There is no logic for existence

[jufa]

Pincho Paxton states"

I have ideas planted in my brain that God does not exist. I don't feel alone, the 6 billion people around me sort of make me feel that I am not alone... funny that?

If your ideas are not found and seen by the Eye of Your Comprehension, they don't belong to you, and you better let them go in order for that energy which you sent out to have a place of residence of you. If you don't, those things which are not yours, and you retain, will make you become Atlas, carrying the world of opp on your shoulders.

This is why you feel that the 6 million people around you don't make you feel alone, it is because you are carrying them in your world of thoughts. Nonetheless, no one can feel, see, hear, touch, taste and smell as you do because no one, and nothing is alive in your thoughts but those, and that which you give your live of awareness too. Regardless of appearance and what seems, you walk this world alone in your mind of thoughts and interpretations.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[mensa-maniac]

Jufa

I clearly see the sensibility in your words. Often, I try to guess if it is a woman or man who posts when I can't tell by the use of their name. I like to study the way a man speaks vs. the way a woman speaks. I haven't read enough of your posts to determine what your gender is.

But, I will make a guess after I've read more.

I really have no preference as it is the ideas and sensibility which captures my attention.

[IJesusChrist]

There is no logical reason for existance?

Why not?

That would only hold true if the dimension of time was not infinite. If time's dimensions is infinite infact, all existance has a purpose through which other occurences must proceed upon.

You and I exist because the universe exists. Don't go on an ego trip believeing that your purpose is seperate from the universe.

[Sorry I only read the first two posts]

[pointexter]

qft

What kind of fucking stupid name is that.

You will never be but a shadow of me.

[jufa]

IJesusChrist stated:

There is no logical reason for existance?

Why not?

Because you have not given a logical reason. - 1

Do you have a logical reason? If not, Why Not? - 2

If you do, then give us that logic and end all your assumptions such as: - 3

if the dimension of time was not infinite. If time's dimensions is infinite infact,

IJC states:

You and I exist because the universe exists.

This has already been establish, but the question which no one, even you seem to not want to answer is: What is the logic for you and I to exist, no less exisstence?

IJC states:

Don't go on an ego trip believeing that your purpose is seperate from the universe. .

Why Not?

And what is the purpose of the universe?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[IJesusChrist]

If you find yourself seperate from the universe, you are off the correct track.

The only reason that can be attributed to the universe existing is because it had to for everything else to exist. Asking why again can be saved for toddlers. No offense, but I, and everyone else will never be able to answer that question, so why ask it?

[pointexter]

It is illogical to ask unanswerable questions and deluded to search for their answer.

[Pincho Paxton]

Humanity is more than one person Pincho. I'm speaking of humanity as a whole being alone on earth with no God. Couldn't you understand this simple concept?

But, imagine if God is truth and he does exist, just imagine it. It says in the Bible that when Jesus comes ALL eyes and ears will see and hear his arrival. He will come on a cloud for all eyes to see, even those in their graves will be awakened.

My question is, if every person who ever lived on earth will be awakened from their graves, our earth is not big enough to hold everyone in the whole wide world. Therefore, other planets will be discovered to equip everyone before the coming of Christ.

I have a suspicion that every Galaxy has a life form, so we are not alone even on Earth. If I imagine God as truth then I imagine God alone, which is far worse than 6 billion people being alone. But I do have a theory as to what God really is, and in my theory G.O.D is an acronym for 12 people who live in Heaven. They are ordinary people, but they are in charge of things. The acronym could be a few different things like...

Guardians Of Destiny
Government of Decisions

But whatever it is, it is implanted in our brains for us to accept their words.

[jufa]

IJesusChrist states:

If you find yourself seperate from the universe, you are off the correct track.

The only reason that can be attributed to the universe existing is because it had to for everything else to exist. Asking why again can be saved for toddlers. No offense, but I, and everyone else will never be able to answer that question, so why ask it?

Here we go with the supposition again. You tell me how can an individual find themselves separated from the breath of life, when it is the breath of life that makes them aware they live and move and have their being within the universe?

IJesusChrist states:

The only reason that can be attributed to the universe existing is because it had to for everything else to exist.

You still do not give logic or reason definitively why existence exist so everything else to exist. which leads back to the statement "There is no logic for existence."

IJesusChrist states:

I, and everyone else will never be able to answer that question, so why ask it

Being you nor anyone else cannot answer the question, why did you not make this statement when you entered this thread, and be done with it?

And being you cannot answer this question, which I want to make clear that the question developed because no one would be honest with themselves, and make the statement "I do not know the logic for existence to exist."

Also want every one to take note that: "There is no logic for existence" began as a statement, not a question. The statement became a question when everyone with a few exception, defied their own logic and attempted to find logic of that which they could not define or grasp. This is why the question which could not be answered was birthed into life, and which you are a cause of it still living. Check out your first statement when you entered this thread:

There is no logical reason for existance?

