Sorry. Couldn’t get past this sentence. The run-on clauses lose any subject
What I think of when you say this. lol
1 Like
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. If, if, if. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Suppose, suppose, suppose. It could be, it could be, it could be. None of the above is applicable in making oneself clear as to whether there is, or is not logic for existence. 
If one knows of logic for existence, then one should say yes there is logic, and proceed to present said logic.
If one knows not logic for existence, then the simple statement should be given stating I do not know.
It all boils down to this - yes there is and this is why, or there is no logic… Taking another step forward, What I am missing is for any one to agree or disagree definitively "There is no logic for existence to exist. 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.
Taking another step. To get to a realm of existence there must be causation. To get there, one must present logic for the existence of the realm one is living in beyond scientific, personal theories, the arche or Pre Socratic notion which testifies of “a split between appearance and reality within reality.” Whereas, compared to Parmenides position was “it makes no sense for one to say that reality is both reality and appearance at the same time.” These statements concerning two theories of reality, however, never reached Causation then, as Causation is hee-hawed over in this thread because to admit Causation would destroy any intellectual and scientific results of factual theories, because facts are not truth. Facts are as stated in Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám: “The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on: nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
There is Logic to existence.
The Logic resides in the mathematics of the universe which is not a transcendent omniscient being standing outside nature, but rather it is immanent—the guiding element immersed in nature itself.
The modern hypothesis of Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) is based on this concept.
Causal dynamical triangulation
Causal dynamical triangulation theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.
This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena, but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
There is evidence [1] that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.
Wikipedia
No intent, no design, no purpose, no meaning, just a logical dynamic chronology of mathematical enfolding and unfolding of value potentials in spacetime (Bohmian Mechanics).
Implicate and explicate order
Implicate order and explicate order are ontological concepts for quantum theory coined by theoretical physicist David Bohm during the early 1980s. They are used to describe two different frameworks for understanding the same phenomenon or aspect of reality. In particular, the concepts were developed in order to explain the bizarre behaviors of subatomic particles which quantum physics describes and predicts with elegant precision but struggles to explain. [1]
In Bohm’s Wholeness and the Implicate Order , he used these notions to describe how the appearance of such phenomena might appear differently, or might be characterized by, varying principal factors, depending on contexts such as scales.[2] The implicate (also referred to as the “enfolded”) order is seen as a deeper and more fundamental order of reality. In contrast, the explicate or “unfolded” order includes the abstractions that humans normally perceive.
As he wrote:
" In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the “explicate” or “unfolded” order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders ". ([Bohm 1980]
(Implicate and explicate order - Wikipedia), p. xv).
Ontology
Parmenides was among the first to propose an ontological characterization of the fundamental nature of reality.
Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies concepts such as existence, being, becoming, and reality.
It includes the questions of how entities are grouped into basic categories and which of these entities exist on the most fundamental level. Ontology is sometimes referred to as the science of being and belongs to the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics.
That’s one of your more clear questions/statements.
In all cases, the lack of certainty is not the same as “I don’t know”. If we can’t say we are 99% sure of something, then we should never move, we should hide in a cave, just to be sure we are out of danger.
Part of the problem of answering clearly is the question is not presented clearly. If it’s the question of consciousness, that’s very complicated and data is only recently coming in to help clear away the haze.
If the question is the cause of this known, observable, physical universe, there is logic. We have been discovering causes for air, lakes, and mountains for centuries, once we started seriously looking. We keep going, finding causes for things that caused the things we see, then causes for what caused those things we can demonstrate were there before, until we get back to a fraction of a second when it all began, when time “began”. Before that, the theories are mathematical, and they involve multiple dimensions, and other physical universes. These are things we may never observe and never interact with and never have certainty about. But it’s logical that something caused spacetime.
And IMO (in my opinion) the causal agency does not need to be sentient, to be logical.
In the absence of an alternative non-theistic agency, a mathematical equation such as CDT is the most likely causality.
True that. I’d say it’s less likely to be a “who”.
