Thats it, that all I have to say or ask at this point.

Is there a logical reason for our existence?

Meh, screw logic I say. The bitter-sweet rich tapestry of life never fails to utterly perplex me.

Is there a logical reason for our existence?

We are born, we rattle around like a marble in a syrup bucket, then we die!

Is there a logical reason for our existence?

There are really two questions--the first is why we think there has to be a logical reason for our existence and the second is whether this is reality or illusion.

The answer to the second is almost certainly "illusion." This applies regardless of whether one is theist or atheist. God's arbitrary decision to create us is not "logical," nor is some random fluctuation in the substrata of space-time leading to an inflationary Big Bang. (God is free--he does nothing except out of his will--logic nor anything else dictates to him).

If one thinks that causality is unbreakable--that nothing ever happens without prior sufficient causation, then one would not say exist for a logical reason--but would say we exist for an infinite number of logical reasons, since any prior cause would itself have its own prior cause, ad infinitum. In that kind of world the chain of causes would have been going on since eternity. That produces its own set of objections (how does the universe get here from infinitely far away?).

Why do we think we have a purpose? This is a local phenomenon based on the fact that pretty much everything we do ourselves and that we observe others doing is purposeful, even if the only purpose is to escape boredom. Similarly, at our level of existence (well away from quantum randomness), the law of large numbers creates the illusion of cause and effect.

So we project this sense we develop from our experience into nature and out into the universe, but that we apply a human tendency onto non-human things is an obvious error.

There are really two questions--the first is why we think there has to be a logical reason for our existence and the second is whether this is reality or illusion.

The answer to the second is almost certainly "illusion." This applies regardless of whether one is theist or atheist. God's arbitrary decision to create us is not "logical," nor is some random fluctuation in the substrata of space-time leading to an inflationary Big Bang. (God is free--he does nothing except out of his will--logic nor anything else dictates to him).

If one thinks that causality is unbreakable--that nothing ever happens without prior sufficient causation, then one would not say exist for a logical reason--but would say we exist for an infinite number of logical reasons, since any prior cause would itself have its own prior cause, ad infinitum. In that kind of world the chain of causes would have been going on since eternity. That produces its own set of objections (how does the universe get here from infinitely far away?).

Why do we think we have a purpose? This is a local phenomenon based on the fact that pretty much everything we do ourselves and that we observe others doing is purposeful, even if the only purpose is to escape boredom. Similarly, at our level of existence (well away from quantum randomness), the law of large numbers creates the illusion of cause and effect.

So we project this sense we develop from our experience into nature and out into the universe, but that we apply a human tendency onto non-human things is an obvious error.


OK.
Are you saying, that there are so many answers to the question that there really isnt an answer?
And
The only reason we see a purpose at all is because we want to?

OK.
Are you saying, that there are so many answers to the question that there really isnt an answer?
And
The only reason we see a purpose at all is because we want to?

I thought I was clear, but maybe not. To state conclusions but to omit reasons, there is an answer, and it is "no." The reason we see purpose is that we are purpuseful beings and project ourselves onto the universe.

Is there a logical reason for our existence?
It is impossible to know such. We may be an advanced species, but such realizations are still out of grasp. Conceptualizing space or time is hard enough, applying purpose to things that govern our lives which seemingly have no seen purpose, makes it more difficult.

I don't know the answer, but I am not sure why that matters in a practical sense.

Like Thislin, I am fascinated by many humans' tendency to "feel bad" when they convince themselves (or are convinced by someone) that no reason/explanation exists for existence. I am really more interested in that than the actual explanation of causality.

Is there an illogical reason?

