13 votes

Logic Requires Faith

I'm about to say some crazy things. I don't expect any of you to like it. Some of you will fall asleep. Off to sleep!

"We've come to destroy all Truth, in the name of Reason."

The universe exists. At its most basic, the universe means the material matter and energy and the laws of physics, or the observed constants we call laws.

One of the things we observe, which is a property of our consciousness at least if not of the universe, is cause and effect within time, the perception of sequence in time. Whether or not the speed of that sequence is subjective to the beholder, the sequence itself and the following of effect from cause is an inherent part of the construct of the universe as perceived through the human mind or our mental instrument.

If we accept cause and effect in time, as a given, it implies that something - existence (matter, energy and the laws that govern their behavior) - came about, emerged, out of a previous nothing.

This is, of course, impossible to human logic, if not to the actual universe.

So we are confronted with a logical contradiction inherent in the nature of our minds and our perception of reality. I may not be using the words in their strictest philosophical or scientific sense, and I may be mixing concepts. But to express my meaning in a single sentence: A logical impossibility is required by logic. The emergence of something from nothing is logically necessary at the same time as it is logically impossible.

Note I am not saying it is not understood, but that it is logically impossible. That is not to say it did not happen, in fact it must have. Logic demands that it did. Logic demands something happened which logic insists could not have happened.

This is a bit of a problem.

The problem is that we have no basis in empirical observation or scientific knowledge for assuming our logical construct of reality actually corresponds to anything real. We can rely on the predictive power of cause and effect within observed time only so far as the limited space and time of our observation and the limited scope of our own perception, and no further. That is not very far, as the unperceived is potentially infinite.

We have strong logical grounds for doubting the efficacy of logic, as silly as that sounds. Since logic demands something happened that is logically impossible, we have a clue or hint, a residuum or artifact - a vestigial bit of evidence that logic, the frame, the hardware or software of the mind, which we use to perceive reality, is not actually giving us an accurate image, and runs into a 'bug' when we try to reason back to first principles.

The bug is the contradiction we hit like a brick wall when we ask how something could come from nothing, answer that it could not, and that it must have.

The theory of evolution also tells us that we have no right or basis to expect that the adaptive principle would inevitably or even probably lead to a mental apparatus or instrument (a nervous system with a brain and senses) that shows the whole reality, or even an accurate mirror of a part of reality. No more for Man than for Amoebae.

Our dependence on technical instruments to perceive ranges of sight or sound beyond the direct scope of our senses was the first hint that something was amiss.

The possibility that there are things outside our senses altogether, not just outside the range of our senses but other possible senses altogether. A steep descent! The feeling of falling!

Senses we did not develop and don't have because we did not need, as evolution would have it.

The discomfort increases.

The world becomes a massive swirl of possible light to which we are blind. A real darkness, of which we perceive a tiny portion through the suspect lens our senses. Senses which developed haphazardly and with great economy. senses that lie, that merely eek out a dishonest living for us in an inhospitable, disreputable corner of the infinite. Oh science, what have you done! What gave you the right!?

Then the awful possibility, then likelihood, that what we call logic is a mere makeshift, a tool, a chip of flint, shaped by chance to fit a limited and temporary environment, and means nothing more than tautology means in language. What is true is true for us, because it is the very definition and measuring rod of truth. It is true because it feels true. But it has no necessary relation to reality outside of us.

Something from nothing.

That is the ultimate conclusion of logic, when you start from the beginning, and follow the random walk to the end of the materialist story. You start with something from nothing, and come out with... there is no truth.

There is no truth.

There can be no truth.

The only backdoor out of this idea is to posit the possibility that time itself is not a real thing. How else to get around that something had to come from nothing? This apparent escape is also a false door. A little thought on the subject of time and you will see that taking away time does not take away the problem, but merely puts it into a more striking contrast.

There are a couple ways I know of to get rid of time.

The total absence of motion, down to the most subatomic level (assuming the world is in fact made of material, which we have no reason to assume, other than our lying our senses, after filtering infinite possible inputs) -- nothing moves, nothing changes. What would time actually mean in a frozen universe? Nothing moves, nothing lives to perceive time or the present. Nothing changes its state or moves at all. Whats the difference between frozen motion and frozen time in a universe entirely material?

