James,

I agree with your assessment to an extent. However to dismiss logic is to dismiss your own understanding as well.



Yes, we could be 'wrong' about some things. Should our learnings show that, we adjust our knowledge accordingly... using logic to do so.

According to James (and I'm not quoting the Bible, LOL), your response and consequently your argument as well...

falls apart at the seams.

Actually, all argument - yours, mine, his, everybody else's as well - concerning *anything* 'falls apart at the seams' according to James' last post - necessarily so.

We obviously *know* something to even be able to say that.

That is the necessarily so part that I do not agree with.

We are probably in far more agreement than we realize then. Because I'm in no way suggesting that we should 'dismiss' logic. It works quite well for some things, and obviously technology is one of those things.

However, where its value comes into question is when it is used as a philosophical grounds to dismiss other possiblities such as intelligent design, spiritual essence, or anything along those lines.

Where logic works well is in physics and engineering (things of the physical world). Where logic falls flat on its face is in philosophy. It has no premise to stand on.

So it's not a matter of 'dismissing' logic altogether. I'm personally a very highly scientific and technical person. I value logic within its domain of applicability. But to use it as a sledge hammer to slam philosophers over the head with who suggest seemingly 'illogical' explanations for life is to totally abuse it, and basically misunderstand it and its applicability.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that this universe as a whole is even remotely logical. In fact, as far as we can tell, it's totally illogical. The mere fact that anything exists at all, is illogical, unless you assume the unprovable premise that stuff always existed. But to assume such an unprovable premise is no different from worshiping an unprovable God.

So logic fails as just as much as any other idea.

Logic has no leg up on pure guessing when it comes to the philosophy of what constitutes reality. That's just beyond the domain of logic's applicablity. That's where it must necessarily be dismissed (or at the very least be recoginized to be no better than pure guessing)

Please, don't sweep everybody else with your "logical" broom! Nobody else had the audacity of uttering anything as nonesensical (according to James) as the following :

That all depends on the kind of philosophy one chooses to follow in thought. Some kinds of philosophy have solid logical grounding and some do not.



I find as much fault in a mathematical representation of reality.



This is the crux of the difference between our views regarding logic as it applies to philosophy, specifically epistemology. If the universe were as you have claimed... "totally illogical" ... then we would not be able to *know* anything. We obviously do know things. Therefore, the universe is not "totally illogical".



Untrue for several reasons. It is different from assuming the premise that an entity created everything. The assumption of a creator adds a variable which, in and of itself, has no evidence to support it. Could it be true... of course it could. It could be just as true as not. However, assuming other than deliberate creation does not depend upon proving a creator, and that would include holding to the idea that we do not know enough to be able to confidently say, one way or the other. The evidence is insufficient.

I *do* know why my children exist. I *do* know why my car 'works'. I *do* know why the sun is hot, the moon has phases, etc...

The point you seem to be missing is this...

We *do not* know how things first came to exist. Until we have enough knowledge to be able to confidently say, we use what we *do* know to extrapolate the liklihood of possibilities. Doing that requires logic.



Just because we do not *know* with certainty how the universe came into existence does not mean that logic fails. Logic succeeded in that sense, because it is through logic that we *know* that.



Guessing is based upon prior knowns. Logic assesses the liklihood of the 'guess'.

James can speak for himself.

Seeing how your the one claiming that the terms 'audacity' and 'nonsense' apply to my earlier expression(which you quoted here) without showing how that is the case, I suggest that that is necessary for me or anyone else to take your words with any amount of relevent value.

*Exactly* how does it fail to make sense?

Well, clearly this is where we part ways.

I simply disagree with your assertion here. As far as I'm concerned no human being knows any foundational truths with absolute certainty, and therefore cannot possibly lay claim to having a superior "logical position" from anyone else.

Yet, (from my point of view) this is all that you ever do. You constantly attempt to portray your position as somehow being "superior" to others simply because it "supposedly" has a stronger "logical" foundation.

With all due respect that's nothing other than to take the position that your "guessing" supposedly "trumps" the guessing of others, simply because you claim that it's more "logical".

That's utter nonsense. That's all there is to it. Period.

Your guesses are just as feeble and flimsy as anyone else's. When it come to the core nature of reality there is no premise that you can point to that holds any greater merit than any other premise. The best you can hope to do is point to physics(which is precisely what you are doing when you claim that the universe has apparent 'logic'). But all you are doing there is pointing to the physical laws of the material world and saying, "Look the laws are liogical, therefore the universe itself must be founded on logic".

