Why is there anything at all?

[plodding inarticulateness]

Of course we can. It's what logic is for ... comparing and testing our assumption.

Again, this is what logic is for, since we humans never have "sufficient information". We have to try and assemble what little information we do have into a picture of "the truth", and then trust that this will be accurate enough to function for us. And that's what logic us used for ... testing that assemblage as we're putting it together in our minds.

No, logic is used to make deductively valid inferences from a set of valid premises. Hence, without sufficient information upon which to draw the facts needed to make the valid inference, you will be unable to apply logic.

Since as you say, in cases where we humans do not have sufficient information to make valid deductive inferences, we make (hopefully) reasoned and rational guesses with the information we do have. If those guesses work out it provides us with some confidence in our rationale. There may be a future instance where our rationale falls short, in which case we try and figure out why and use it to modify our rationale and subsequent expectations.

This is an empirical process, not a logic process.

 

[shunyadragon]

Peace to all,

Thanks for the question, What is the point of these posts other than to proselytize and preach Christianity?

Your apparent purpose is to proselytize Christianity not to explore the possible answers to the question.

Unfortunately it is selfish circular logic that is only used to only justify what one believes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Peace to all,

I guess Love is all we need, united in Love.
No judging and no preaching, thanks in advance.

Peace always,
Stephen

No preaching?!?!?! This basically the content of all your posts preaching and proselytizing.

 

[PureX]

No, logic is used to make deductively valid inferences from a set of valid premises.

That's what logic IS, not what it's for. "Deducing valid inferences from presumably valid premises" is the intellectual process that we call "logic".

Hence, without sufficient information upon which to draw the facts needed to make the valid inference you will be unable to apply logic.

That requires very little information. Nor does it render an accurate conception of reality. Which is why we need to test our conceptions against each other, logically, as we build them.

Since as you say, in cases where we humans do not have sufficient information to make valid deductive inferences, we make (hopefully) reasoned and rational guesses with the information we do have.

We never have enough information to be certain, so all our concepts of reality are "reasoned guesses".

 

[PureX]

You have mentioned using logic and faith in concert several times in this thread. I feel compelled to point out that faith is counter to, or negates logic. As a result, you are in essence relying entirely on faith, which is perfectly fine if that is what is working for you.

If you are aware of the incogruity of your word usage but prefer it for some reason, then so be it.

Cheers.

Faith keeps us moving forward when logic runs out of road.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

That's what logic IS, not what it's for. "Deducing valid inferences from presumably valid premises" is the intellectual process that we call "logic".

Umm, no, not presumably valid premises, logic requires actually valid premises, otherwise it is not logic.

Think of logic as being a calculator. With a calculator, if you simply input a series of random numbers and perform random mathematic operations for each entry, you will end up with a mathematically correct answer to all that activity but it will be utterly meaninless and not represent any true thing in the real world.

By the same token, if you make up stuff about reality and then make deductions from those made up things, you are creating meaningless conclussions that do not represent any true thing in the real world. Saying the conclussions were derived logically is meaningless, valueless.

And to be clear, when we ask why is there anything at all, we are in the realm of the real world.

That requires very little information. Nor does it render an accurate conception of reality. Which is why we need to test our conceptions against each other, logically, as we build them.

No, we do not test them logically, we test them empirically. That's what gives us confidence in their validity. The longer our guess, now expectation, remains emperically valid, continues to have accurate predictive value, the greater our confidence in that expectation.

We never have enough information to be certain, so all our concepts of reality are "reasoned guesses".

To say that we never have enough information generally, is quite overstating things. Certainly this is true when speaking of things that are on the edge of our understanding. Beyond this would be what is completely or truly unknown and nothing can be said about that with any confidence. How could one?

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Faith keeps us moving forward when logic runs out of road.

I see. Closing one's eyes and remaining fixed on the last heading. Seems a guaranteed way to go astray from my perspective.

 

[PureX]

Umm, no, not presumably valid premises, logic requires actually valid premises, otherwise it is not logic.