From another angle, time disappears if we eliminate the perceiver of time.

If no one is watching time go by at a certain pace, and experiencing a present moment, what would time be?

Every event along the time spectrum could be compressed to a point, or extended infinitely, by a difference of perception. Like rewinding or fast-forwarding a film. Without an observer, it is all one instant as much as it is a period of duration. Or an endless circle, which is just a ring without experience of duration.

Without a perceiver, the sequence of events called time could be a single object without past or future, just like the whole film is contained on a single film strip, an object with space but not time. The medium holds the entire sequence of information that is the film, in a physical object. The object is outside of and not subject to the time the film takes to run from beginning to end. The speed is entirely subjective, and the entirety is held outside of that time.

So we don't even know if time is real, although we depend entirely on it for cause and effect to be an inherent part of reality. The mind requires time, yet we have to give it up too, to appease the demands of empirical observation and inscrutable logic.

This does not save us, however, but only digs us deeper. Even in the absence of time, the whole compressed point of all existence, matter, and the laws of physics is still a thing. It may not have followed from nothing in a linear sequence in time, but it still exists, and the logical structure of the human mind demands that its properties have an origin.

That is not to say it must have an origin, only that our logic demands it.

All these roads lead to the same conclusion, that the logic we are equipped with is not in fact an objective picture of the reality.

It contains contradictions and can only be presumed to be an instrument, like that of the hummingbird or a dragonfly, adapted to perceiving a limited environment and surviving within it. Beyond that efficacy, nothing is either guaranteed or even assumed about our mental equipment according to the dominant theory of its development, organic evolution by the adaptive accumulation of randomly generated genetic traits, in succession of generations going back to the first emergence of life, Once, by accident.

I am not trying to cast doubt per se on the theory or even on materialism itself. Only to point out that the whole logical enterprise, including science, and even including math and logical tautologies, does depend foremost, and first, on faith. On faith in their reality. An improbable faith, a faith contradicted by the evidence and by the object of the faith itself. The belief that the logic of our minds is true in fact rather than merely true to us -- that is faith.

We all recognize that faith in our senses is in fact faith. It is less recognized that faith in logic is faith. That logic itself breaks on the rocks of logic when followed back to the first things it posits - the origin of existence and physical laws, of time and the perception of material reality in time, and the emergence of anything in time out of nothing. Logic breaks on its own wheel. In coming full circle, its back snaps.

To believe, contrary to the evidence, that logic is a true grasp on the real structure of the universe, is faith.

It is a faith that would make more sense if there was God, a creator motivated to create a being that could see the truth he sees and the truth he created. A "good and loving God," creating beings in his image. This is almost demanded by the faith in logic.

Who could guess the motive of such a thing, which by definition is unknown. The definition of God is - Unknown, and nothing more. Only to be guessed and speculated at with the tool of human logic, and other tools some claim and others disparage and deny exist. Spiritual tools.

How else assume the mind of man would be true to reality? I am not saying there is such a God, only that faith in logic would presume such a thing as a likely premise, or else presume an accident. Of course, the failure of logic to explain, or even allow for possible explanation, of the beginning - of existence - would argue against both the loving god and the happy accident. But neither against one more than the other.

There is no basis or reason to assume, either logically or empirically, that logic itself would be a sound tool or accurate reflection of the real world it perceives. Neither the theory of the emergence and development of life according to natural laws, nor the bedrock a priori reason of the mind, indicates any reason for logic to be correct. Both argue against it, persuasively.

To still believe in logic, despite all this, requires faith, and therefore Faith is prior to Logic. Logic cannot even get off the ground without a leap of faith. It cannot even disparage faith until it gets off the ground.

The faith in logic creeps back to God, even while denying him.

Bill3

Copyright 2013. No rights reserved.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I love this guy.

I love this guy.

You are trying to use logic ...

... to prove that logic is not valid.

Let's see you try to prove that logic is not valid without first assuming that it is.