But that has absolutely no more merit than for someone else to look at the same universe and say, "Look the universe is intelligent therefore it must be founded on Intelligent Design".

Both of those "philosophies" have absolute equal merit (or no merit at all) depending on how you want to view them. The bottom line is that they are ultimately the very same argument.

So your worshiping of "Logic" is absolutely no different from someone else's worshiping of "Intelligent Design". They are ultimately reducible to the very same "logical principles". Therefore they must necessarily have equivalent merit.

Logic doesn't have a leg up on anything else. In fact, to use logic to support itself is about as circular as an argument can get.

Your argument for "Logic" is no different from an argument for "Intelligent Design" really. It's ultimately the very same argument in disguise. You look around and see that the physical world appears to be logical, so you deduce that the universe must be logical. Other people look around and see cognitive intelligence in the universe and so deduce that the universe must have been designed by congnitive intelligence. It's the very same "logic" either way. Neither can possibly have a leg up on the other. Neither can claim to be "more logical" than the other. Whatever merit you give to one you must also give to the other because they're ultimately the very same argument. They are both based on precisely the same logic.

my illusion is JUST as good as your illusion!

Truly.

Indeed, those who tend to think otherwise (i.e. their illusions are better than anybody else's) are called Dellusional

Ok James, I am going to respond to you in the same manner which I have thus far in this thread, even though it seems to have become personal to you - and about me. I am(probably over) confident that this can be approached in an intelligible fashion from both sides of the fence without making it about one another.



Some kinds of philosophy have solid logical grounding because they are based upon fact. The lack of absolute certainty does not deny this. There are degrees of certainty. A position which claims that the hamburger is a vegetable does not have as solid a logical grounding as one that claims that a potatoe is.



I assess things in as logical a manner as possible.



One claiming 'more logical' does not make it so.



I agree.



What exactly are you calling 'my' guesses?

I have never claimed that the universe 'must be founded on logic'.



It may help things if what I actually write is addressed, rather than what you think I mean. Your equivocating between the two.



I do not 'worship' logic.



Evidently you have not come to realize that the human mind is inherently logical. It is through the developmental processes that it 'learns' to become illogical through it's inter-dependence upon false belief.



Before one can remark about another's argument, it must first be read. The above is not MY argument.

If the consideration is down to which is more inherently useful and / or valuable (i.e., 'logic' or 'faith'), it needs to be remembered that, during the Spanish Inquisition, 'faith' was very much a commodity prized above logic if one was being questioned about it by the redoubtable Tomás de Torquemada ... they even developed a term for the act of professing one's wheel- or rack-based 'faith' ... the term 'auto da fé' may ring a bell ... 'act of faith' ... there was no corresponding 'auto de logica' ... the disparity created then continues still and is not logically resolvable ... neither is it amenable to resolution solely by faith ... the dispute will continue.

When it comes to determining whether or not one philosophy has more merit than another faith is not even required, nor of any import whatsoever.

Unless, of course, you prefer to think of indoctrinated religions as "philosophies".

What I've noticed in this day and age in general, is that there is a growing false belief that somehow it is "logical" to be an atheist, and "Illogical" to be a theist. Well, as I've mentioned above, there could be some truth to that with respect to particular indoctrinated religions (simply because those religious doctines are illogical in their own right).

However, in a general "philosophical" sense, this notion is total hogwash. The bottom line with logic is that it is impossible to know what the true nature of the universe might be. It's just plain impossible to know.

It's that simple.

So to claim that certain philosophical ideas have more "merit" because they seem more "logical" to one person than to another is total baloney.

There is no logic that can dismiss or rule the mystical (or spiritual) or anything of that sort).

On the contrary, this universe and the very nature of the laws of physics themselves are indeed a total mystery, even to scientists.

There is a gross misconception that science actually "knows" something. In truth, all science does is describe what we see happening around us (i.e. Physics). And even that description is grossly incomplete.

So there is no logical reason to even remotely suggest than anything "supernatural" (i.e. beyond the description of the laws of physics that we have thus far observed) is "illogical".

This is where people abuse logic.

The disgusting part of it truly comes down to the bottom line, than any sane person must surely be aware of. To suggest to other people that a certain philosophy is "logical" whilst another philosophy is "illogical" is truly the same as attempting to claim that one is reasonable (i.e. intelligent) and the other is unreasonable (i.e. stupid).

But in fact, there is no basis for that claim whatsoever. There is no logical basis whatsoever to rule out anything "supernatural" or "mystical". Because the bottom line is that we simply do not have the necessary information required to rule any such things out.

