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.


Copyright 2013. No rights reserved.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


But can you explain what he's saying?

And once you do, do you agree? Or disagree?

I can tell you exactly what I think.


Because I know what it is.

Do you want to debate nietzsche, kant, aristotle, plato? You don't even know.

You won't admit to any position because sockpuppets are not paid to do so.




But you copy pasted a bunch of crap you don't remotely understand.

Or do you?

I can tell you what I think. I think humans have unalienable rights. They are not defined by some legislature.

Wny is it that you can't tell us what you think?

i tell you punks what i think

i tell you punks what i think all the time, you just don't like it.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Which god are you talking about?

If you are referring to the God of the Bible, then any statement regarding His characteristics should be consistent with the Bible. The God of the Bible is eternally self-existent, without beginning or end.

What is begging the question is the presupposition that something coming from nothing without creative agency is in any way logical. It certainly isn't demonstrable. Do you believe the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all?

If there isn't a First Cause, then the whole universe is unexplained, which would violate the Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything.

Your response to BILL3 was just an ad hominem attack based on faulty presupposition, false dichotomy, and non sequitur.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

The cats got loose I see.

An ad hominem is when I say your argument is wrong because you're a bad person. I didn't do that. I said his brain was a bag full of cats, but that wasn't the argument. I then showed how his argument was wrong.

For it to be an ad hominem I'd have had to say you're brain is a bag full of cats and therefore you're wrong. The end.

An insult + an argument is not the same thing as an insult alone being the argument. You may consider it rude, but it's not an ad hom.

As for false dichotomy and non sequitur it's pretty clear you have even less understanding of what those mean.

His premise was that something from nothing is illogical. It's not. There's nothing illogical about it. Particles spontaneously come into and out of existence all the time all around us. It's weird and awesome but not illogical.

I'm talking about the God that creates universes. Which book his worshippers like to read isn't germane to the discussion.

There's nothing inherently illogical about God creating the universe, but there's nothing that logically demands there be a God creator. Adding God to the equation merely begs the question of creation from nothing, something then had to create God. God doesn't solve any problems of spontaneous creation.

We know things exist.

A They can have always existed.
B The can come into existence from nothing.
C They may also have been the result of an infinite regression of creators, though this is very similar to A.

Putting god into any of those doesn't change the question.

GoodSamaritan's picture

I see logic isn't your strong suit

Your definition of ad hominem is incomplete. Try again.

Your list of possible solutions presented him with a false choice.

Your conclusion that no questions can be answered if one assumes a creative agency does not follow.

And now you compound your errors by stating another set of false choices with your A, B, and C.

Again, if you are talking about the God of the Bible, making up your own definitions of His characteristics contrary to the very record that reveals Him can only lead to an epic presuppositional fail for any arguments that follow from such definitions.

Finally, particles are not created from nothing. They are either real, resulting from the combination or splitting of other real particles, or virtual, which is to say they are field disturbances caused by other particles or fields. End of physics lesson.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

I didn't need a complete

I didn't need a complete definition. I just needed to point out an insult is not an ad hom. That is a fact. Your claim that I employed an ad hom is falsified.

And no particles are created from nothing. If you disagree talk to people like Stephen Hawking. Particles must be created from nothing for example one reason, so that black holes are not anti-entropic. End of physics lesson.

That's not really germane though. There is nothing inherently illogical with something being created from nothing. Logic is about relations not about premises per se. Spontaneous creation or impossibility thereof are two separate premises from which you can draw conclusions. You could also try to use logic to prove either of them as conclusions, this also has not been done.

Well maybe not you, but an intelligent person.

And that was an insult, gratuitously dropped in to the argument, not an ad hom. I'm not saying you're wrong because you're stupid, I'm showing that you're wrong and then insulting you for fun. See the difference;)

And again, I'm talking about the God of the sort that creates universes. That is the only characteristic of Gods which are germane to the discussion. His bloodthirstiness and vengefulness qualities aren't the point.

If a God cannot create universes then it is not relevant to the discussion. It's the universe creating sort we're worried about here.

God creating the universe does not solve the something from nothing question because then what created God?

If God is eternal and always, then so too could the universe be eternal and always without there being a God.

I have not demonstrated that God did not create the universe. I have merely demonstrated that the universe's existence doesn't prove God by the fact it exists.

GoodSamaritan's picture


Premise: "Ah I see your problem"
Implicate: You have discovered the flaw in his logic
Premise: "you're confusing whatever the cats are doing for logic"
Implicate: The OP is confused and relying on the logic of cats
Conclusion: "Verdict of 3BILLS brain: Cats 1 Logic 0"

Your insulting conclusion followed naturally from your insulting premises, any other argumentation in between not withstanding. The ad hominem is confirmed.