Also, you can't simply assume a cause-effect relationship without first proving that a cause exists. Doing so is not logic; it is faith.

i am not trying to prove

i am not trying to prove logic is not valid. i am saying we have no logical basis to assume it is valid beyond its utility. to believe in it beyond its utility and truth for our minds is faith.

i merely mention the problem logic poses toward any conceivable understanding of the origin of existence as indicative of its essential limitations. it is the tool of a limited human mind. those who believe the human mind is an instrument for revealing essential reality either through logic or the senses are presuming something not provided by logic, observation or dominant theories.

it is more in keeping with belief in the human mind being an exceptional creation to believe this, and funny to point out that most self styled atheists keep this conception even while following after the fashion of atheist. they do not take the real implications of a true subjective to heart.

i respect honest atheists who accept those implications as well as honest faith which denies the whole of subjectivity. what i don't respect the half way atheist who has all the conceit of his humanity, believing his senses and logic supreme, as though designed by god for truth, and all the humility of the godless modern churl.

the modern who tries to have his god and eat it too. to be an organic ball of nerve endings which yet is able to perceive universal truth. an animal who won't admit he is one.

he rattles off childish just so stories to obscure the real problems of existence, which convince no one but the crude popular television consumer of the new religious litany, as dull in his faith as any of his forebears, but without their humility or grace. and not a skeptical or inquisitive bone in his body.

The point is ...

... you are ASSUMING that logic is valid and then trying to prove that logic is not valid.

you're assuming repetition

you're assuming repetition and capital letters bolster your argument.

i can completely accept logic's internal consistency and rules as valid for argument, and also recognize it might have limits. if logic had no such limitations, we wouldn't have any problem conceiving of a universe of laws and material without cause or origin.

empirical observation is constantly upsetting the presumptions of our minds, the rules we demand of reality, and the truth of our senses. if the human mind is the outcome of evolution, its purpose and capacities would have no neat fit with the actual reality.

we have to use logic, argument, our senses, because they are the only tools we have. we don't know what the world would look like with other tools. that does not rule out paradoxes, contradictions, or even accepting that these tools might have limits, might give us a false picture in some places or altogether.

to assume they don't is faith.

The arbitrary need not be considered ...

... is a basic rule of logic, too.

You claim that logic might have limits. What are they?

Are you saying that YOU have a problem conceiving of a universe of laws and material without cause or origin? If so, I don't know why you have a problem conceiving such a thing. I don't.

You say, "empirical observation is constantly upsetting the presumptions of our minds ..." So? We might have presumptions, but when faced with enough empirical observation, logic dictates that our presumptions must yield. What is so difficult about that?

Your comments about "the rules we demand of reality, and the truth of our senses" are vague comments. We don't demand rules of reality. Reality is what it is. It is up to us to understand it.

If by "truth of our senses" you mean the Validity of the Senses, this has long ago been proven as an axiom of logic.

You say, "we have to use logic, argument, our senses, because they are the only tools we have. we don't know what the world would look like with other tools. that does not rule out paradoxes, contradictions, or even accepting that these tools might have limits, might give us a false picture in some places or altogether."

Actually, yes we CAN rule out "what the world would look like if ..." because those are ARBITRARY claims. A fundamental rule of logic is "the arbitrary need not be considered." Our minds can come up with infinite arbitrary concepts (i.e. prove that pink unicorns don't exist). Logic dictates that we DO in fact rule out the arbitrary, so that we do not waste our time on intellectual wild goose chases.

If you have a claim that something exists, then provide evidence. To simply claim it without evidence is the VERY DEFINITION OF FAITH, and is NOT LOGIC (like those caps there, amigo?).

Logic = A set of rules to evaluate reality.

Faith = A belief without evidence.

Finally, there are NO contradictions in reality. If you think a contradiction exists, then you are mistaken, and you must look further to find why you are mistaken.

And one more time ... I would like to see you provide an argument for your position that does NOT first assume that logic is valid.

