List,
The reverse of this reasoning is how I think the conclusions were drawn: IF
there is something more than human contrivance going on, THEN there is more
than mere generalization, THEN "prophecies" were made. And I assume that
the above is the reason for CHardin's conclusion stated thusly: SINCE
prophecies were made, THEREFORE they are more than generalizations,
THEREFORE something more than human contrivnce was going on (which doesn't
follow). She is therefore starting with the assumption that there is more
than human contrivance going on (self-evident) so there are prophecies
(self-evident) which are more than generalizations (self-evident). To do
this she must define "prophecy" as "beyond human contrivance", their
conclusions are therefore evidence of themselves. While I might agree that
conclusions of prophecies are evidence of the ability to prophecy--without
starting with the assumption that there is a God...there is no way that I
could follow up this conclusion to (circularly) imply that this proves the
definition that prophecy is "beyond human contrivance".
Brett
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
The computing field is always in need of new cliches.
Alan Perlis