Matching logic, is a term I have made up for the very simplest logic that anyone can understand. It is a bit like a tautology or the law of identity, in that when you state it, it almost sounds childish because it is so obvious that what is being said, is true. For example:
In order to ride a bicycle as it is intended, you would need a bicycle rider, to "match" up.
Or in order to eat food, you would need an organism capable of eating it.
I want to show the following in this blog entry;
1. Matching logic is always true.
2. Backwards logic, or mis-matching logic, is always false.
The syllogism would look like this;
1. Matching logic is always true.
2. To design cars, you need a designer, which is matching logic,
3.THEREFORE it is true. (sound logic)
A LINE OF PROGRESSION
A line of progression, is when you start out with a simple match, and then it steadily builds, as the requirement increases. For example;
1. In order to play basic football, you need a basic, untrained footballer, such as a child playing.
2. In order to get an amateur footballer, you now need an amateur footballer, and a child playing no longer matches up.
3. In order to play professional football you need a professional footballer, and an amateur footballer no longer matches up.
This is a line of progression. At each stage, you have an example of a match, that is true as it matches correctly, but as you progress, a previous match is no longer sufficient. The more you progress, the sillier it becomes to go back to the start.
CONCLUSIONS:
Just as matching logic is always true, we can now see that mis-matching logic is always false, as it goes in a backwards direction.
Here is a chart showing a line of progression, which I hope you now understand from the football example:
In the above graph we see what I explained. In each instance you will see that as the object in question becomes more sophisticated, LOGICALLY, the more is required, in order to MATCH.
So for example, you only need a child on our line of progression, in order to make simple animal-like play-doh shapes, but in order to get an artistic picture of a bird, you need a person with the matching artistic skill. In order to get a mechanical bird, you need a more intelligent designer, with knowledge to match. To get a real life bird?
The match is easy, if you have exponentially greater design, to match you need an exponentially greater designer.
A real bird is exponentially more sophisticated than anything mankind has or will, ever create, as a design, so then whatever MATCHES must be at least as brilliant in ability, which is a rational inference. But note that on the graph, "natural processes" don't match. On the graph they are lower than a child because a child has a mind, and can at least design some basic things, yet as you see on the graph, it is proposed that something less sophisticated than a child can create real life birds, even though the most intelligent people on earth, CAN'T. (A backwards progression).
When it comes to a real-life bird, you need an unlimited intelligence to MATCH the logic, it has hollow bones, air sacs, circulatory or mass-exchange, two-stroke contraflow breathing system, which is perfect for flying, as it requires less mass.
The reason evolution doesn't match is because it has no intelligence. The reason matching logic is always true is because it is a tautology, and a tautology is defined as the opposite of a contradiction. A contradiction is defined as something that is always false, and a tautology is defined as something that is always true.