Ciao.

ciao!we can't be so far

ciao!

we can't be so far apart, since we assume we share the same mind. that's a pretty necessary precondition for this whole logic business, to assume our separate minds share the same logical structure. what makes sense for one should make sense for another.

with that said, please explain to me how the world can exist in the absence of a cause. really think about it. its just there - it has qualities, properties, it is something. follow everything back to the previous cause. you either need infinity or a first cause. i am not suggesting this is a problem with reality, just with our mind's structure. reality has no problems.

there is really no reason to assume your primate mammal brain is the bees knees for seeing the truth as it is. useful yes, not truthful. not without faith.

"Logic = A set of rules to evaluate reality.

Faith = A belief without evidence."

faith - belief that the set of rules is valid. When there are big red flags that indicate they might not be, for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes

then it is not only faith but faith against evidence.

Logic testable. Faith not

Logic testable. Faith not testable. I can't believe even Bill wrote this lol.

You seem to be ignoring the role of axioms in logic

Axioms are the necessary seeds from which a chain of deduction proceeds. No proof of axioms is required, or even desired. "we hold these truths to be self-evident....". So strictly speaking the application of logic merely demonstrates the logical consequences of what we take on faith.

Leges sine moribus vanae

I did not ignore this, it is

I did not ignore this, it is a given not open to argument that axioms are inherently true, for us. And as far as we can trust the result of repeatable experiments we can derive constants. Logical truths are one thing, inherent to the structure of our minds. Constants observed in nature are another thing, empirical facts we judge to be inherent properties of the 'real world' around us.

My points were two.

Logic contradicts itself when we accept that something logically impossible is also logically required. (Something: nature's laws and material, coming from nothing).

I think all honest and thoughtful people have recognized that this is an insurmountable obstacle, logically, if not empirically. It certainly happened. That isn't the issue. We can't make sense of it to our minds. The beginning of existence can make no sense, with or without god.

What does this tell us about logic as a whole? Very little, because once we begin to doubt it we lose the ground we're standing on to provide a foundation, even for the doubt. But I think we can say this much: we can only trust logic as a practical guide, not as an ultimate truth, in absence of some other faith.

Logically we know that we cannot make sense of existence merely logically. Anyone who pretends they can is working with a different mind than I have. Do your best to square the circle in a way intelligible to others, see if you can produce a consensus.

We can only trust our logic in the practical sense of observation and experience. We can use it and rely on it without considering it true, outside of our minds. We can say it is true as far as it works. But we wouldn't be having this discussion if the mental structure we both share had no problem comprehending our existence in a fundamental way.

On the empirical side of experiment and observation, we have a similar problem. What appears to us stationary and solid we know to be no such thing on a deeper level. This is simple and old news. But as we dig deeper it gets weirder, as any amateur student of quantum physics knows. Taking things to the most elementary observable level, all of our assumptions about what matter is have been laid flat by our own adhere to the scientific method. Things which should not be possible are observed as we drill deeper into the quantum level.

The closer we try to get to the 'objective' truth, the more we stumble over paradoxes. The whole field of theoretical mathematical physics becomes a tree branching out endlessly with fruits of every shape and color. All is conjecture, beyond proof, beyond experiment, beyond falsification. Only faith in the validity of the mathematical properties of our own minds, for all times and places, can make them plausible, because there can be no test or evidence. Any mathematically consistent model is presumed plausible, but can't be tested proved. So there is no consensus or even move toward consensus. It becomes more and more the theater of the absurd.

Finally, we believe that we are animals in a state no more perfect or objective than any other animal. Our mental and sense apparatus are evolved to suit a particular environment. The whole of present biology gives us no grounds to think our logic or our senses are an actual mirror of reality as it is. It is all we have, so we can work with no other tools. But those tools themselves tell us plainly there is no basis to assume the tools are sound. There is no reason to believe the lens through which we observe and filter the unknown and unseen inputs is anymore accurate or valid for all places and times than for a fish or honeybee.

To have faith in our logic, in our mental apparatus and senses, in our truths and facts, is not justified by that logic, or by that science or those facts. On the contrary, they give us every reason to doubt their validity, beyond mere practical use for the results we desire to obtain. They are no measure of truth, because they make quite clear there can be no objective truth perceived by a subjective consciousness.

