we are dealing in the conceptual, programmatic sub-category, in the broader class of things conceived.
Lucid to our conceptual enterprise, the commanding and commandeering systems yield their logical secrets to logic, their conceptual conveyances to our conceptions and their innate plan-product participation to our mode-result survey. There is a total parallel in product-producer via programming, to our logical insert and discern action in discerning the total schema and the intimate individual directions to gain the multi-partite, single product result. Here then is the sphere of concept, imagination, initiative and purpose, of symbol-for-thought and symbol-for-product, command for the wedlock of both and the fulfilment of either. Here, the mode of enterprise by intellectual objects to gain physical ones. Here is the conceptual transparency and the solution of the conceptual constraints.
Just as the palaeontological products are non-amorphous, not biological sketches on the way to what actually works, but all work as far as evidence goes, and many are the same for large periods of time, so here, the orders are not erratic, or fantasising; but they are drilled into dynamism and able to arrest lower orders of being into fabrications to match invention. It is NOT ONLY the realm of the intellect, enterprise, imagination and initiative, of concept-command direction of lower orders for overall purposes; it is so whether you watch it now or investigate it in former times, by the laboratory, even that of the skies and fields and oceans if necessary, or literally so, or with the spade and its implications.
With this, there is a vast profusion which so fascinated Professor Stephen Gould, a veritable prodigy of created types of design, with sub-categories, all in working order by all tests ever made, as to type; and to his reading, this was near the beginning, an enterprise that was vast and has since been decreasing in the major categories of design, by far more than half the total! This is a further testimony of conceptual imagination and creative ebullience and the normative career of design, intricate in nature, complex in disposition, exposed to what is not its nurture by its load.
The realm is thus physical, over-arched by the meta-physical, the conceptual, the imaginative, the purposive. As noted elsewhere, the amazing precision of the conceptual controls, expressed in symbols, is paralleled by CONTRAST with the amazing horrors – plagues of locusts and the like, as in Egypt’s 10 cases! that move with such precision thrust to overcome the wonder of many modes of creation. The purpose to create, the purpose to punish, to discipline, to rebuke, to exhibit the folly of man’s sin and the fatuity of his imaginations has been seen to be the simple, the scriptural and the evidence-meeting construction. To create, to inform, to discipline, there is the SAME magnitude of conceptual brilliance. The MORAL interim is the interesting one. Why blight ?
With man blighting morality, beggaring design by intolerant machinations as if it did not exist, playing the loose fool in society, in ethics, in morals, in thought, in war and in peace, in looting and in cruelty fit for devils, not brutes, no genius is needed to discern the expected opinion of the Creator of all of these things, of this prodigy called man, in his inveterate destruction of truth and product alike.
Removal ? Not yet – although most of the world was on the very point of subduction at the Flood, and many a nation has been given notice and then doomed, as in the case of Assyria and Nineveh, Jerusalem on two occasions readily seen, of Babylon, of Tyre, while as to Egypt, its lowly coming state was equally foretold, its grandeur lost, under the precise predictive participation, in the corrective deployment of Almighty God. Such Bible passages as Isaiah 13-14, Ezekiel 26-33, Jeremiah 25, Nahum, Matthew 24, Micah, most readily give examples of the divine principles here in view, and of their application (cf. The Pitter-Patter of Prophetic Feet, Ch. 4).
There is a comprehensive plan, often outlined, given in specialised details, the more so in the case of Israel (cf. Amos 3:5 and SMR Chs. 8-10, esp. 9, Red Alert Ch. 10, It Bubbles Ch. 10, Outrageous Outages, Awesome Inputs and the Courage of Christ Ch. 11); and it is exposed to man in extensive, precise communication in the Bible. It covers the case from creation of the universe and of man, to discipline, from discipline to pardon, from Messiah to come, to ransom paid, from Israel’s second defection, to the Gentiles’ odium, from the spread of the Gospel (pre-specified by centuries in Isaiah cf. SMR Ch. 9) to the ethics required as in the Sermon on the Mount. It releases the divine dicta from the love which creation implies and of which curse correctives remind, in SUCCESSIVE JUDGMENTS (cf. Amos 4, for this type), as some few find the Almighty, the heights above the best heights man has ever known, like Everest above an ant-hill, while many defying reality, are wedded to dreams, drunken orgies of the spirit, to their own separation into judgment.