Arguing with a fool will only serve to make you appear foolish. This can be applied to any individual, or group of individuals who thoughts fall into the category of absolutist thinker. Such a pit of imprisonment is found here. - Julius Fann, Jr
There is no doubt what men think as reality is multi-faceted. But just as equally, there is no doubt what religious people, atheists, or whoever think of reality is also multi-faceted. Yet what is reality in the sense of commonality? Sure one can say it is natural selection, or creationism, being born, becoming aware of what one is born into, living according to the standards and beliefs of collective commonality, and then dying to be no more. Moreover, it can be said birth is not the beginning of life, living in the arch of life and dying is not the end. Who, or what then has defined reality? To see, hear, touch, taste, and smell does not define reality. They only define fragments of awareness. And as awareness is subjective, it is subjective because it impresses unverified images from a single human outer vision of objectiveness merged with a collective few who believe also from the same format of could be, not sure, I think, but I don’t actually know disposition. So then, can the human viewpoint be taken as seriously as man thinks it should be???
“We see through the glass darkly.” - Julius Fann, Jr
“Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him.” Proverbs 26:27
To me it is a joy to know I have caused agitation in the lives of people. Had I not agitated someone or group my presence, whether seen as good or bad would have no meaning to me, My presence, words, actions, aura, depth, volume, or necessity to inspire others to take notice of something and inspire others to react in mind is seed which eventually will flood, and wipe out all deadend roads.
Anyone who expresses their experience and not causes trouble, or pinches nerves of those who know-it-all, or believes themselves to be self-righteous, egotistical, with human morals, and spirit character will come to find the saddest days of their living have always been when they realize they have wasted time being judgmental, assumptive. and caring about things, over people, which did not matter when Mr. Reaper puts his finger on their heartbeat, and it runs from their body into Mr. Reaper’s hand.
Life is an infinity whose depth, width, height and length has no beginning nor end. Whose circumference is its center, and center its circumference dimension of all in a human body and mind, soul, conscious awareness and Spirit. And, so, when any assumptive conscious thought is retained by a intellectual metaphysical human mind afraid, and unwilling to delve into the subject matter or belief of life because of believing the mind, consciousness, and soul are separated from life and death, such thinking is stuck in the belief there are no alternatives beyond the conscious human mind that cannot be opened or present evidence Life is God, and God is Life, their life.
Assumption, speculation, theories, and the eat drink and be merry attitude, therefore, they will come to find when That Finger touches their bosom, had no power of its own, only perceived mirages and images which, when reached grasp, vanish into the nothingness of the assumption. “We see through a glass darkly.”
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
I am glad you recognize you’re in a pit. You keep digging yourself deeper with every word you scratch on the walls.
Funny thing about this pit thing is I keep bumping into those in denial of being there, as they are in denial of answering questions which will have seismic consequences to their belief system. It is like they hear Ronald Reagan saying over and over again: " Mr. Gorbachev , tear down this wall ", also known as the Berlin Wall Speech . And it is a truth, not a fact, like the Jericho song; “Joshua fought the battle of Jericho Jericho, Jericho. Joshua fought the battle of Jericho And the walls came tumbling down.” Oh well, life goes on.
And you have all the answers to the questions, which had seismic consequences to your belief system?
Please enlighten me, not with poetry but with sober prose, so that I can find the same enviable certainty you seem to have acquired from your insights.
But be prepared to defend your belief as I am sure to pose further questions … 
OTOH, I also have a belief system based on evidence that had seismic consequences to my perspective of reality. Of course, I am prepared to defend my POV with sober prose and selective evidence.
One thing is sure in this thread, people will give theories and inconclusive scientific research which always goes to the edge of the cliff, conceptualize, and step off into the law of Oz. No one can dare admit the truth there is no logic for the existence of existence to exist which the human mind can give an answer to.
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
And you do? What do you conceptualize and address reality?
Excerpt from - Will You Die For Him? - Julius Fann, Jr - Jan 06, 2012
The human intellect says non-existence became aware of existence of itself and found conscious awareness to think, and therefore be. [“I think, therefore I am.”] What is missing in this equation: how can non-consciousness, that which did not exist, become conscious and find awareness, according to conscious reasoning in awareness when such awareness had no source to exist? The human intellect talks of the uncreated potential which exists in the next moment of time. Yet does not explain how this moment of time finds existence when there was no moment of existing awareness before the uncreated moment to initiate such a thought? The only moment of life is always the moment of the breath of God expressing Itself as life.