To believe our minds and the logical patterns they follow are not mere makeshifts and handy tools, but actually display to us the unadulterated and unadorned play of reality is an immense act of faith that is either vanity, fear, or truth. But in all cases it is faith. It is faith because it is without reason and even against reason, for that is what faith is.

You have to ask yourself, if I really believe my own mind can apprehend truth, why do I believe this? What other than faith can make me believe this? According to the random and purposeless materialism that sits astride the throne of all the sciences, it is not so. Logic, empirical science and applied theory all tell is no.

If you believe it, you're either too afraid to fully accept the implications of what science shows you, you simply don't understand those implications, or you have just put a fig leaf over the god in the machine that runs your universe and makes you the seer of unvarnished truth and reality. In other words, you retain the anthropocentric, objectively true view of the universe that requires a creator, and simply deny the creator as a fashion or afterthought.

I am not arguing for a creator or against it. I am, as ever, just arguing for intellectual rigor and consistency. Accept that you need god for your view, or abandon the view. There can be no faith in the conclusions of our obviously very faulty animal logic, animal senses and animal concepts of what is around us. The limitations can never be overcome as long as we remain the subjective human vessels through which a limited, perhaps tiny spectrum of unknown, infinite inputs is filtered through a perhaps perfectly false lens, to produce a "truth" which is a truth only for us, and nothing more.

You are STILL repeating this

You are STILL repeating this something from nothing argument after I have given you a plausible explanation to your false dichtomy in the chat. Stop being dishonest Bill.

dichotomy*

dichotomy*

grammar nazi bs to distract

grammar nazi bs to distract from the point:P

knowing how to spell

knowing how to spell dichotomy is not grammar lol.

So are...

...you tossing out any theory which has a fundamental quantum mechanical system that has always been present and gives rise to everything else? I'm not quite sure how these theories which don't begin with nothing are logically invalid, although I am a theist.

Stephen Hawking: Math, Yes. Physics, not so much.

1)Someone once said about Stephen Hawking: He's a great mathematician, but he's not a physicist, and he hasn't made a major contribution to that field.

But people love to quote his "mathematically plausible" guesses about the universe and aliens.
Is THAT logical?

2)Logic isn't REALLY contradicting itself when people try to invoke it where it does not lead - even by their standards - which is your point. They are hypocritically applying it to their benefit and ignoring the big feckin' elephant in the room.

Noice.

PS - Ever notice the STAUNCHEST logic-oriented people come from Britain?

PPS - 'Merica's kids may have performed worse than a lot of other countries on standardized tests -- but we were #1 in Belief in Ourselves. And we lead the world.

I'm not sure if someone

I'm not sure if someone filled you in or not but physics is a form of math..... I'M SURROUNDED BY FUCKING RETARDS. GKAKEKOAkfoakfofkeamgteamtgfietfa f,a

This is what happens when you

This is what happens when you mix bongs and bibles.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

best comment on this thread :)

You can roll a lot of joints with a bible.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

A New Definition of Logic

First, Answering some points from others:
(Definition @ Bottom)

1) Yes, logic requires evidence. Everyone already knew that. It also requires Faith - which is what the entire post is about. And you didn't respond to any of the points made.

2) Something from nothing is BY DEFINITION illogical. There's no evidence for it ANYWHERE. Further, it IS more illogical to say the Universe came from nothing than it is to say God came from nothing. The Physical Universe and God work on different levels and adhere to different Laws. For instance, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed -- however physical objects BLINK in and out of existence all the time.... or rather FOR all time.

3) Logic doesn't do anything to prevent discovery, false premises DO. Really? An over-adherence to or I would say IMPROPER USE of logic hinders, slows, or blocks discovery all the time -- in fact that is THE REASON we're not all living out our dreams: "it's not logical for me to do x,y,z" "It's too hard to believe" "it's impractical" "it's never been done" -- all these appeals to logic BLOCK the inspired action that OTHER PEOPLE DO FIND ONCE THEY SET LOGIC ASIDE. A story illustrates:

There's a good story about a government body that needed some scientists to invent a jet pack. The Gov. brought the scientists into a room with a tv monitor and a big table cluttered with notebooks, textbooks, and crude designs. The Gov. man turned on the TV and played a VHS tape of a man standing with a huge jet pack on his back. He lifted up, zoomed around, and landed perfectly. The Gov man said: "This was one of our top scientists, and he figured out how to do it -- but he died pulling a stunt and he never provided the complete equations. We have all his notebooks, and all of his things. FIGURE THIS OUT."

