W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New
ANTILOGY - ANTINOMY - ALOGISM Group
THE LIST BELOW. Its field is not only the specifically logical content of the concepts of
Devious Irrational Devices, but
Critical Differentiae, List of Criteria relevant to thought,
including specifically the criteria and ontology of design and the requisites of logic,
but these as seen
amid the realm of antilogy, antinomy and antilogism embroiled in the abyss of
It thus includes the results in irrationality which apply to the antics of evasion.
ANTILOGY - ANTINOMY - ALOGISM Group
Dizzy Dashes, Heady Clashes and the Brilliant Harmony of Inevitable Truth 6
Glory, Vainglory and Goodness Ch. 1
Barbs 6 -7
The Desire of the Nations 2*
Downfall from Defamation 2* and Chs. 1-2
Glory, Vainglory and Goodness 1
Defining Drama 2
Christ Incomparable Ch. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7
History, Review and Overview 5
Ancient Words, Modern Deeds Ch. 4
Deliverance from Disorientation Ch. 7 (expanded version, including 'chaos')
Manifesto of Deity Ch. 9
The Bible: Not the Declamations or the Distillations of Man,
but the Doctrine of Deity Ch. 4
When you define design, in essence, as
that correlation of considerations,
discernible in assemblage,
operative in actuality,
fashioned in facility,
unitary in singular objective as empirically operational (with whatever sub-units of the same),
coherent in concept, differentiable from base systems, constitutive with, by or in command,
commandeering raw materials, or instituted by such a process,
functional in site and
ministering through symbolic power to provision in testable reality:
then this is what man is, mind is, spirit in man is. It is so both in his construction in himself, and in his constructions, as operative once established. Design is in his designation, and his designations have design: but as to the latter: they are eminently susceptible to this specification, though his designs are not only of the mind, but of the will, so that he may designate not merely design as such, but destruction as the design of his desire.
The nature of definition is of edifying kind, so let us from The gods of naturalism have no go! 34, take the following definition, with associated delineations.
The definition dilemma remains.
If you define design (even pragmatically) in terms of
an integrated correlation of unitarily-coded or contrived fabrications,
with components in ordered combination,
involving multi-systematic concatenations of construction,
not merely irreducible in complexity for function to their sub-areas,
but set as contrivances of integrality for system:
then that is precisely what is found in life.
Take a drawing. It involves a sub-system of paper (which needs a cause to be white and right for the fight of drawing), another of ink (which needs to be clear and not murky to distinguish things with finesse), a third of the objective, a fourth of the skill, a fifth of the will, a sixth of the available environment permissive of such activities, and all of these things, including the imagination and any preludes of imagery to be found, are to be co-ordinated, concatenated: that is the essence of design.
The alternatives for these things do not exist. Neither does imagination come floating on the clouds of chance, nor does purpose, for chance is mere performance of a system, without which nothing would even be definable or describable. The idea is that one system of such and such capabilities will do what another is needed to do, and that this happens if you wait. This is merely equivalent to anti-definitional nonsense.
It is like telling someone starving, or slowly dying of malnutrition, that it is just a matter of waiting. In one sense, this is almost true, for death is the result. It is necessary to find food if life is still in view.
It is necessary to find the sufficient causes of all the above ingredients to attain rationally the functionalities which they provide. Assuming it with some such name as 'chance' is merely using a word for the works. Many do this; but they do not prosper. It is necessary always to have what it takes and to use it; and if some series of systems or intelligences produces just what you want, this is entirely irrelevant to the point in view. THEY HAD TO DO IT. It was to be done, and they had the constructive capabilities inherent in them. If you find what they did, it was still done by sufficient causative agencies.
To whisk into being the results of the causative sufficiencies by appealing to a denuded system or series of systems (systematically concatenated in their turn, of course) of causative deficiencies is merely to use words to avoid facts. Time does not make systems, nor do systems of one kind hold the perquisites of what has the prerequisites for any given task. Logical force and imagination are needed for each system, for each parameter, for each combination of the resources of sub-sets of systems, and imagining pies from grass, by assuming an oven will turn up, and a cook, and pastry, and a processing system for grass to become pie-like as a content is really a children's story, funny precisely because it both cannot and does not happen.'