Human intellectualism states that which was without substance, essence, or life, suddenly came into existence as a living entity of thought perpetuation without a principle of cause. And without substance or essence of Spirit initiative as a base for existence became a pattern of form which could exist from, and of nothingness. Human intellectual logic ignores existence prior to uncreated potential thoughts finding existence because of the Moment of God which is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. What foundation is there for an uncreated potential thought to rest upon then, if created potential thought was not the establishment of thought in the beginning? Uncreated potential is based and subject to the next moment, human intellect states, simply because man’s aware of what has come and gone, has established, already, what he will say or how he will think, act, and react in the next moment. This means the next moment is not uncreated potential, but the path of knowledge laid to walk in the rotation of the circle of life, so says the man.
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
Stop right there. That is a totally illogical statement and needs serious editing.
When one awakens to the reality all they are aware of in their Spirit is life, and the things of life is all they can be aware of, they will move out of thought imprisonment which defy Being, and live into the perfection of what, who, when, where, and why they are. God is Being, and to absorb this statement, ask yourself are you Being, or are you not being. Whatever conclusion you reach will be the path you alone have elected.
All you are aware of is Being. Whether it is of ancient days and those recorded who lived then as Adam and those who came after Him, or those of contemporary history. In the reading of anything your Being is there. Whether you are aware of a tree making noise in a forest when it falls, just the thought of such places Being there. Should your thoughts be of suffering and struggles, or love and happiness, it is your Being which these activities flood in duality, or in the singularity of your conscious Being.
God is Being. Being is life. And the reality of life for the flesh man is there is no logic or reason for existence to exist outside of Being. Being, or life have no definition or reason to be, it has always been that which be of Being. The thoughts of being anyone, any why, any what, any who, any where, any when, no matter their beauty of, or ugliness makes the Creator the thinker in the flesh world. The thinker is not the Source or perfection everywhere though, for his limited mind cannot go beyond his thoughts of finiteness. Being is infinite.
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
Where in scripture does it say that? I can relate to the concept of subjective “being” as in
“I think, therefore I am”.
But that does not require a God. The concept is sufficient unto itself. Take away God and the concept remains valid. God is just a superfluous metaphysical entity that can be attached to everything but is not really required for anything.
Science does very well without God. If God was a necessary ingredient, science would have discovered that a long time ago.
The concept of biblical Genesis requires a God. The concept of Abiogenesis does not. It has pretty well been proven that Abiogenesis is the correct theory. Therefore God is not required for Genesis.
God is a Tulpa, a product of the imagination that was used by early hominids to explain universal dynamics such as thunder and lightning (Thor).
Science has discovered how these dynamics function and that they do not require a God.
I like Ricky Gervais’ take on this whole question if God exists.
He stipulates that as Atheist he does not believe in any of the 3000 historical gods.
Then he argues that if you are a Theist you do not believe in 2999 gods, just one less than an atheist.
Scientists decide to tell God that we no longer need him
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we’ve decided that we no longer need You. We’re at the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, we don’t need you here anymore, you can go your way "
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this? Let’s say we have a man-making contest?”
To which the scientist replied, “Okay, great!”
But God added, “Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”
The scientist said, “Sure, no problem,” and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God looked at him and said, “No, no! You go get your own dirt!”
Too bad the scientist didn’t record the conversation. If there were no witnesses present how do we know your story is correct? Did the scientist tell you of his experience or did you read the scientist’s mind? Have you ever heard God’s voice? If so, next time please record it. It’ll help the credibility of your story.
Else, don’t insult scientists with that false tale.
Remember; “To thine own self be true”.
Why is it no one has ever recorded God speaking? Even today there seem to be plenty people speaking with God, but no one ever has heard or recorded His voice.
Who do you think you’re talking to? Shame on you!
@write4u what did I tell you? He’s a troll pushing his theology, not wanting to have an intellectual conversation.