So they went to work, and one day they DID build a crude jet pack that only lifted off the ground slightly -- but it was a bona fide jet pack. The gov guy came back in the room WITH THE DECEASED SCIENTIST saying: he was just an actor, but we knew you guys wouldn't work on the problem with the BELIEF that it was possible -- if we didn't do something to help you get over the OBSTACLE OF LOGIC, which like Grima Wormtongue whispers in your ear as you work that it is. not. possible.

Logic destroys the creative process ALL. THE. TIME.

Definition of Logic: An acceptable conceptual leap forward based on previous observation. In other words...

Logic, is Scientifically-Sanctioned BELIEF.

You are misunderstanding

You are misunderstanding logic. Logic needs a frame of reference and can change, its not some immutable law.
Nothing is really logically impossible except from a certain frame of reference but even then it could change based on new information which would not make it impossible anymore.(this sentance is not really a good sentance, but I expect it should get the point across)

As an example, its not logical to expect me to make a large pink sphere appear next to the earth when I say "Appear!" Say I manage to do just that though. Well, you would then have new information that says it is logical because I made it happen. Based on your old frame of reference, it was illogical to expect the pink sphere to appear. However, based on your new frame of reference, created with the addition of the knowledge that, yes, I can actually make a pink sphere appear, it is logical to expect that I can.

I recomend the book "Many Worlds in One" by Alex Vilenkin if anyone has an interest in the creation of the universe.
Great book for anyone who might be new to the topic or have a basic interest, somehow he managed to actually get away without including any scientific formulas or lots of numbers in the book. While only a couple of the ideas in the book were new to me(I take an interest in this stuff), he goes over quite a bit.
Anyway, the point with mentioning that(aside from the topic at hand) is that most of the stuff behind universe creation and all that is in no way currently provable or disprovable really. Another reason to mention the book is that in the end, he hints that yes, despite being able to explain alot, there may indeed still be room for a god. But of course he doesnt cover that and only hints at it near the end, its a book on the universe, not god.
The thing that always get confused with religion and science is that they are utterly opposed and this is basically a misunderstanding. All science is would be the observation and figuring out the universe and nothing is ever completely proven, its only just been true up to that point and if something comes along that disproves something, than things get updated and changed. The problem occurs when you have people, on both sides, that end up dogmatic and decide its there job to take on the other in "combat". Its the people who use science or religion to further themselves and push information on people that are a problem. Now, I wont argue out anything about religion and science in schools as that just not the thing here and a can of worms and I have already written too much.
I have been typing out alot of stuff today.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Oh, come on Billissimo

How could you drop the ball like this in the middle of an actually logical development? Except... If that was an elaborate reverse psychology trolling effort )))

Only as high as i reach can i grow
Only as far as i seek can i go
Only as deep as i look can i see
Only as much as i dream can i be

Logic requires evidence

Logic requires evidence /end

No such thing as nothing.

I agree that from our current perspective, it requires faith to believe what the ultimate Something is, the fundamental reality behind all else; but I disagree that everything had to have come from nothing. Even if you only have a material universe, with energy, etc. that arises from a quantum mechanical system, that system is not 'nothing', right? And, obviously, from the theistic point of view, the ultimate Something is a Someone, Who isn't nothing either.

If you have any kind of system that underlies everything else, that isn't nothing. I don't think there ever was or ever will be a true 'nothing', from a fundamental, metaphysical perspective.

A post of mine on this subject from a few months back:

No Such Thing As Nothing

Ah I see your problem, your brain is bag full of cats.

And you're confusing whatever the cats are doing for logic.

First there is nothing illogical about something from nothing. It's merely that the physical universe we observe doesn't have something coming from nothing very often. Yet when we look close we can see something from nothing.