Of course if the cook and so forth do turn up, this is that fairy like feature: and in the end, the cook was always the point, not to mention the farmer and the products, and the means for all to work, each in his or its domain, and to co-operate. It is known as wisdom and power, intelligence and imagination and it has no substitute.
On this, see such chapters as The Pride of Life ... 5, Dancers, Prancers. Lancers and Answers 5, The Wit and Wisdom of the Word of God, the Bible True to Test Ch. 2 esp. *1.
Take the last for example, in this excerpt, revised slightly for our present purpose, which clarifies the point.
As in any design, and in accord with the definition of design*1, there was the initiation structure, to enable the design to become actual, there was for this the intellection aspect, to HAVE something to actualise, the purposive aspect, to have a reason and point for having something to enact, unified in finality as one; and there are all the means, to secure the procedures in progression and progressiveness, for the attainment of the result. With this, there is the point of the whole thing, the underlying drive for such a concatenation of imagination, intellection, execution and means, and the point of application for the resultant, WHY it is needed. All these things are part of design.
You do not ask for roses from cabbage leaves, but from an adequate stock, equipped with all the features, functions and genetic constructions that serve as template of order, and ground of production. The stock base itself, for each and every operative, for all created things that live, using its single and singularly brilliant DNA language, this too needs to be found from what has known qualities that correlate with such creation, capacities in kind kindred to the production of such results. Science normally and normatively seeks such correlations. The uniqueness of evolutionism in the field of science is that it seeks the exact opposite, and is not instantly failed, as if an umpire were temporarily in delirium, and the players decided to make a funny game of it, for kicks. Unique ? are there not other errors of like kind within the traditions of science ? of course, but they too are not science, having already moved with evolutionism from the scientific to the scientistic, exempt from verification, correlation with scientific law, from logic and from normal comparisons alike.
It is the fatuous fabrication of living things from the mind of man without the established means required, that makes one wonder why the Wright brothers did not simply wait, for the fabrication required, from so fertile an imaginary field as this 'Nature'. It is from this goddess in disguise, which in fact, pointedly, is merely an excuse for ignoring the point, that they look, ex-God for His attributes. In science, you look for what does the job, alone, in correlation, has the capacities, not for what does not! This liberty of man, this imagination component, this power to err which is correlative to the power to create with studied imagination, how well it is exemplified, and how well the very spirit of a man is shown in such distortions.
Here the dream world of pseudo-science, that branch of Paul's 'knowledge falsely so-called'*1, operates as if it were a type of LSD, producing illusions of grandeur where there is none, nor is any to be found, neither is it to be seen, for creation as the Bible has for millenia told us, is PAST. As stated, so it is found. But let us look further at it.
these thing components of correlation,
these coded commands allied with coded provisions for the execution of the same,
and the placement of the results,
not omitting the allocation of raw material resources so that they are present as required,
these multi-systematic concatenations of construction, not merely irreducible
in complexity for function, but contrivances of integrality for system,
achieved through the symbols of the coded commands,
finding operatives or executives moving into the substance of what is forced to operate:
they are more abundant in the case of the human embryo, than in all designs on earth which man makes, and which are materially available for inspection.
They are thus, except perhaps in the case of the phenomenon of the mature man who comes at the epitome of the growth season, having moved first from the womb into the outward world and thereon having achieved an instant breathing categorical change, so that it is from air, not blood, that the oxygen is received. There, the program proceeds on till formed before our eyes, he is the counterpart of design, procreated with the same abundant power, as in his first creation, magnificently equipped with the template provided for procreation thereafter.