Reproduce! Thats the scientific reason at least. As for the whole phylisophical reasoning behind existance, I'll get back to you once I figure it out.

its a roll of the dice. millions of conditions that had to be perfect for life to exist just happened to line up perfectly. Our place in the solar system, our solar systems place in the galaxy, the tilt of the earth, the moons distance from the earth. All theose type of things had to be exactly as they are now or life would not be possible. It is like winning every lottery in every state every day. What are the odds of those things beng how they are? like 1 in 10 to the ten billionth power? And that doesnt even touch on the idea that all life as we know it supposedly came form one animal that turned into two animals somehow then procceded to evolve in everything we see today, and billions of other species that are no longer here, through random variations and freak mutations that accumulated enough that a hippo developed a blow hole and took to the ocean full time and became a whale! Next thing you know people are telling us we are not to much different then earth worms!

its a roll of the dice. millions of conditions that had to be perfect for life to exist just happened to line up perfectly. Our place in the solar system, our solar systems place in the galaxy, the tilt of the earth, the moons distance from the earth. All theose type of things had to be exactly as they are now or life would not be possible. It is like winning every lottery in every state every day. What are the odds of those things beng how they are? like 1 in 10 to the ten billionth power? And that doesnt even touch on the idea that all life as we know it supposedly came form one animal that turned into two animals somehow then procceded to evolve in everything we see today, and billions of other species that are no longer here, through random variations and freak mutations that accumulated enough that a hippo developed a blow hole and took to the ocean full time and became a whale! Next thing you know people are telling us we are not to much different then earth worms!

If that is the best explanation we have... than text books should say "fuck it! we don't know" under the "how we got here" section.

If that is the best explanation we have... than text books should say "fuck it! we don't know" under the "how we got here" section.
Most textbooks don't have a "how we got here" section. It's usually "how xxx works"--which is the way it should be, because we have a lot more and better knowledge about how stuff works in the world than about "how we got here". If you are going to educate children, the materials should be based on stuff we know more about!

It is impossible to know such. We may be an advanced species, but such realizations are still out of grasp. Conceptualizing space or time is hard enough, applying purpose to things that govern our lives which seemingly have no seen purpose, makes it more difficult.

Maybe thats why some people cant see God?

its a roll of the dice. millions of conditions that had to be perfect for life to exist just happened to line up perfectly. Our place in the solar system, our solar systems place in the galaxy, the tilt of the earth, the moons distance from the earth. All theose type of things had to be exactly as they are now or life would not be possible. It is like winning every lottery in every state every day. What are the odds of those things beng how they are? like 1 in 10 to the ten billionth power? And that doesnt even touch on the idea that all life as we know it supposedly came form one animal that turned into two animals somehow then procceded to evolve in everything we see today, and billions of other species that are no longer here, through random variations and freak mutations that accumulated enough that a hippo developed a blow hole and took to the ocean full time and became a whale! Next thing you know people are telling us we are not to much different then earth worms!

I'm with you there, I like your explanation of things.

Is there an illogical reason?


I think there might be, its governed by emotions. I think our purpose as humans is to accept our fate and as a Christian I think we all share in that fate. Be it the same thing for us all.

Is there a logical explanation for our existence?
No. Next question.

I have some questions that are unrelated to this thread, but brought about by reading the messages posted yesterday on this thread.

It seems to me--I've noticed this on both sides of the theism debate--that sometimes people have alternate "identities" (it is obvious, at least to me) and use them to make it seem that there are many voices when in reality there are fewer--the "bandwagon" propaganda technique).

Is this considered appropriate behavior? Is it just to be ignored or could it somehow be prevented? I must say that it seriously diminishes (in my eyes at least) the parties who do this. Is my reaction appropriate?

I have some questions that are unrelated to this thread, but brought about by reading the messages posted yesterday on this thread.

It seems to me--I've noticed this on both sides of the theism debate--that sometimes people have alternate "identities" (it is obvious, at least to me) and use them to make it seem that there are many voices when in reality there are fewer--the "bandwagon" propaganda technique).

Is this considered appropriate behavior? Is it just to be ignored or could it somehow be prevented? I must say that it seriously diminishes (in my eyes at least) the parties who do this. Is my reaction appropriate?

I dont know, I suppose if its in your nature then its appropriate.

I dont know, I suppose if its in your nature then its appropriate.
Your response puzzles me: there are a lot of things that are in people's natures that are nevertheless inappropriate.