Therefore to even remotely suggest that such philosophical ideas are "illogical" or even "less logical" than some other philosophical ideas is truly nothing short of hogwash.

The only FACT that we truly know is that this universe and the life contained within it is indeed a mystery, therefore they only LOGICAL conclusion that we could possibly hope to draw at this time is that the universe is based on mysticism.

Truly.

We have absolutely no "rational" reason to even remotely suggest that any mystical philosophies are either "illogical" or "have any less logical merit" than any other philosophy.

Yet there are many people in this modern age who are attempting to suggest precisely this.

I just personally think it's disgusting to watch them attempt to belittle others by attempting to claim that mystical or spiritual philosophies have "less merit" or are "less logical" than purely atheistic (or non-spiritual, or non-mystical) philosophies.

From my point of view to preach such a thing is to misrepresent both logic, and science. Since I love both logic and science, I hate to see them abused in such a way to support non-spiritual, or non-mystical philosophies, when in truth, they do not support any such thing. That's a gross misrepsentation of both logic and science.

In fact, to even suggest that logic favors one philosophy over another in this fashion is to ultimately display a total ignorance of the limitations of logic.

It truly doesn't come down to "logic" versus "faith". That's a false argument in and of itself. Unless, as I've stated earlier, you'
re talking about a particular indoctrinated religion and you can demonstrate the logical inconsistences of that particular doctrine (but that's a totally different thing)

The bottom line is that in "pure philosophy" there is no more reason to believe that the universe arose from pure nothingness as there is to believe that it was created by Mighty Mouse. There just isn't any "evidence" for either case.

The bottom line for all humanity is that the existence of this universe is a total mystery and there's no reason to suggest that any guess of how it came into being is any more or less "logical" than any other guess. To claim otherwise is pure hogwash.

That's all I'm saying.

The fact that the beginnings of the universe are unknown does not constitute sufficient reason to warrant a conclusion that all philosophy is equally valid/sound.

That is hogwash.

Whether or not an argument is logical depends on it's form.

It's not hogwash at all, it's the absolute truth as we know it.

What we call "logic" is nothing more than our observations of what the laws of physics permit within the physical universe in which we exist.

However, scientific observations (along with the very logic that we have constructed by observing the physical behavior of this physical universe) have given us overwhelming evidence that the "true nature" of reality is necessarily outside of the scope of what we call "logic".

Our best scientific evidence today tells us that the very "laws of nature" that we observe within this physical universe actually "unfolded" along with the very creation of this universe. In other words, this univese did not come into being because of those laws, but rather those laws came into being along with the creation of this physical universe.

This shows us without any doubt whatsoever, that whatever the "true nature" of reality is, it does not need to adhere to the "nature" of this physical universe. On the contrary scientific observation and our cherished logic demands that whatever cause this universe to come into being was necessarily of a differnet "nature" from the physical universe in which we actually find ourselves.

Therefore both logic and scientific observation have shown us that the "true nature" of reality is indeed "supernatural". (i.e. having a nature that is totally unlike the nature of the physical world in which we live, (and upon which we have constructed our ideals of what we think should be "logical").

In other words, both logic and science have shown us that the true nature of reality is necessarily beyond both "nature" and "logic" as we no them.

So any demand that philosophy (specifically philosophies concerning the true nature of existence), must adhere to logic as we know it are totally ungrounded personal pipe dreams. There is no basis whatsoever for anyone to believe that the true nature of reality must adhere to anything that we deem to be "logical" or even rational in any sense.

There is just no reason whatsoever to even suggest such a thing. There's no grounds for it. There is no reason to believe that the true nature of reality should be anything at all like the nature of this physical universe or what we deem to be "logical".

So when discussing the possiblities of the true nature of reality it's simply nonsense to demand that seemingly "logical ideas" should hold any merit over seemingly "illogical ideas". They all hold precisely the same value. Logic has no leg up on anything else.

In fact, one could argue on a pure philosophical basis that if the human mind (which is a product of this universe) can imagine a senario, then that scenario itself must have some basis in this reality since the very idea sprang from this reality.

The idea that philosophies of reality must adhere to logic in anyway, is a totally ungrounded and useless concept.

You may argue (and have argued in the past), that logic is the only thing we have that makes any 'sense' to us, and thus it's really the only "tool" we have to work with that holds any "meaning" for "value".

That's certainly an understandable position. Take away logic and what do we have to work with? Basically nothing but stabs in the dark with pure guesswork.