Your claim of particles from nothing is hypothetical gobbledygook. Hawkins is merely speculating when he claims that the universe might have come from nothing. There is no evidence, no simulation, no demonstration, no example of anything creating itself.

The time a virtual particle spends in existence is directly proportional to its energy. I had to look up the number - for a system as massive as the observable universe, the time for it to arise from nothingness and revert back to nothingness must be less than 10^(-102) seconds. That's a tad shorter than 14 billion years. On the other end, assuming a zero-energy universe to allow for an infinite existence is just as speculative.

Any created god is by definition something other than the First Cause and therefore incapable of creating something from nothing. Your statement that, "if God is eternal and always, then so too could the universe be eternal and always without there being a God", is a non sequitur. Time has a beginning coincident with the beginning of the universe.

Belief of whether or not the existence of the universe proves the existence of God is based upon presuppositions. Mine come from various passages in the Bible, including Romans 1:19-20:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

In some sense the bible sharpens your mind

because it makes you attempt to defend contradictory positions. This makes you agile, but doesn't make you strong.

I give you credit for doing the physics legwork but it doesn't save you.

You're missing the fabulously interesting point. Near a black hole this becomes important. The spontaneously generated particles do not fall into the hole equally. This prevents entropy from being stopped.

In effect this represents a 'supremacy clause' of the universe. Entropy wins over 'first cause'.

I can explain it but it would be a poor explanation. Look up black holes and entropy.


We could agree that we are on the same side of liberty, at least for now?

It may be that when the liberty movement succeeds, if it succeeds at all, then we will want to go farther.

Then you can whip out your gun and say, nay by brother, you must obey me.

I won't insist you be free, if you choose not to be.

Can you afford me the same courtesy? If I choose not to be a slave, can you abide that?

We don't agree on deontology, but can we agree on liberty? Is it not crucial that people, after all, choose the right path via free will?

Can we not be allies?

GoodSamaritan's picture

Non-existent contradictions are all I've ever found

after 50 years of Bible study and debunking all of the usual "gotcha!"s from countless people who, like you, think they understand Scripture well enough to overthrow nearly 2,000 years of scholarly research.

Black holes are nothing but figments of model-dependent declarations. The force of gravity is effectively zero when compared to the electric force. The electrical force is a thousand trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity. If you allow for the electrical structure of matter, the almost 2,000 fold difference in mass of the electron and proton ensures that in a strong gravitational field charge separation will operate to prevent compression. Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars. Exotic theoretical objects like neutron stars and black holes are impossible. The standard model of stars fails if gravity is used exclusively. The gravitational black hole model is fictional and worthless.

As for liberty, unless I see otherwise I generally assume that people on the DP are on the same side. Believe whatever you want and say whatever you want without encroaching on my liberties and we'll be fighting side-by-side to protect our mutual freedom to do so.


Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father


The contradictions aren't just there, they are abundant. Even when I was a theist, and I was of the sort that you, and most of my family are still, I didn't deny that. I just did helpful interpretation. I was a veritable theologian in my apologia.

That said, I am still a fan of Christians, and annoyed at most so-called atheists, who are no such thing. I am an atheist, unlike most who just worship a different God, the state, who I think is Satan, literally, the source of all human evil. Collectivism. It is in us. Original sin if you will. The trope to use our brothers as cattle.

I believe in original sin, per se. I just don't think it is of supernatural origin. But it exists, and most Christians oppose it, whatever the origin. Islamists, for the most part do not oppose it. This isn't in the nature of Islam, it's in the nature of a feral religion. Which Islam is, and Christianity was.

Christianity in it's evolution became more freedom friendly, and even, became a force for freedom in the Scottish Enlightenment and the protestant reform in general. I'm sure you know that.

But you do also know, in the Roman and post Roman era, it was a force for evil.

Ultimately all religion is a tool of the Prince of Light. Religionists cleave to mystical entities and not to principals.

The contradictions in your book only exist because they need to. You cannot ever be allowed to be logical. My principal is clear. Natural Law and the NAP which undergirds it.

If you can develop a biblical apologia which supports the NAP, which supports liberty, I support you in all ways.

But I don't have a god, and thus my morality in not so soft as yours. I know whats right and wrong. No God may ever whisper in my ear, John Lennon needs to die, or we need to incinerate children at the Waco compound.

I am in fact challenging you, how can you claim Christians are moral, when their morality is subject not only to interpretation, but to changes in divine will?