The love for the redeemed, and the love which constrained the plan for their redemption is in marked contrast to the hatred which both induces judgment and maligns creation, the very curse of discipline upon the earth being used to exact evil on each other. It is as if, entirely, some students of horrid mien were given a caning, and then proceeded to tell all the others this is a cane-school, where the entire purpose is to grab and be hit.
Such a malevolent mischief in words would merely mirror the evil of their deeds. It is when one becomes agin the government, so that the greatest care is made to appear the evil schemings of the heartless, that there must come just that maelstrom to match folly, which mercy, though it delay it, does not entirely remove.
For further items for this list, see both The Bible: ... Ch. 5 (below), and Bewilderment ... Beauty ... Ch. 3.
See on this topic, History, Review and Overview ... . Ch. 5., from which the following caution is taken.
The path of true reductionism, false to science, of course, is always to ignore what you have got, and to explain what is not there. It is however the essence of the challenge to meet the case as it is, in all of its sequential, symbolic, integral and mutually intimate and pervasively singular procedures, whether in code type, implementation, co-ordination or exuberance of methodology; and to do so in a world which likes energy for construction and time for destruction. The other point about the construction ? it is direction. The third ? something to do as directed. In this world, and by any form of valid logic, the specifications of life parallel the requisites of intelligence with available power.
The result, life, it matches nothing but mind, requires nothing less than something as far beyond mere genius as the heavens above the earth, requisitions an artist, artificer and maker down to the last electron and the least of the biota. Paintings do not paint themselves, Raphaels do not come by omission of the artist, and life is as far beyond these things in what it demands, as a genius beyond a talented toddler.
The perspectives and nuances of art, its undertones and its overtones, its sentiments and its modes of communications to receptors called human beings, who may decide to pretend not to like it as a competitive device, such is their programmatic liberty of will in certain arenas: these do not arise from what does not cognise them; but only in what goes far further than that. It must with enterprise not only appreciate but perform, and not only perform, but meaningfully perform, and activate the executive elements of the body of the artist to ensure that the result actually appears; and that the way in which it does so can be 'read'. Art is merely one facet of life. ALL functions must be accounted for in any reputable endeavour to present its basis.
As soon as one discovers one phase, feature or facet of human life in particular, there are realities within, meanings beyond, there is all the grooming of a thorough-bred horse, all the intestinal reality of a cathedral, the coherence of a great speech, the intricacy of superb mathematics, the intimacies as of love, such is the subtlety and the inter-dimensional as well as intra-dimensional sophistication, as if intelligence were easy, and brilliance a manner of life.
As if ? THIS is the testimony. If someone places a new Boeing 747 on your drive-way, it is not as if it had been built! It is not the nature of life, or logic, to give output without input; and what we see now as the centuries progress, is no more input, but the same residual decrement. In design terms, there is to be found, as Gould emphasises, DECREASING residue. The progress of centuries in this system is the regress of design types. What is needed is simply NOT NATURE. It needs its author.
There is vast loss of the remains of output, one not now to be found, as is natural in creations, which tend to dissipate. As with creation in this world generally, on the part of human participants, this decrease follows the vast effort of bringing things to be; and as that is distanced, forces work to the detriment of what one has made. All this is precisely as the Bible depicts (Isaiah 51:6 for example), and it is simply anti-scientific to dismiss the enduringly correct, and uniquely present solution, while appealing to the calamitously non-verified imaginations of the heart, which dismiss the eyes and dispense with their testimony.
Grapes do not grow on thistles, but sour grapes can well grow where will seeks desire, and desire its own fulfilment, only to be robbed of its dreams. The attempt to bypass reality by looking at bits which are used for an overall result, which has integrality, suppleness of spirit and profundity of imagination to consider worlds other than this one, and avoid, ignore or depart from this one, and to ignore even principles of logic which demand what is NOT LESS than productive of the workings of the various cosmoi which are subservient to, or at least serviceable for man, in some cases both, is unwise. It is also irrational. It is not a possible course therefore, for reasoned discourse, and such models are self-destructive at the outset, being irrational in kind.
On matter, see SMR p. 80ff..
On materialism, see:
Repent or Perish Ch. 7 (the nature of 'Nature'),
History, Review and Overview Ch. 5 Spiritual Refreshings Ch. 13,
It Bubbles ... Ch. 9,
Earth Spasm, Conscience Chasm and Renewal of Life Ch. 1
The gods of naturalism have no go!
