THERE IS NO LOGIC FOR ANYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE TO EXIST. To be more percise, there is no logic to existence. Now this means all that exist in the universe should not be, and so, to deal with that which appears to be effect, will always lead one on only a spectculative journey on that which has no meaning.

Let’s step back from all our reading, personal analysis and interpretation and ask ourselves the question what is? In asking myself this question, I found the answer as followed. What is is, there is no logic to creation, therefore, there is no logic to the universe nor mankind. Being there is no logic to be found for creation nor the universe, then that which occupies the universe has no logic to exist inclusive of man. And being one cannot find intellectual reasoning, nor comprehension for existence, then there is no logic for that which should not be [man] to worship that which should not be [existence].

Now whether one believes or not in the logic or illogic of creation, what one believes or doesn’t believe is not enough to override the truth which the Apostle Paul told us when he stated: “I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitutious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotion, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. WHOM THEREFORE YE IGNORANTLY WORSHIP, HIM DECLARE I UNTO YOU. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands, neither is he worshiped with men’s hand, as though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.”

Now for this writer, this alone nullifies any belief in denomination or other teaching which has rules and by-laws to rule the collective mass, or indoctrinate them in that which has no logic for existence.  But going one step further, it also nullifies the belief, for this writer, that there is another god of this world who has dominion over the inner man Christ, when the logic of there being any kind of deity rest on the shoulder of man, and there is no logical reason for man to exist.  Thus, the logic man produce is illogical for it is none existent in existence. 

And just one more step must be taken at this juncture, what one beliefs is not enough to make one a true believer because the suppose god of this world, whom some has given the name satan,  and others as Almighty is a belief in an absolute mystery which logic cannot verify. 

But let us return to the subject matter. There is no logic to the universe because there is no logic for existence, with one exception.  And that exception eliminates any purpose or logic not covered by that exception.

There is no logical reason for mankind to exist. There is no logical reason for this universe to exist. There is no logical reason for you and I to exist except for?

Of course there is no logic to anything other than we just exist. However if we did not exist and everything existed except intelligent life or at least life forms that can think on the logic of existing you would not be posting here and I would not reply.
And if intelligence did not exist would that be logical? Of course that would be logical for the fact nothing is logical to begin with except the fact it would be logical that intelligence not to exist.

What are your thoughts on this Doug?

Jufa you say,

jufa - 09 August 2007 04:52 PM

there is no logic to existence. Now this means all that exist in the universe should not be…

I think that the universe and “existence” does not depend on our logic, reasoning, and understanding of them in order to “be”.  Perhaps it may be the other way around… Our understanding, reasoning, and logic are dependent upon existence and/or the universe.

Morgant you are absolutely correct when you state:

I think that the universe and “existence” does not depend on our logic, reasoning, and understanding of them in order to “be”. 

This is why what you next state:

Perhaps it may be the other way around… Our understanding, reasoning, and logic are dependent upon existence and/or the universe.

proves there is no logic to existence.

Well, a) no it doesn’t and b) your starting premise that there is no logic to existence is nonsensical and unsupported.  Can you either a) explain 1) how you know that there is no logic to existence, giving a mechanism for how this premise comes about and 2) give a complete epistemology for it that can be agreed upon by all and 3)  link your subsequent hypotheses step wise to the premise such that they actually follow logically from it as opposed to being random unassociated statements, or b) go away and stop making unphilosophic blanket statements of your own opinion.  This is a philosophy forum.

Well, a) no it doesn’t and b) your starting premise that there is no logic to existence is nonsensical and unsupported.  Can you either a) explain 1) how you know that there is no logic to existence, giving a mechanism for how this premise comes about and 2) give a complete epistemology for it that can be agreed upon by all and 3) link your subsequent hypotheses step wise to the premise such that they actually follow logically from it as opposed to being random unassociated statements, or b) go away and stop making unphilosophic blanket statements of your own opinion.  This is a philosophy forum.

Just as soon as you give reasoning to support why there is no logic to existence.  Is not philosophy as everything else in life blanket opinions stemming from one’s own personal conditioning?  And who is the all, just the one’s who agree or disagree on things in this forum?

No philososphy is not blanket opinions.  As I ddi mention in the post, you have to have a premise that people can immediately see to be correct (or if not you have to add a very clear explanation for why it is correct, and then the subsequent have to follow clearly logically from that premise. Do you see the difference between such logically derived statements and the sweeping statements that you were making before?  That is why such statements don’t belong in a philosophy forum - they are not philosophy or a related subject.

If it is true what you state;

No philososphy is not blanket opinions.  As I ddi mention in the post, you have to have a premise that people can immediately see to be correct (or if not you have to add a very clear explanation for why it is correct, and then the subsequent have to follow clearly logically from that premise. Do you see the difference between such logically derived statements and the sweeping statements that you were making before?  That is why such statements don’t belong in a philosophy forum - they are not philosophy or a related subject.

then all you have to do is to show the logic of why there is no logic to existence.  This logic will kill the theme and bury it.  If you can’t do this, then you are just giving a blanket opinion , which in your words does not belong in a philosophy forum.

And to demonstrate the difference in philosophy not being the lifestyle of every man, woman, and child who has an opinion that is not worthy of another’s consideration.

No, you have to, as I asked in my first post.  I dispute the premise - I am hardly going to go and try to prove it, am I.  You were the one who said it and if it is to be linked in anyway with philosophy (the title of the section you posted it to), you need to show that it is valid.