What is defined as design and met, must be acknowledged as such, when it constitutes in itself the most profound exemplar of the definition of design, involved material happenings, that is known. Otherwise the definition must be mutated, in order to allow confusion, so that it is used where it does not apply, or applies where it is not used. Terminological confusion, however, is a but a poor replica of science.
From SMR p. 112 comes a further definitional analysis.
One of the additional less than amiable meanders in the mind of man, then, is to be found here. One can detect at times, as perhaps in the School case noted, a fear or reaction relative to the word 'design' in this context. It is in fact quite futile to quibble about the word 'design'. By definition, it would refer to a close and apt correlation of operational components, with coherent overall functionality. It is this which precisely is the testimony of a seemingly almost inexhaustible supply of biological units, by the massed billions: cells.
These we find with their infinitesimal construction, codes and economy, including the microscopic fuel and energy production sites... in general, in species... provided with systems not only apt for inter-cytological programs and inter-organic correlation, but aiding the coherent expression of that dazzling trilogy: mind, matter and spirit, found in man.
To deny the use of the term 'design' to the fact of design, complex, coded and replicative; this is to illustrate rather well the sharp dichotomy between organic evolution and evidence. We must not mention design; we must not refer to it even when we find, and investigate in awesome detail, the self-duplicating machine tools relating to it: even indeed when its immensely integrated multiplicity of components, with sectional and overall control and expression features, is found to incorporate programs for the making of new mini-creator bodies... called babies.
No, it is as forbidden as might be the mentioning of the name of an architect who designed the house of a competitor!
To refer to the forms of another time, with another image: we, in our generation, have found not only the "watch on the beach", the find that betokens mind; but the machine tools and the factory assemblage plant and indeed the ordering system for factory erection, to produce more of them. All this, we have found; but still, this is not thought, not creation, not design! The brilliant academic buffoonery of our time has the smell of death, a disordered, mental miasma of Belsen about it.
Objectively, this has come to be a matter of balking at fact. There has indeed been a tendency for fashion to replace thought, it appears. Meanwhile the personification of Nature, as C.S. Lewis implies in his Mere Christianity, with sensitive sardonism (*20), is a wholly implausible ruse. Nor is it always man who is the source of such shameless 'creation' by the flick of a figure of speech: he is however the butt.
In various places, we may read that 'Nature' has 'striven' to do this or that; has foreseen this or that need; has provided against this or that contingency; has created this or that and in general is the most marvellous mind, brilliant fellow and greatest chap you could ever meet... except for the fact, you know, that it has no mind, is no person. For a figure of speech, however, it does them rather well at engineering... So cheap, these words, so very cheap. But how it serves the philosophers in constructing with idle words, what takes applied power. You would almost think that they were entertaining thoughts of being God, so freely do they create by their... words.
Man is indeed free to leave God out, whilst smuggling in His power through semantic deviations, self-deception or theoretical 'grave fairy tales for older children', such as evolution: where fantasy rules and neither logic nor observed data determine things. Man does however for ever seem to be worrying about the consequences of this selective mental oblivion.
Nor, when you come to think of it, is this surprising... Indeed, to revert to the language of scientific method, alas so displaced: this threatens to be a valedictory verification. The confusion and the abuse of truth is in line to set man morally, ethically, religiously and culturally - and his poor suffering, misled children after him, at high speed straight into the unyielding face of the rock of reality. It can shade, this rock; but when used as a collision point, it is awesome and exacting.
The call of magic, and of drastic designs upon design, these two topics concerning man's malady, being looked upon, we come to a third folly. This next relevant element of human logic-dodging is what we might call: casuistry with causality or removing the issue by sleight of thought.
The effort to get something from nothing is neither wise nor logical; nor evidentially supported. This consideration applies both absolutely and relatively in the area of structured thought and its correlate in system; as to its programmable expressions indeed. Origins require a theory which is logically coherent, and not a specious avoidance of the concept of causality. (Cf. pp. 158-159, 284 ff., 264 ff. infra.)