Probably your starting place should be, it's safe to assume what exists does exist. Either it always was or it came from something or it came from nothing. None of those possibilities is illogical.

Assuming otherwise however is certainly illogical, which is where those cats come in for you.

Further it is certainly illogical to assume that the possibility that something came from nothing is more absurd than the possibility that something came from something doesn't beg the question of something coming from nothing.

God created the universe is not a solution to the something from nothing problem. It's the same exact problem. You just moved it back a step.

God or the universe was created by something, created by nothing, or always was. God in the picture or out of the picture doesn't change the essential logic of those possibilities. God coming from nothing is no less absurd than the universe coming from nothing. God being eternal is no less absurd than the universe being eternal.

What answers no question is assuming a creative agency. That's always begging the question of who created that agency, and so on.

Verdict of 3BILLS brain: Cats 1 Logic 0

You're not gonna go and

You're not gonna go and pretend that effect without cause makes sense to you, now are you? It obviously happened, but it doesn't make logical sense. Therefore logic breaks down at a certain point, which tells us what we already know. Our minds are not the objective truth discovering tools some want them to be. Whatever creator or process allowed existence to emerge is simply beyond comprehension. That process produced a human mind which is structurally incapable of grasping its actual nature. Nothing beyond that can be ascertained.

A god beyond understanding is as likely as a random process beyond understanding. They're equally outside of the supposition 'likely.' Chewing on you glasses and pretending you understand it like that douchebag in Jurassic Park is just a shameful display of the vanity of the conceited human ape, and doesn't get us anywhere. But you do play the jackass well.

To whatever extent our mental equipment does 'work,' that extent is a limited spectrum of the whole. If it was otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion, there would be no problem to discuss. But if you want to pretend you get it all that's cool, we all know you're a smart guy. Probably human only a little bit better.

This is the one of you I like/respect

As you have not been rude, and even used punctuation and grammar, I will respond in kind.

Effect without cause is what we have.

Therefore it makes sense. I don't argue with it because that's arguing against the demonstrable.

I should clarify though.

The truth of the matter is we either do not know the cause, or there is no cause.

Contrary to your assertion neither of those statements are illogical per se.

At this point I want to be clear, I'm not proving there is no God. I'm just disproving the assertion that God must exist for logic to fail to have a heart attack:)

God does not solve effect without cause, anymore than chickens or eggs solve the problem. If God created the universe, then what created God?

Problem is not solved.

I do not claim to know whether the universe is eternal, or was created. Lacking knowledge I assume none.

Your position boils down to the idea that there is a first cause that is not subject to the first cause criticism. That's it.

Do you follow? I'd like to keep this polite, although I do enjoy the rude also if need be:)

God doesn't solve effect without causation. As I think you may understand it, God is effect without causation.

nothing to do w the post.

nothing to do w the post. post says since logic is unable to make comprehensible what we know must have happened, it is faulty. we don't know where we can and can't trust it. same true of senses and conceptions of material physical reality. the filter through which inputs are being rendered is suspect. whether evolution made it imperfect or creator made it imperfect, no one has right to assume its accuracy without sneaking in some kind of faith. serious atheists have accepted and embraced the implications i lay out. it is the halfway atheists who retain an anthropomorphic and god requiring idea of the human mind but just excise god who i'm criticizing.

other arguments you bring up do not pertain to any of my points, or at any rate argue against points i haven't made.

no serious atheist agreed to that yogurt

now again I'm talking to a bag of cats. Has sequester done this much damage to the sockpuppet program?

Can I talk to the bill3 that is coherent? I like that one. That one has a career.

I will thenceforth to the coherent bill3 as bill3 prime. Bill3 prime can transform into an intelligible human. The other bill3 is like bumblebee.

Bill3 prime understands logic.. enough that we can talk. Bill3 bumbelebee .. bag of cats.

Don't get me wrong. I like cats. But as sockpuppets go.. well lets just talk to the one that clearly went to private school.

And yes I know your tracking me down. Problem is I do nothing illegal. So go blow.

So:

Question to prime: do you think there are rights? In the 'universal' and 'unalienable' sense?

i think you're just having a

i think you're just having a hard time getting over the lower case letters thing. everything will be okay!

i suppose nietzsche not a serious atheist?