Logic is required to validate any given premise. You are trying to put the cart before the horse.

To say that we never have enough information generally, is quite overstating things.

It's also not what I stated. I stated that we never have enough information TO BE CERTAIN of the accuracy of our conceptions of reality (truth).

Certainly this is true when speaking of things that are on the edge of our understanding. Beyond this would be what is completely or truly unknown and nothing can be said about that with any confidence. How could one?

If we are wise, we will recognize that nothing can be said with any confidence about anything, without our false bravado of "belief".

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Logic is required to validate any given premise. You are trying to put the cart before the horse.

Not when we are talking about the real world. Only in a purely analytic system or domain would that be true, with all true statements deriving from the axioms chosen to define that analytic sytem or domain.

It's also not what I stated. I stated that we never have enough information TO BE CERTAIN of the accuracy of our conceptions of reality (truth).

See, the phrase "conceptions of reality" is quite broad. I think we can be certain regarding our conceptions and expectations regarding gravity as it relates to our day-to-day lives, as an example. There are things within reality that we are willing to label as facts, and in my view, to do so is to be certain. Even you use the term "fact".

I am more than confortable agreeing that a lot of our working knowledge is held with varying levels of confidence and expectation. Can we ever be 100% certain of future events, like the expectation of finding our car where last we parked it? No, of course not. I would say we can be certain of past events (granting no mental impairments) such as to where we last parked our car.

You seem to be speaking in absoultes here and I just can't agree with that.

If we are wise, we will recognize that nothing can be said with any confidence about anything, without our false bravado of "belief".

Again, delivered in an absolutist tone I simple do not agree with.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

To me, logic has more power than all of the finite disciplines of earth. For example, Logic to me can explain the location of the soul’s existence where finite disciplines can never determine the location.

To me and in logic The location of the soul is manifested by the selected spirit and determines the location through choice by the power of the selected spirit.

Peace always,
Stephen

 

[Feedmysheep]

The reason why there is something rather than nothing is this -
The uncreated eternal Person God wanted to have sons with His life and nature.
(Sons does not mean male but the same life)

For this to take place He had to create a universe as a environoment for
this eternal plan to be accomplished.

The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundations of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him, (Zechariah 12:1)

The heavens are for the earth. (God stretched for the heavens)
The earth is for man. (God laid the foundation of the earth)
Man was made with a central nucleus entity called a human spirit in order to receive the uncreated
divine life of God. (God formed within the body and soul of man a spirit to contact and receive God)

Another important verse in Paul's letter to the Ephesians-

Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love, Predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, (Eph. 1:4,5)

Before the Creator laid "the foundation of the world" or created the universe He had in His
heart a desire that some of His creatures would be involved in something called "sonship".
Though they be created they partake of the uncreated life, nature, holiness, and expression of
God. BASED upon this desire God then created all things - the universe with billions of items and
man at the pinnacle of creation. This looks like Jesus Christ the total union of God and man.

One more representative passage -

You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, for You have created all things, and because of Your will they were, and were created. (Rev. 4:11)

All things exist not merely because of God's will power, but because of His will (plan, purpose, heart's desire). Again the prototype and standard model of this central will upon which all things exist is
the God-man Jesus Christ, the incorporation of divinity with humanity for the inevitable mass production
of such a life.

For those who are prone to just say "Oh, you're preaching a sermon" -
You do not have to sit passively in a pew. You can challenge, counter, heckel, change the subject, preach your own sermon, etc. Or you can ask for further evidence I can present for this.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, logic is used to make deductively valid inferences from a set of valid premises. Hence, without sufficient information upon which to draw the facts needed to make the valid inference, you will be unable to apply logic.

Which is the reason logic is very weak when justifying subjective religious beliefs.

Since as you say, in cases where we humans do not have sufficient information to make valid deductive inferences, we make (hopefully) reasoned and rational guesses with the information we do have. If those guesses work out it provides us with some confidence in our rationale. There may be a future instance where our rationale falls short, in which case we try and figure out why and use it to modify our rationale and subsequent expectations.