I stated my position and the theme there is no logic for existence speaks for itself.  Within it are all the answers to what you asked in an earlier post;

Well, a) no it doesn’t and b) your starting premise that there is no logic to existence is nonsensical and unsupported.  Can you either a) explain 1) how you know that there is no logic to existence, giving a mechanism for how this premise comes about and 2) give a complete epistemology for it that can be agreed upon by all and 3) link your subsequent hypotheses step wise to the premise such that they actually follow logically from it as opposed to being random unassociated statements

And by you taking up the handle and stating;

Well, a) no it doesn’t

without giving reasoning or logic as to why it doesn’t is like spitting in the wind.

I say there is no logic to existence and proceed to say why in my original thread.  You say otherwise without logic or reasoning to back you up.  All you have to do is cover you but as to “well, a) no it doesn’t” by SHOWING THE LOGIC FOR EXISTENCE TO EXIST.

But you can’t do that.  All you can do is say:

I dispute the premise

Now that is truly illogical.  To dispute something and have no reason why you dispute it.

jufa - 25 August 2007 09:01 AM

I stated my position and the theme there is no logic for existence speaks for itself.  Within it are all the answers to what you asked in an earlier post;

That’s the problem I’m having - you stated your position rather than giving a reasonable or well reasoned premise.  That is the first point at which this thing you posted was not related to philosophy and had no place being posted in a philosophy section on a largely philosophical site.

Well, a) no it doesn’t and b) your starting premise that there is no logic to existence is nonsensical and unsupported.  Can you either a) explain 1) how you know that there is no logic to existence, giving a mechanism for how this premise comes about and 2) give a complete epistemology for it that can be agreed upon by all and 3) link your subsequent hypotheses step wise to the premise such that they actually follow logically from it as opposed to being random unassociated statements

And by you taking up the handle and stating;

Well, a) no it doesn’t

without giving reasoning or logic as to why it doesn’t is like spitting in the wind.

my reasoning comes in points b), 1), 2) and 3).  They are only an extremely brief beginners guide to philosophy - there are so many more techniques that you will need to learn and practice if you are to do some actual philosophy.

I say there is no logic to existence and proceed to say why in my original thread.  You say otherwise without logic or reasoning to back you up.  All you have to do is cover you but as to “well, a) no it doesn’t” by SHOWING THE LOGIC FOR EXISTENCE TO EXIST.

But you can’t do that.  All you can do is say:

I dispute the premise

Now that is truly illogical.  To dispute something and have no reason why you dispute it.

No, you didn’t explain why the statement that there is no logic to existence is valid, you simply restated it many times as a an unrelated priciple to the things you were trying to use it as a premise for.  I read it carefully and got no sense of any reasoning or evidence to back up the idea that there is no logic to existence.  And reading it agin, it still tells me nothing that would support or validate the statement that there is no logic to existence.  Or even to what aspect of existence you are referring: how it began, why it began how we know that it exists,... etc.  That is what I mean about this not being a philosophical posting.  Please re-read and if you remember what your points were, re-write them for me, much more carefully, starting from the assumption that I know nothing of the premise or how it leads you to the conclusion.  Take me from point a (the premise) to point d the conclusion via point d validation in the form of a hypothesis (the question that this philosophic idea seeks to find an answer to) and a quick framework on which to base point c your objective testing and the results.

Interesting.  Since there is an insistance on Philosophical thought here, Descarte pondered this one in a “why are we here?” sort of thought.  His ideas were all based on pure thought and reasoning.  Of course he deduced dualism and the existance for God.  Luckily we have Hume, Satre, and Chomsky. 

DesCartes jsut restated Anselms “ontological” argument and he only did so becaue the Catholic church took exception to the cogito, and he was a catholic.  His restatement of the OA only angered the pope further because (despite the fact that there is nothing ontological about it - although there is philosophy in it), it was proferred as proof of God’s existence, and this is contrary to the nature of faith.

I never saw it as proof of anything nor did it explain existance, IMO.  From what I read of him, he was making a statement of faith and nothing more, yet his technique is considered a part of philosophy.

Mriana - 25 August 2007 10:58 AM

I never saw it as proof of anything nor did it explain existance, IMO.  From what I read of him, he was making a statement of faith and nothing more, yet his technique is considered a part of philosophy.

Actually, no. I don’t believe that Descartes had any place for “faith” as such in his philosophical framework. That’s what got him so in trouble with the religious Powers that Be. It’s also why one could argue that Descartes was the first spark that started the Enlightenment. He explicitly wanted to found all human knowledge on reason. He believed that he could through reason alone come to the knowledge that God existed. And his belief that God was perfectly good led him to believe that God could not be deceiving him about his perceptions.

There is no logic to existence.  This is my statement and regardless of what you present, you first must become the John Henry and remove the mountain which you only stand at the foot of and wonder how can I go around it, or climb over it?  You know what that mountain is? it is this;

And just one more step must be taken at this juncture, what one beliefs is not enough to make one a true believer because the suppose god of this world, whom some has given the name satan, and others as Almighty is a belief in an absolute mystery which logic cannot verify. 

But let us return to the subject matter. There is no logic to the universe because there is no logic for existence, with one exception.  And that exception eliminates any purpose or logic not covered by that exception.

There is no logical reason for mankind to exist. There is no logical reason for this universe to exist. There is no logical reason for you and I to exist except for?

NOW IF YOU CAN NAME THAT EXCEPTION YOU WILL NOT ONLY HAVE FOUND A WAY AROUND AND OVER THE MOUNTAIN, YOU WILL REMOVE THE MOUNTAIN ITSELF. 

WHAT IS THAT EXCEPTION?

You say I did not explain why the statement is valid.  It is explained by the simple truth that you cannot come up with a logical reason why you exist.  In other words, what is the meaning of life in any category of cognition?  What is the platform for existence? lay it out for me.  If you can’t give me the logical foundation for the existence of existence, then all you have said, and will say is moot because of that truth.