GoodSamaritan's picture

No shadow of turning

The God I serve does not change and His laws are thus fixed. God is perfect in Himself from eternity past to eternity future. He is the First Cause, changeless and unmovable. For Him to change would imply the need for change. It would suggest that He is constrained by time and affected by circumstance. This is the human condition, not His.

"Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." James 1:17

"For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed." Malachi 3:6

"God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" Numbers 23:19

I wasn't aware that God told Mr. Chapman to assassinate John Lennon, or that He directed Ms. Reno to destroy the innocents at Waco. Perhaps you could cite the relevant passages of Scripture?

The morality of a Christian should be measured against Jesus Christ. He is the Living Word (John 1:14-18) and the Bible is His written Word (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Individual Christians, and the Church as a whole, are incapable of living up to God's standard of perfection (Matthew 5:48) without His indwelling Spirit (Romans 8:9-11) and the intercession of His Son (Romans 8:34).

I'm not unsympathetic to your views. My own children openly reject Jesus Christ as Lord. They are 19 and 20 years of age and still at home while attending college. They and my wife and I have extraordinary love and respect for each other despite such a fundamental disagreement. Our lives are deeply intertwined. Living with this situation has taught me the overarching importance of Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 13. It is the love of Christ that Christians should be sharing with their families and the world. The evil you allude to that has been done in the name of Christianity was done either by pretenders or by Christians without understanding of what Christ requires of them.

All the laws of God were summed up by Jesus this way:

"And He said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:37-40

What you should see when a Christian obeys these laws:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." Galatians 5:22-23

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

SteveMT's picture

I would argue the opposite point that faith requires logic.

No logic is required to be faithful and to worship an inconsistent, changeable, reckless, and vindictive God. If nothing is questioned and all is accepted a priori, then how would people know whether or not they were worshiping a false god? That would be called blind faith like blindly following our government into war believing that they are infallible. However, by puts words, actions, and beliefs to the test of logic, one will arrive at a true faith in the Almighty, one consistent with the brain we possess. Logic allows for the sorting through of all religions and belief systems so that something approaching a true faith in God is achieved. Reasoning through questions is what should occur in all areas. So instead of saying logic requires faith, I would say that faith requires logic. The real question may be what came first logic or faith?
Appreciated reading your post.

SteveMT's picture

Reason, not faith, is the foundation of knowledge.

Descartes needed no faith to say "cogito ergo sum."
The Philosophy and Epistemology of René Descartes


If we fail to explain reality

I don't see this as a shortcoming of "logic"

Logic doesnt do anything to prevent discovery.

On the other hand, false premises do.

Perhaps it is a valid argument to say cause and effect (as perceived by the sequence of time) demands that this universe must have been created out of nothing.

But, as you know, valid arguments can be false if one of the premises is false.

Take for example, if our perception of time was skewed and our understanding of the laws of the universe are misunderstood.

Or, what if the argument isn't valid? Suppose there is no correlation between what we observe as "time." I am wondering if it logically follows that there must have been a "nothingness" before there was "something?" What if there was always "something" and the universe was "always" in existence?

Also I wanted to bring up the thing called "faith.". This word is often a buzz word and has certain connotations associated with it. But in its raw meaning, it means merely to "try."

In other words, faith is not forever. We should have enough faith to try something, and if it doesn't work, then try something else. Faith requires you to have faith in yourself to use faith on something else if it didn't work the first time. Faith is not meant to be permanent or to be stuck on one thesis. Faith means "bravery." Not to be used to blindly hold on to a certain belief without reason.

In that sense logic does require faith at least initially.

tldr; Nice exercise in navel


Nice exercise in navel gazing, Bill.

Reality doesn't care if you believe in it or not.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

you spelled tl;dr wrong.

you spelled tl;dr wrong.

thanks. lol

thanks. lol

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

A little morning bump.

A little morning bump.

Umm I'm not so

convinced with the entirety of your argument. Are you familiar with Kant's Metaphysics? Specifically on Space and Time, as well as his Laws of Contradiction?