Indeed, notwithstanding the anti-causal cant of philosopher Kant (*21), no casuistry with causality can account for it in in absentia: you can't consistently say why it doesn't apply, is not valid, or attempt to explain it away, as if to get away from the operation of such a principle! The very concept of rendering causality defective, removing the objective validity of cause and effect, has a fatal flaw. In reasoning on these lines, you are pre-supposing what has to be proved. Why ? Because you account for its arrival on the scene; but to give this reason for it, you are using it. You use it to "derive" it, operate it in order to make it operational, use it as a midwife for its own birth. You have it, alive and well, waiting upon its own birth, whenever you try to account for it. It is not reason which can escape it (cf. Ch. 3 infra).
In terms of begging the question, that is a classic case. There is a basis for any non-self-accounting example of a causal system; it is caused by what is adequate to set it up in that format. Yet the moment you try to avoid the inter-action of that basis, as cause, and the system, as result, you have buried the very means of research, while using them. Contradicting yourself, making what you call invalid, the means of showing it, you need no further contradiction from anyone else.
Eminent amongst designs, superior to any visible, meeting definition above all need, and surpassing it as Niagara, a spray from a boat, man tries to evade, evacuate and elude his specifications*1, by making new ones, some called 'theories of creation', with the mind which works validly in 'nature' only because of the same logical constructions in both this and himself, one implicit, the other explicit. This design work concerning theories on his origin, he does because of the implicit (but often denied) assumption that he can declare truth when it does not (on various models he makes up) and cannot (on that basis) so much as exist!
This however is not a fault of design, since it is a function of the roving spirit which is part of his design, one not captured by programmatics, being a free agent in the realm of logic, to defy, defile or debauch it, or else to abide by it. In his will, man is even aware of this, and may exult at his own cleverness is subverting truth, injuring his fellows or their felicity and this, whether for his glory, his fame, his name, his futile ramifications of forlorn fury or ... other.
man uses this facility, in such settings, however,
2) As to his volitional
recklessness, this is an aspect of his personally applied power,
As to the former - 1): it is the work of the present Chapter *2.
As to the latter, 2), it is that of those listed below.
REASON, REVELATION and the REDEEMER
LIGHT DWELLS WITH THE LORD'S CHRIST
THE MEANING OF LIBERTY AND THE MESSAGE OF REMEDY.
This point is given further consideration in particular, in Christ Incomparable, Lord Indomitable Ch. 2, from which the following except is taken.
WHAT IS MAN ?
Let us apply this to the debate terminology, as noted above in News. Thus of course life experiences affect the behaviour of those whose spirits respond to them, either wilfully, willingly, astutely, grudgingly, enviously, implacably, sensitively and in a myriad of other possible ways, depending on the person in view, the personality, the pathology, the nature of the case, the model of life in mind, and other choices of or against reason, emotional, social and organisational.
It is complex, like the cells in the fingers, so much so that someone temporarily mesmerised by the millions of cells might forget that there are only ten fingers, each easily subjectible to will, and all in unison really skilled in joint effort. When you cease mesmerism, and look at facts, it is simple. Similarly, when you look at all the things the human spirit may elect to do, and all the reasons why this is so, pathological and normal, spirited or spiritual, godly or anti-godly, it may mesmerise in complexity; but ultimately, when you regard its basis and nature, it is quite simple in KIND.
The spirit of man being personal, and being responsible for its selections of sin, or its upward thrust to reality, and in particular for refusing truth and preferring a squalling mob of antilogies and even antinomies which neither cohere nor are consistent with any realisable view of reality, it is often assiduous in avoiding truth. It pays for this in endless conundrums (cf. SMR Chs. 3, 5, 10, Predestination and Freewill), not the result of mind or reality, but of the misuse of mind through alien models, predators on fact , not purveyors of it.
As noted in Downfall from Defamation, Ch. 1 (q.v.):
This then is the way, the manner of insistence on irrelevance, here lies the arbitrary antinomy, the irrevocable antilogy, the crass incoherence that makes of modern man a prey to folly, and a butt for discipline.