Origin of knowledge, — Over immense periods of time the
intellect produced nothing but errors. A few of these proved to
be useful and helped to preserve the species: those who hit
upon or inherited these had better luck in their struggle for
themselves and their progeny. Such erroneous articles of faith,
which were continually inherited, until they became almost part
of the basic endowment of the species, include the following:
that there are enduring things; that there are equal things; that
there are things, substances, bodies; that a thing is what it
appears to be; [...] it was only very late that truth
emerged— as the weakest form of knowledge. It seemed that
one was unable to live with it: our organism was prepared for
the opposite; all its higher functions, sense perception and
every kind of sensation worked with those basic errors which
had been incorporated since time immemorial. Indeed, even in
the realm of knowledge these propositions became the norms
according to which "true" and "untrue" were determined —
down to the most remote regions of logic.

Thus the strength of knowledge does not depend on its
degree of truth but on its age, on the degree to which it has
been incorporated, on its character as a condition of life. Where
life and knowledge seemed to be at odds there was never any
real fight, but denial and doubt were simply considered mad-
ness.

[...]

Origin of the logical. — How did logic come into existence
in man's head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm originally
must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made infer-
ences in a way different from ours perished; for all that, their
ways might have been truer. Those, for example, who did not
know how to find often enough what is "equal" as regards both
nourishment and hostile animals — those, in other words, who
subsumed things too slowly and cautiously — were favored with
a lesser probability of survival than those who guessed immedi-
ately upon encountering similar instances that they must be
equal. The dominant tendency, however, to treat as equal what
is merely similar — an illogical tendency, for nothing is really
equal — is what first created any basis for logic.

In order that the concept of substance could originate —
which is indispensable for logic although in the strictest sense
nothing real corresponds to it — it was likewise necessary that
for a long time one did not see nor perceive the changes in
things. The beings that did not see so precisely had an advan-
tage over those that saw everything "in flux." At bottom, every
high degree of caution in making inferences and every skeptical
tendency constitute a great danger for life. No living beings
would have survived if the opposite tendency — to affirm rather
than suspend judgment, to err and make up things rather than
wait, to assent rather than negate, to pass judgment rather than
be just — had not been bred to the point where it became
extraordinarily strong.

The course of logical ideas and inferences in our brain today
corresponds to a process and a struggle among impulses that
are, taken singly, very illogical and unjust. We generally experi-
ence only the result of this struggle because this primeval
mechanism now runs its course so quickly and is so well con-
cealed.

[...]

"Cause and effect. — "Explanation" is what we call it, but it
is "description" that distinguishes us from older stages of
knowledge and science. Our descriptions are better — we do not
explain any more than our predecessors. We have uncovered a
manifold one-after-another where the naive man and inquirer
of older cultures saw only two separate things. "Cause" and
"effect" is what one says; but we have merely perfected the
image of becoming without reaching beyond the image or
behind it. In every case the series of "causes" confronts us
much more completely, and we infer: first, this and that has to
precede in order that this or that may then follow — but this
does not involve any comprehension. In every chemical process,
for example, quality appears as a "miracle," as ever; also, every
locomotion; nobody has "explained" a push. But how could we
possibly explain anything? We operate only with things that
do not exist: lines, planes, bodies, atoms, divisible time spans,
divisible spaces. How should explanations be at all possible
when we first turn everything into an image, our image!

It will do to consider science as an attempt to humanize
things as faithfully as possible; as we describe things and their
one-after-another, we learn how to describe ourselves more and
more precisely. Cause and effect: such a duality probably never
exists; in truth we are confronted by a continuum out of which
we isolate a couple of pieces, just as we perceive motion only
as isolated points and then infer it without ever actually seeing
it. The suddenness with which many effects stand out misleads
us; actually r it is sudden only for us. In this moment of sudden-
ness there is an infinite number of processes that elude us. An
intellect that could see cause and effect as a continuum and a
flux and not, as we do, in terms of an arbitrary division and
dismemberment, would repudiate the concept of cause and
effect and deny all conditionality."

...

good book anyway.