In terms of the justification of religious beliefs lack independent factual support or consensus beyond those that share the beliefs,

This is an empirical process, not a logic process.

No, needs clarification. Empirical processes require objective independently verifiable objective evidence.

 

[Jimmy]

But the question was not why do we humans exist.

My answer still applies to the question why does anything exist at all.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

In logic, to become again.

Peace always,
Stephen

 

[Alien826]

No, logic is used to make deductively valid inferences from a set of valid premises. Hence, without sufficient information upon which to draw the facts needed to make the valid inference, you will be unable to apply logic.

Strictly, premises are true or false. Arguments are valid (if the conclusion logically follows from the premises), or invalid (if it doesn't), or sound (if a valid argument is based on true premises).

A valid argument may conclude something that is factually false. Invalidity is all you need to dismiss an argument with no further consideration. A sound argument is required if you want to say something true about the real world.

Sorry to nit pick.

 

[shunyadragon]

Peace to all,

In logic, to become again.

Peace always,
Stephen

Statement is not logic.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

Thanks for the input, am I seeing things correctly? Thanks in advance.
In logic, we are created mortal and corrupt. We become transformed immortal and incorruptible through Baptism, sanctified in the will of creation from the spirit through the flesh for the soul of the being becoming again in the Body of God, in logic. True? in logic, this is how it appears to me. I could be wrong, though. As always, I we all are open to correction and please advise if I am seeing things wrong or not in accordance with the will of creation.

Peace always,
Stephen

 

[shunyadragon]

The reason why there is something rather than nothing is this -
The uncreated eternal Person God wanted to have sons with His life and nature.
(Sons does not mean male but the same life)

For this to take place He had to create a universe as a environoment for
this eternal plan to be accomplished.

The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundations of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him, (Zechariah 12:1)

The heavens are for the earth. (God stretched for the heavens)
The earth is for man. (God laid the foundation of the earth)
Man was made with a central nucleus entity called a human spirit in order to receive the uncreated
divine life of God. (God formed within the body and soul of man a spirit to contact and receive God)

Another important verse in Paul's letter to the Ephesians-

Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love, Predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, (Eph. 1:4,5)

Before the Creator laid "the foundation of the world" or created the universe He had in His
heart a desire that some of His creatures would be involved in something called "sonship".
Though they be created they partake of the uncreated life, nature, holiness, and expression of
God. BASED upon this desire God then created all things - the universe with billions of items and
man at the pinnacle of creation. This looks like Jesus Christ the total union of God and man.

One more representative passage -

You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, for You have created all things, and because of Your will they were, and were created. (Rev. 4:11)

All things exist not merely because of God's will power, but because of His will (plan, purpose, heart's desire). Again the prototype and standard model of this central will upon which all things exist is
the God-man Jesus Christ, the incorporation of divinity with humanity for the inevitable mass production
of such a life.

For those who are prone to just say "Oh, you're preaching a sermon" -
You do not have to sit passively in a pew. You can challenge, counter, heckel, change the subject, preach your own sermon, etc. Or you can ask for further evidence I can present for this.

No sermon on my part, but yes, you are preaching a sermon based on what you believe nothing less nothing more.

echo , , , echo . . .echo.

 

[shunyadragon]

Peace to all,

Thanks for the input, am I seeing things correctly? Thanks in advance.
In logic, we are created mortal

and corrupt.

Not logic, a religious claim of beleif.

We become transformed immortal and incorruptible through Baptism, sanctified in the will of creation from the spirit through the flesh for the soul of the being becoming again in the Body of God, in logic. True? in logic, this is how it appears to me. I could be wrong, though. As always, I we all are open to correction and please advise if I am seeing things wrong or not in accordance with the will of creation.

Peace always,
Stephen

More religious claims of belief. No logical argument here.

 

[Feedmysheep]

Not logic, a religious claim of beleif.

More religious claims of belief. No logical argument here.

A "religious claim of belief" is of necessity is false?

In your next post could you explain how rationale thought leads to truth without
using circular reasoning?