And again, in this place, we have:
Verification vomits; method faints; only myth remains. This is the way of death, with the scientistic, the fantastic and the fantasising in one inglorious realm where the real gradations are from arbitrary antinomy, through ascending antilogy to alogistic vacuity.
These features and foci are dealt with in that Chapter, and correlative ones; but for the moment, let us pursue our current theme, the relevance of experience to belief and conduct in general.
Thus experience is OF and BY something, the PERSON. The person may elect to be mean, generous, gracious or liberal, perceptive and so on, if those qualities are not already pathologically cancelled by wilful waywardness added to imperfection from birth; for it is a fallen race, and even infants are not confusable by realistic eyes, with angels in disguise, whatever their charming or even beguiling features.
The effect on the person of what the person does is obvious, for we all find it. If you lose your temper, this may engender (if you are honest to the point) shame, or guilt; and if you are a Christian, it may lead to repentance and cleansing so that the impact is met by power from the source of one's spirit, and the equanimity is not lost, nor the heart hardened, two otherwise dangerous possibilities. This apart, such things will then have perhaps a physical resultant, if it leads to an ulcer, or to pre-occupation while you are driving, and so to an accident.
Indeed, if you make a practice of not resisting the call to lose your temper, then a pathway of normal response may occur psychologically in your pre-set controls, thus changing them indeed for the worse, and this may make new patterns tend to become procedural norms.
Worse, it may lead to a sense that nothing matters too much, as a self-protective device for pride, and so affect your 'philosophy', and this could lead you to take a cynical course in that domain, and that could lead to your becoming white-anted with confusion, mastered by another cultural pathology, and this could lead to a whole bevy of new orientative adjustments, even at the physical level, to the psychological, moral and spiritual change in view.
If you walk on your side of the foot, then your shoe leather will show it, even though it has NO relationship at the personal level. Equipment can SHOW what you know and will, quite readily; and if you are sufficiently weak, it can begin to trip you up, since it inclines you this way or that, and you simply follow, being submissive, or you may fall headlong, being furious, perfidious or inclined to whatever other of the myriad of spiritual responses may appeal to your discursive and adventuring person.
You may hear someone denouncing this, and so at the spiritual level, on consideration of its infantile nature, change it; but if you reject the Lord, having then no rational or real access to absolute truth, you may sidle off into something else, even if only for a change, or in a combination of frustration and exasperation. To try to shove off these conundrums of being a person with demonstrable powers of orientation, often demonstrably misused for some purpose or penchant, desire or wilfulness, in known conflict with truth, onto your equipment is no better than blaming your horse because it has a limp, and you cannot be bothered sitting differently to spare it. (Cf. SMR Ch. 3.)
Empirically, each domain, each phase of life has to be considered where it is and for what it does and can do; and this, if truth is to exist in the matter, has to be subject to two criteria. Firstly, one must avoid blaming what is merely circumstantial when it is clear that resolve can and could readily overcome it; but the preference may be otherwise, the matter being duly weighed, and desires accorded status by evaluation.
What is the source of the evaluation ? There are many influences, but what needs to be recalled is this, that reason and reality are one of these. Even when consciously there is an impediment for wilful reasons, to receiving truth, this is far from the end of the matter. As there are impediments, so there is God who made made and remedies; and as there are remedies, there is truth and fabrication. Without an objective, verified, validated revelation OF God BY God, man has not access to truth, only to superficial sequences (cf. SMR, TMR, The Meaning of Liberty and the Message of Remedy, Reason, Revelation and the Redeemer). It is necessary to find, test and accept the remedy, or have no basis for so much as argumentation concerning truth; for it is not found in the field, or in the mines or skies, or dreamed or desire; but where it is attested.
One may be afflicted by conscience, summoned by known deletion of relevant elements, however hard rationalisation may try to deliver one, and immersed in remorse, or its counterpart, and so exhibit swaggering disregard (cf. SMR Ch. 3). It varies, and who can know it except he knows the One in whom knowledge without taint comes from being Creator, not convener, fabricator, not author of fabrications.