Appropriateness may perhaps not have been the right word for me to use--I just wanted to see if those doing it wanted to explain their practice (which seems dishonest and a bit foolish to me), or perhaps to have someone explain to me if my reaction is wrong.

No. Next question.
I'm curious how you can say that there is no logical reason for our existence when you think (at least I perceive that you think from other things you've posted) that we are end products of natural proceesses (causal events). This would seem to be to be a "logical explanation."

Is there a logical reason for our existence?

Yes, but the catch is, you don't get to find out what it is until after you die.

I think there might be, its governed by emotions. I think our purpose as humans is to accept our fate and as a Christian I think we all share in that fate. Be it the same thing for us all.
As I understand Christianity, I would think your view of our purpose would be to fulfill the destiny God has set for us. As I understand Christianity, all purpose ultimately comes from God, along with everything else.

I probably shouldn't, but I can't resist the urge to tell a Buddhist story (by no means a teaching or part of the canon, but more of a koan) that the God of the West (Jehovah/Jesus/Allah) is a being who in other worlds evolved into such an exalted state, with so much merit (positive karma) that he found himself, when rebirth finally happened (it is inevitable for all beings sooner or later), at the top of the heavenly world or our existence, and mistook this for his being a monotheistic deity. (At rebirth he would not remember his previous exalted existences).

Your response puzzles me: there are a lot of things that are in people's natures that are nevertheless inappropriate.

Appropriateness may perhaps not have been the right word for me to use--I just wanted to see if those doing it wanted to explain their practice (which seems dishonest and a bit foolish to me), or perhaps to have someone explain to me if my reaction is wrong.

Maybe I'll just keep quiet in this one, I dont know who youre talking about.

Unless its me?

As I understand Christianity, I would think your view of our purpose would be to fulfill the destiny God has set for us. As I understand Christianity, all purpose ultimately comes from God, along with everything else.

Yes, thats true. We also believe that in the end, Christians wont be the only ones effected by God.


I probably shouldn't, but I can't resist the urge to tell a Buddhist story (by no means a teaching or part of the canon, but more of a koan) that the God of the West (Jehovah/Jesus/Allah) is a being who in other worlds evolved into such an exalted state, with so much merit (positive karma) that he found himself, when rebirth finally happened (it is inevitable for all beings sooner or later), at the top of the heavenly world or our existence, and mistook this for his being a monotheistic deity. (At rebirth he would not remember his previous exalted existences).


I'm not sure what the point of the story is?

I'm not sure what the point of the story is?

A Koan isn't supposed to have a traditional point like you are probably used to. It is something you are supposed to meditate on.

A Koan isn't supposed to have a traditional point like you are probably used to. It is something you are supposed to meditate on.

Oh!

Thanks.

Yes, thats true. We also believe that in the end, Christians wont be the only ones effected by God.




I'm not sure what the point of the story is?
Do stories have to have a point? I suppose it illustrates the ability of people not caught in the Christian mind frame to see other possibilities. You have to remember that uninformed Buddhists tend to take the claims of Christian missionaries--of fullfilled prophesies, of angelic appearances, of miracles, and so on--at face value. They assume they really happened, and so frame them in their Buddhist context.

NO, or perhaps yes. :confused: Mankind seems to be continually looking for logic. Perhaps it's to offset our more natural tendency to be emotional rather than rational.
However, we have no idea of where, or how, the universe came into being. I say THE universe, because we assume there is only one of them. Similarly, we have no idea of how the universe will end, or what eternity means. There are so many unknowns that most of us run away from them and drop back into trying rationalize our limited existence.
The universe will exist, with or without us. What meaning for being can we have? You can believe we just evolved, from something, or that we are an accident, or that we have some higher purpose.
We believe that we exist in the NOW, that's all we "know". All else is emotion trying to rationalize that supposed fact.

Oh!

Thanks.

You are welcome!

My personal favorite koan,
"Does a dog have Buddha nature?"

I think this quote from one of my favorite writings is relevent to this question:

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

If there is a logical reason, I believe it is beyond our comprehension.