But the TRUTH of the matter is, that logic has no value in reqard to the question of the true nature of reality, and therefore it is indee TRUE that we have NOTHING to work with.

It's a false notion to believe that we actually "Have logic to work with" in regard to the question of the true nature of reality, because in truth, that question is beyond the scope of logic and therefore logic truly is utterly meaningless when applied to the question of the true nature of reality.

So the bottom line is that we do indeed have NOTHING to work with. Any guess is just as good as any other guess.

That's just the hard-core truth of it. Logic has no value in the face of the question of the true nature of reality. To claim that it has value in the face of this question is indeed hogwash.

So YES! All philosophies concerning the true nature of reality are on EQUAL GROUND! Logic has no leg up on anything else. It's utterly useless in the face of this question.

Logic is based upon our knowledge and it assesses the truth-value of a syllogism based upon the truth of the premise along with the logical coherency of the form of the argument itself.

Not all premises are guesses and go unsupported by knowledge.

That is where your argument fails the most.

We cannot know the 'true nature of reality' if it is outside of our frame of reference. That pursuit is a waste of time and cognitive effort. That is why we address the universe *as it is*, not as we think it may have come to be.

This may be more or less true when comparing illusions held by certain people...but I don't agree with this in general. Not all illusions are equally ungrounded, and not all people relate to their illusions in the same way. Just take a peek in the Current Events section, and it should be obvious that - while we all have bias - some people have some very severe reality filters and see everything in term of 'us-vs-them' (Dems vs GOP, whatever). Consider people who go on killing sprees fueled by paranoid delusions. Try convincing a homeless schizophrenic that believes they have been tracked by spy satellites for the last thirty years that maybe, just maybe, they might not have been.

Not all illusions are equal, and not everyone is equal in their commitment to their illusions.

We have no premises that are not guesses when it come to the question of the true nature of reality.

That is where your argument fails the most.

There is no 'logic basis' for any conclusions to be drawn about the true nature of reality. All you can apply logic to is the physical universe of which we can observe and measure. And, as I've already pointed out, our observations and measurments of that physical universe all point to the very same conclusion, and that conclusion is that the nature of this universe is not the same as the 'nature' of from whereever it sprang. So all we have seen there is that any so-called "logical premises" that we might have are totally inaccplicable to the question of the true nature of reality anyway. So your argument that some premises are "supportable" is a false argument. There are no premises concerning the true nature of reality that are "supportable".

That's where the bottom falls out of your argument. Any foundation you believe that you might have is necessarily built on quicksand.

Now this wasn't always true.

Back in the days of classical philosophy and classical physics it was believed that time and space were eternal and that the universe itself is eternal. This was the basis of Spinoza's philosophy.

Well, that philosophy has "grounds" in logic because it assumes the premise that the physical universe is all that exists and it is eternal. Therefore the logic and nature that we see is what we get.

In the philosophical arena it makes sense to assume that the universe is logical and adhere's to logic because the premise assumes that the physical universe is indeed everything.

However, now with the scientific observation that the universe hasn't always existed and has only sprung into existence a few billion years ago. And with the physics theories (based on observations along with logical decuctions) that state that the very laws of this universe came into being as the universe unfolded, and evolved, include the very fabric of spacetime itself as we have come to experience it,... well,... this changes everything.

Now we know that the TRUE NATURE of the source of creation does not need to adhere to the logic and nature we see within this universe. Those old-fashioned notions no longer apply. On the contrary, we are forced to recognize that the TRUE NATURE of reality is indeed "supernatural" (i.e. Different from the nature of this physical universe in which we live).

Moreover, (and I even hate to bring this up because it's ironically shunned by people who always attempt to make cases for logic and science, yet it is a discovery of science itself), and that is the fact that when we look at the physical universe on in the greatest depth of detail, we see that logic, space, time, and everything we deem as being "natural" ultimate breaks down. Thus revealing to us that not only has this physical universe sprung from a "supernatural source", but it remains intimately connected to that "supernatural source" at all times in the most intimate way at the foundation of everything that exists.

Therefore, we have absolutely no reason whatsoever to make any claims that we have an "suppported" premises other than the obvious premise that this entire universe has sprung from a supernatural force and continues to be pervaded by that same supernatural force. A force which totally denied and evades our concept of "logic".

So there is no basis for attempting to claim that we have any "logically supported premises" to work with that would even be applicable to the question of the true nature of reality.

What would be such a premise?

Can you even name one?