Much is simply FACT, however imperfectly known, versus will. If reason be followed, truth is surely found; but from oneself (SMR). It is pathetic to ignore pathology, and man without God is pathological, however well logic works; but when by reason revelation is found and attested by the grace and mercy of God, then it is readily validated, verified and assured.
Thus whether one has access to truth itself, or to this by will misused, does in itself not grant truth which must be obtained; yet there are facts and what to do with them is not limited merely to the irrational, though a sufficiently slavish mind may find it so, but may relate initially or superficially, if relevantly, to the rational and evaluative; and this may relate not least to processive data (I DID do that, and THIS DOES happen in such a case, and so forth). In principle, the mind can move from this if it stays, to real revelation and abide in what abides and in Him who gave it. In practice, the upshot varies in mood, in mentality, in aspiration, in influence by truth in various domains, and above all, on attitude to THE TRUTH, in God. Protestations do not constitute the equivalence of reality in this field.
The human heart is by nature now desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), even trying to deny its own responsibility and debauching reason in the process, as noted above. He who trusts is his own heart is a fool, categorically and correctly proclaims Proverbs 28:26. You must be sure you have the LIVING GOD, and have ACCESS to Him, independently of your own inherent limitations or wounds of spirit or mind, and that He is WILLING to give this to you!
The Bible is by no means wrong in this, and few are they more morbidly determined to avoid it than those who nobly pretend to be treating the facts, while ignoring the only source in which to find them, finally. Justice may be the conscious criterion of conduct, or truth, or goodness, or mercy, or all of them, or these things may lie slain in the aspirations of the subject. It is not the bones which determine the love for these things, but a yielding to the nature of the case; for without justice, there is mere force, which is far below the capacities of man, in creation and co-operation; and without mercy, there is loss, through hard-nosed pretence, for all men fail in some things; and without goodness, there is evil, the marring and the marching that seeks what is desired, and not to complement what is produced with ingenuity and understanding.
To desire these things, while short of knowing God, is a derivative of being derived from God, and thus a second derivative in status. The imprint of eternity is disposed into the temporal by its truth. It does not require; but it does attest what reason confirms and indeed requires. It is this which is the basis of much differentiation, as rationalisation and self-defence induce towards further errors. Refusal of this dual attestation is a result of liberty plus truth, a peculiar specialty found in, but not confined to man.
The lust for power, control, mastery, glory are all involved, and much else besides. It is not the peculiar parts of the dynamics of self-destruction through desired delusion, masquerading as truth, which are crucial here; it is the type of procedure. It is attested in scripture in Ephesians 4:17-19.
But what of the love of truth, mercy, goodness and justice ?
Loving these things is no more determined by quality of your nervous energy, than is a horse's temperament by the quality of its legs. Hating them is indeed a diseased condition of the spirit, but it is one accessible by will. The will for truth is not subject to the shape of the brain, which serves in ideational facilitation, or the pockets of its planning. If it were, then capacity would equal direction, what is would equal what should be, and what is enablement would equal purpose. Such identities are no more acceptable re persons, than are inadequate identities in trigonometry.
The place of purpose in the design called man is obvious in what is found in him: the integrality and unity, the inimitable intimacies of the correlative qualities and components and the capacity to transcend what is ordered or programmed, by making programs and making the scenarios for which made programs are adapted, by deciding on what OUGHT to be done. Nothing that is, makes what ought to be so much as exist ... except God.
He however is not part of man's equipment, nor are His powers those of man. He is in fact the sina qua non of truth (cf. Barbs ... 6 -7, SMR pp. 939ff., It Bubbles ... Ch. 9), the rational ground of justice and the personal source of mercy and goodness.