You are welcome!

My personal favorite koan,
"Does a dog have Buddha nature?"
This one will typically be accompanied by either an observation or a story about a dog doing something very dog-like.

Along the lines of this, the story might be accompanied by the question "Is Allah a Buddha?"

Is there a logical explanation for our existence?

No.

Does there need to be a logical reason?

Does there need to be a logical reason?

Not really, it just represents an inability that makes us human. Over confidence is delusional and missleading.

Over confidence is delusional and missleading.

So is selling yourself short.

Over confidence is delusional and missleading.

Nowhere near as delusional and misleading as claiming there is some omnipotent supernatural being up in the heavens watching over us.

___________________________________________

Religion is the one area of discourse in America in which people are systematically protected from the requirement to provide evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and—all too often—what they will kill for.

A recent Gallup poll showed that 72% of Americans believe that "angels" are real and interact in our daily lives. "Angels". Asexual, flying, feathery-winged, translucent metaphysical beings from outside our sphere of existence, which CNN News spent hours on recently documenting their proficiency at saving lives by deflecting bullets and stopping car crashes. What idiocy. No wonder this country is headed over the cliff........

Art isn't usually logical

Nowhere near as delusional and misleading as claiming there is some omnipotent supernatural being up in the heavens watching over us.

___________________________________________

Religion is the one area of discourse in America in which people are systematically protected from the requirement to provide evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and—all too often—what they will kill for.

A recent Gallup poll showed that 72% of Americans believe that "angels" are real and interact in our daily lives. "Angels". Asexual, flying, feathery-winged, translucent metaphysical beings from outside our sphere of existence, which CNN News spent hours on recently documenting their proficiency at saving lives by deflecting bullets and stopping car crashes. What idiocy. No wonder this country is headed over the cliff........



Shove your "omnipotent supernatural being" speach, in your ass. You spout it off as much as a trained monkey would if they had typing skills, you might as well start flinging it like poo. Oh wait, you do already.

So is selling yourself short.


Thats true to.

OK, why is there a universe and not "nothing?"

When the white knight asked Alice to look down the way and see if she could see anyone coming, Alice answered that she could see no one coming. To this the knight remarked, "What good vision young people have--to be able to see "no one" coming--and at such a distance.

This shows us why--either something exists or nothing exists, but the very phrase "nothing exists" is a contradiction in terms.

(Am I having too much fun here?)

I do tend to think the proposition that if something is possible to exist, then it must exist somewhere somehow. Therefore, the universe exists because it is possible for it to exist (which is the more tautological--what I just said or, "The universe exists because it exists"?)

If you are into meditation, you know the exercise where you try to conceive true nothingness--no space, no time, no "nothingness" either. Most people end up out in space where they can't see any stars--that is not true nothingness. There is still space and time. These too much be removed.

Then one must remove the "thing" "nothingness" and be left with true nothingness. When you get there, what will you find? You will not find "nothing," since that is now gone.

Thats true to.
Of the two sins--excessive humility or excessive pride--which one wears the best?

The thing is, I can't really imagine "excessive humility." I will have to sit on that.

Shove your "omnipotent supernatural being" speach, in your ass. You spout it off as much as a trained monkey would if they had typing skills, you might as well start flinging it like poo. Oh wait, you do already.
One time I had an angel visit me. It was beautiful, with broad white wings, a white, sparkling robe and blond, flowing hair.

Since it didn't do or say anything, I guess it got the wrong address.

Both logic and reason are for just confirming reality. Logic doesn't bear reality. Reality bears logic.

Human has the logic for human.
Animal has the logic for animal.
Alien(if existing) has the logic for alien.
God has the logic for God.

I am not able to understand you, since I have always assumed that logic (like "reality") is unitary. I suppose it is possible this is not so, but I would require demonstration.

If there are different "logics" for humans and gods and animals and aliens, there are also different "logics" for Americans and Japanese and Vietnamese and French (especially for French). However, they derive from an underlying single logic--only modified here and there for local circumstances.