Christ Incomparable, Lord Indomitable Ch. 9.
There is nothing the matter with matter, it is just that it is not at all immaterial that you should try to innovate from what it never discloses all that reveals it, investigates or conceals it, as to make a surgeon out of a baby elephant. Its qualities are fine for moulding to meet plans; but nothing much for doing the planning.
ON genetic workings, see Journal of Creation, Vol. 22 (2), 2008, pp. 60-74, 79-104; and on this point, pp. 60-66. See also Ch. 3 above, and especially in detail, Evidence and Reality, The Prince and the Proof Ch. 3,
See Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming ... Ch. 6 for example. Only a a thin membrane separated Professor Stephen Gould of Harvard from waking up. He yawned, yearned and faced facts as few naturalists do, only to forget the need for the effectual action that must accompany punctuation, if you are not merely to play with interims, and omit the text. Omit the absurd engine of Darwin by all means, for survival is not creative, but a residue; but do not omit SOME engine.
In fact, after so long an indoctrination with magical manoeuvres of non-sufficient eliminations as the ground of creation, some are now willing to have
without a writer,
without a designer,
of spectacular specifications without a specifier,
miniaturisation of memorable brilliance, without a conceiver,
conceptually clear donations of script, without a scribe,
actions from what has either nothing or begs the question,
for concepts in their application in codal form, without conception, or
of the pulsating marvels that constitute matter, time and space,
synthesis of elements of these in man, with will and imagination,
is itself decisively descriptive of the domain of man, in its integrality.
To ignore its special features is just the same sort of unscientific gabble as it would be to ignore matter or mind.
We have in this present chapter considered many phases and facets in life, and its implications, applications and meaning.
A moment of review may help.
Meta-information is an intellectual
tool, a programmatic module, a crypto-information device;
just as informative science is an
output inspection study,
As notable are the facts that:
There is a chronic and persistent
laboratory inability for living,
There is an incapacity on the part
of this human race to find in the laboratory conditions,
This remains so, even under
generations of various stimuli,
Life simply persists in refusing to
re-think its modules and products,
Statuesque like mountains given face
by art, those bearing the images of the US Presidents,
All of such data and considerations, implications and warrants merely confirm the definition of design (cf. Deity and Design ... ) as ineradicably applicable to life, more so than to any design of man, in mode, in result, in complexity, in product function and as much as in integrality. Delete this, and the term has no referent. Deliver the quality from what imposes it, the result from what logically requires its causation (Causes), and you have only magic, that essence of naturalism, which devoid of all science, desires something in stages or all at once, depending on preference, from that totally unproductive source, nothing. Its apotheosis, mystically expressed or other, is the very wonder of this world.
These data now reviewed, however, by contrast depict in their several spheres precisely what the Bible declared concerning designed kinds, super-naturally created, compositely emplaced and constitutive of the so readily reproducible, but inscrutably producible aspects of life at the physical level: and that, it is the least of its vast and grand components, which expand the horizons of man to the uttermost, at least in potential! (cf. Little Things Ch. 5, It Bubbles Ch. 9, SMR pp. 348ff., Christ Incomparable ... Ch. 2, Scaling the Heights, Scanning the Depths, Spanning the Breadth: Jesus Christ has the Answer Ch. 5).
In this, as inherent in design, simplicity, like a key placed readily in a doorway, induces new lives in ways coherently and integrally deposited, like thoughts inscribed in matter, which commanded into conformity, suffers what is induced in it.
When one ignores nothing, one finds that nothing is to be ignored as its basis, and that in the end, only God is to be consulted. Then one finds that only the Bible is to be verified and validated (cf. (1) and (2) below).
From this we find only Christ is the Saviour of man from his spiritual sauciness, suave mischiefs and persecutory domains, and that only in repentance and faith in His substitutionary atonement is pardon to be found, and through His Spirit, which does not speak of Himself, but brings Christ home to us before His return, is power to be found for living as man's model should be used.
Ignorance is not bliss in this case! It is to miss.
It usually is.
On the above in detail, see:
(1) Deity and Design ...,
(2) Light Dwells with the Lord's Christ and the specified detailed topics
to be found in Index Mini, under Creation and Naturalism.
On this, see the volumes, Light Dwells with the Lord Christ, and SMR, TMR with Deity and Design.