The reason why the existence of God makes for what OUGHT to be, is simple. Since man is a design (cf. Chs. 1 - 2 in Dip Deeper, Higher Soar...), the WILL and purpose of the designer becomes what is right for him. Without this, he does not exist. By it, he has the right way to exist. If it were put that the Designer was evil, then this is impossible, as we have seen in detail in such sites as Sparkling Life ... Ch. 4; for being contained by nothing, delimited by none, having all things, needing nothing, giving all that it might be, lacking all pre-determined controls, with the inhibitions of time merely His own invention for His creation, He has nothing but to give, to create, to enable and of course, to judge, since He is not only the truth, but what constitutes it.
What He wills is wrought; and if He makes freedom, that is wrought; and if man misuses it, that is man's error, and man's response should be, as it sometimes is, repentance. When He designs, moreover, He does not use what lacks the requisite potencies, or potential, in the work, but what has them. In all creation, it is so. Thus even a hat-designer can take materials and by imagination and enterprise CREATE a chapeau to dazzle. It is however a HAT still, with whatever appeal to the imagination, which shares the vision behind it, perhaps, in the mind of the designer. It is not a thinking object, but a stimulus to thought in those who possess the powers of thought.
If, similarly, you make a tape-recorder, and store there the EFFECTS acoustically, or a video and store the visual and acoustic effects in its receptacle-prone potential, you do not create a thinking or imagining or performing object out of matter: in matter you store it, in DESIGNED matter, you are ABLE to store it. It has however nil in creativity, merely possessing transmissibility through code, precisely as in DNA.
The confusion of
means in matter with an end, what uses them, and
the end itself, design prescriptions, with the originating thought of design, or for that matter,
design prescriptions with the inner thought of that very resultant, man,
which is designed, when the latter is given as PART of the design:
namely what is requisite for and in the milieu of thought:
it is this which lies at the base of some of the greatest profusions of confusions and absurdities of which man has ever been capable, short of a direct tilt at God. This is indirect, an endeavour to capture the interstices of CONSCIOUS LOGIC and knowledge of design, imagination and originality, in the processes of what merely enacts, being so coded.
For thought you need not merely its results - code can be a result of thought, just as can originality makers such as man. Thought is put into each; but it is put into different receptacles. What is potent for thought is one thing; what is a mere transmitter of it, that is another. You see this highlighted with brilliantly discerning and dully, near automated students: the latter follow, the former may even lead.
A conscious evaluator, critic, originator of thought, assessor of means, institutor of priorities, exponent of imagination, whether rebel against his or her own construction, or in sympathy with it may by arrogance imagine itself a god (as in Ezekiel 28:9, where the transcendent beauty and brilliance of one of God's creation leads him to act the god-part, and to be asked: "Will you still say I am a god, when I slay you!").
This is the extent to which the amazing licence for liberty accorded to man can go. It is however of course just as much a work of folly to extrapolate liberty and imagination into all-power and control of creation (including one's very self), as to imagine that what is manifestly occurring before one's eyes, does not exist. Thus some may seek to imagine that they are without the qualities which matter lacks, and cannot be contrived to possess; and this while they even engage in conscious thought and critically evaluation, for which matter is not the domain, though the results of this, as of many other things, can be stored in it, or exhibited by it.
All of this however is as far from the programmatic, it is as far from the hard-wired in, what is merely settled in the electronic media, instilled in directive or inanimate process by the experiences that come with the mere passage of time, as can be! It is simply a different domain, with different meaning, facilities, laws and ways. To confuse the two is to confuse what CANNOT err because it is programmed - and even a determinist failure to follow a program is NOT an error, but a failure in the programmer - the mere enactment from the thing made, on the one hand, and on the other, what can err, because it is personal and liable to do so.
See also, for example:
Deity and Design, Designation and Destiny Section 3, *3,
Licence for Liberty Ch. 2,
What is the Chaff to the Wheat Ch. 3, TMR Ch. 5,
It Bubbles, It Howls, He Calls Ch. 9, esp. *1A,
The Bright Light and the Uncomprehending Darkness Ch. 7,
Let God be God Ch. 7, Repent or Perish Ch. 2.