I do tend to think the proposition that if something is possible to exist, then it must exist somewhere somehow. Therefore, the universe exists because it is possible for it to exist (which is the more tautological--what I just said or, "The universe exists because it exists"?)There could be any number of 'potential' universes. One could, for example, posit a universe identical to our own except that one molecule of it is somehow displaced -- and then, of course, there would be an infinite number of these. I sometimes imagine (for lack of a better visualization) a myriad collection of these 'hyper'-universes co-existing at odd angles to each other in some kind of meta-space. There is something 'wrong' with all of them. They can never 'materialize'. But they intersect with each other -- and it is along those planes of intersection that 'rightness' occurs, and this 'rightness' constitutes the physical universe. All the 'potential' universes do not physically exist because they do not have sufficient cause to exist. But the universe that does physically exist might derive it's sufficient cause from those that cannot.

There could be any number of 'potential' universes. One could, for example, posit a universe identical to our own except that one molecule of it is somehow displaced -- and then, of course, there would be an infinite number of these. I sometimes imagine (for lack of a better visualization) a myriad collection of these 'hyper'-universes co-existing at odd angles to each other in some kind of meta-space. There is something 'wrong' with all of them. They can never 'materialize'. But they intersect with each other -- and it is along those planes of intersection that 'rightness' occurs, and this 'rightness' constitutes the physical universe. All the 'potential' universes do not physically exist because they do not have sufficient cause to exist. But the universe that does physically exist might derive it's sufficient cause from those that cannot.
Indeed, there could be many "universes" out there occupying different dimensions in a plenum of an infinity of dimensions. Even worse, there could be an infinity of plenums. (Actually I think this almost certainly has to be the case).

(Please forgive my misuse of the word "plenum," although I think the sense I use it in is contained in the word. If anyone can suggest a better word, I would appreciate).

This is a major logical problem with the assertion that God is "omniscient." How could He know--He may have an infinite amount of knowledge, but how could He know there doesn't exist worlds to which He has no access?

(Actually I think this almost certainly has to be the case)
Do you now?

Do you now?

What I say is my opinion based on the seeming certainty that universes such as ours are possible. Given an infinity of chances, anything that is possible will not only happen but happen an infinite number of times.

There is nothing in logic or geometry that limits the number of geometries or dimensions, so the default is that even in a single plenum an infinity of universes occupying different dimensions is possible.

There may be physical limitations rendering specific geometries impossible, but out of an infinity of possibilities, the number will probably remain infinite--but that is not the real issue--the real issue is the number of plenums, and there would be no limit on that.

This is of course all inferential: there is no way to have direct evidence. Nor does it really matter--the universe we inhabit is big enough to make us humble, if anything will.

Shove your "omnipotent supernatural being" speach, in your ass.

ROTFLOL. Spoken like a true Christian. Oh wait! No it wasn't.

I find it hard to believe that ANY Christian religionist anywhere would even think about denying that his "god" is an omnipotent being, and that said god possesses supernatural power.

Are you ashamed that you worship the omnipotent supernatural entity that I mentioned??

ROTFLOL. Spoken like a true Christian. Oh wait! No it wasn't.

I find it hard to believe that ANY Christian religionist anywhere would even think about denying that his "god" is an omnipotent being, and that said god possesses supernatural power.

Are you ashamed that you worship the omnipotent supernatural entity that I mentioned??

I think you need to re-read that. He is not attacking his God, but your speech about his God.

ROTFLOL. Spoken like a true Christian. Oh wait! No it wasn't.

I find it hard to believe that ANY Christian religionist anywhere would even think about denying that his "god" is an omnipotent being, and that said god possesses supernatural power.

Are you ashamed that you worship the omnipotent supernatural entity that I mentioned??


You replied just as I thought you would, like a monkey with typing skills.
Is there someone with a bell there, ringing it everytime there is a reply that doesnt suite them?

Thislin is correct, it was your speach I have a problem with and I believe the tone in which I wrote of my problem stated it very clearly.
Now go look for a banana or something before you put your foot in your mouth again.