Kant makes a very plausible argument that space and time are both empirically real and
transcendentally ideal, and takes these as apriori truths. Here's
a brief explanation:

Space is the a priori form of “outer sense,” i.e., the faculty by which we represent “objects as outside us,” i.e., as “in space.” It is only through the representation of space that we can experience things as distinct from ourselves (as distinct from our inner mental states). As Kant says:

For in order for certain sensations to be related to something outside me (i.e., to something in another space from that in which I find myself), thus in order for me to represent them as outside and next to one another, thus not merely as different but as in different places, the representation of space must be their ground. [p. 175]

Time is the pure (a priori) form of inner sense, i.e., our awareness of our own inner mental states. We should be clear from the start (and we will come back to this later) that we have “no intuition of the soul itself, as an object” [p. 174]; that is, we do not intuit the self (or soul) “as it is in itself,” but experience even our own inner mental states only as they appear to us as “inner determinations … represented in relations of time.” [p. 174]

While time is strictly only the form of inner sense, it is also, by implication, the form (with space) of outer sense. That is, “time is the a priori condition of all appearance in general.” [p. 175] This is because our intuitions of outer objects are themselves inner mental states which are, as such, subject to the same temporal organization as any other inner state:

Time is the a priori formal condition of all appearances in general. Space, as the pure form of all outer intuitions, is limited as a priori condition merely to outer intuitions. But since, on the contrary, all representations, whether or not they have outer things as their object, nevertheless as determinations of the mind themselves belong to the inner state, … this inner state belongs under the formal condition of inner intuition, and thus of time…. [p. 174-175]

So, while we experience our own inner states as temporally but not spatially ordered, we experience things outside ourselves as occupying a determinate location in both space and time.

I'm missing your point in how logic requires faith, especially in the sense I get your using the term. logic is merely a construct to reason, and there are absolute truths. 2+2= 4 is a logical truth, it doesn't require faith that 2+2 may = 5. We use reason to derive this conclusion, not faith.





You people scare me. I

You people scare me. I suggest hugging a dictionary and learning about things before speaking. Logic is testable thus doesn't require faith. Geeze. End of discussion.

Logic is from Greek: from logos "meaning, idea, word"

Biology is literally asking, "What is the meaning of life."

Free includes debt-free!

I tend to agree. Like earth,

I tend to agree. Like earth, oceans and sky, logic doesn't require faith, it's just there, like another sense, (though the degree to which individuals choose to use it varies widely).

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Agree Somewhat

I've been thinking about this lately as well, and I concluded that there is no such thing as 'time'. Sure we have a word but all it does is describe the ever-unfolding now ... that's "time". But there is no unit of time. There is movement -- so there is a "Before-Now" and a "Now" -- but there is no such thing that exists called "time".

Yes we only experience through our perceptions. Science has been ignoring the simple fact that we each only have our own perceptions - our uniquely designed filter that determines what jumps out at us in life, and therefore - our whole experience.

Yes, logic requires faith and there is no objective truth. Life is a subjective experience - that's why it makes no sense POLITICALLY to try to get people to be the same (i.e. communism/socialism). We can't HELP but be SINGULARLY UNIQUE. Our economy and political systems should mimic nature.

OH - and GOD cannot be a construct of logic since by definition one cannot SPAWN a THING and imbue it with anything other than what it is. In other words:

Logic cannot beget Illogic or creativity or God or imagination or emotions or dreams or hope or faith or any of this ENTIRE ASPECT OF REALITY.

Copyright 2013
This guy.

Right On

You are on the money.

I had this revelation 1.5 years ago.

Time does not exist. We do perceive it, however only the 'now' exists.
We are living in the same exact moment that Jesus did. The same exact moment that the Romans did. The same moment as the 2nd world war. And into infinity.

Merely there is change and movement in the now. There is existence only. It exists like this, now, and it exists like this, now.

It's the reason you can today go stand on walls that were built by the Romans.

The walls still exist because they're in the same now as when they were built. Only change in the now has occurred.

Time is perceived only through 'Existence Flux'.

Copyright 2013

To fully appreciate this reality requires a higher state of consciousness. And everyone is capable of achieving this.

I also point out begrudgingly that I also came across this truth in an ancient manuscript (Cannot remember which of the main ones, perhaps Kabbalah) after I had come to the realization on my own.
So it has been known about for millenia prior to our own particular genius.


Logic cannot beget Illogic or

Logic cannot beget Illogic or creativity or God or imagination or emotions or dreams or hope or faith or any of this ENTIRE ASPECT OF REALITY.

While it requires imagination and perhaps emotion as well, can't logic lead one to believe in an unprovable solution to a problem not solveable by logic?

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Can Logic Help Belief?


Logic is just a stop along the way to KNOWING. You start with an idea and use a few tools - logic included - to help you experience that idea. But you don't use logic as a BASIS.

Logic is a tool, not a framework.

A framework would be like a belief: People are nice. Logic supplies the evidence helping you TRUST that previous memories of people treating you well will continue with other people you haven't met yet.

An OVER-DEPENDENCE on logic would change your thought process, you'd think: well how many times was I treated well? and how many times was I mistreated? It's kind of a mixed bag - people are unpredictable.

BAM - you just used logic to form a DETRIMENTAL belief about people.