Why not?- IJesusChrist

You and others who asked why not? or say I will find logic for existence, birthed the question which could not be answered by attempting to give a logical reason why there is logic for existence to exist.

The statement has been made "There is no logic for existence," nor the universe. Just want to keep this thread where it began. We are talking about existence. But to be sure, because you cannot find any logic for existence, you cannot find any logic for the universe to exist, can you? Tell me that logic if you will.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Cahoot]

“There is no logic for existence” implies logic to be the fundamental premise, and existence to be the conclusion.

This implication is fallacious,

because:

Logic is not the fundamental premise.

Existence is the fundamental premise, and precedes logic.

Therefore:

Existence does not require logic.

Logic requires existence.

Though:

Logical inferences can lead to valid conclusions based on the self-evident premise of existence. (Your existence is self-evident to you.)

*

from online encyclopedia Britannica:

“An inference is a rule-governed step from one or more propositions, called premises, to a new proposition, usually called the conclusion. A rule of inference is said to be truth-preserving if the conclusion derived from the application of the rule is true whenever the premises are true. Inferences based on truth-preserving rules are called deductive, and the study of such inferences is known as deductive logic. An inference rule is said to be valid, or deductively valid, if it is necessarily truth-preserving. That is, in any conceivable case in which the premises are true, the conclusion yielded by the inference rule will also be true. Inferences based on valid inference rules are also said to be valid.”

*

Logic can proceed from a fallacious premise, however this does not make the logic valid, even though the logic may preserve the untruth of the untrue premise.

*

From Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary:

logic:
2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>

reason:
2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : sanity b : the sum of the intellectual powers

[Pam Seeback]

Man does not want to admit that every word that leaves his lips or fingertips is not an absolute, and being that it is not an absolute, that he is speaking, without exception, not of the All that IS the All, but of probabilities, conjectures, assumptions and opinions about the All that IS the All. Every human word of the intellect is based on the shadow of perhaps, maybe, I think, I believe, of subjectivity of interpretation according to sense awareness. Man calls these thoughts "logic" or "reason", but by whatever name he calls this mentality of supposition and belief, it matters not, and changes not the truth that there is no absolute human thought that can provide for man, a foundation of rest for his wandering, restless, human mind.

Why does man continue to deny to himself that he knows nothing about That which made him aware? Because it means he will have to "be still and know that I am God". What is God? He cannot know (with his human mind of sense); ergo, he (his intellect of sense) must be still.

Man is afraid of the silence of his sense interpreting mind; this is why he will say that he can find no beginning and ending to his awareness, and then, continue defining his awareness as if there is a beginning and an ending.

Fear of his own Unknown Thought Infinity, the Pure Awareness of himself; this is why man continues giving life to his self of "I think", "I believe", even when he knows that this life is of the moment only, and must be called forth in and by repetition of thought (on the flywheel, as jufa pointed out in another post).

Jesus said: "Be not afraid, for I have overcome the world." Jesus was aware of the fear that is the veil that prevents man from trusting wholeheartedly in his own Pure Thought Awareness of himself.

[Cahoot]

Since existence precedes logic, logic does not determine existence. Thus, instead of saying there is no logic for existence, one may as well state there is no eggplant for existence.

However, logic does have relevance to existence.

No logic, or logic, can affect relative conditions pertaining to relative existence. But then again, so can eggplant, or no eggplant.

[Pam Seeback]

Since existence precedes logic, logic does not determine existence. Thus, instead of saying there is no logic for existence, one may as well state there is no eggplant for existence.

You are your existence. You cannot leave your awareness of you. If you accept this statement as being true of you, why have you come to believe that you precede you? What is this movement of you since you cannot leave your awareness of you, which includes your you that uses logic, and your you that does not use logic?

However, logic does have relevance to existence.

In your own existence of you as if to you.

No logic, or logic, can affect relative conditions pertaining to relative existence. But then again, so can eggplant, or no eggplant.

The only affecting of logic is its affect on your awareness of you. Logical thinking is the sense effects of an invisible cause, both of which, are you. Belief that your effects are real (that they are your only awareness of you) become affects, manifestations of your ignorance that you are you, whether in your quest to discover a logical reason for you, or whether not in a quest to discover a logical reason for you. If you desire to debate the relativity of eggplant within your conscious awareness of you, that is up to you. If you desire to stop debating the relativity of eggplant within your conscious awareness of you, that is also up to you.

[IJesusChrist]

Jufa:
You are jumping around.

First, how can you say there is no logic for existance? How can you make this statement; it's ignorant. It's the equivalent of saying before the big bang, there was nothing. How can you know this? Do you know the beginning and the end? If so, then you may have a valid arguement, but your statement, with the knowledge you have as of right now, is foolish.

First of all I would doubt that any of us would be able to comprehend the purpose of existance, as if there was purpose, it would contain an infinity. We cannot grasp a concept including infinity.

However - if the universe is finite, which is laughable, then yes, no purpose can exist. There is a beginning and an end, with nothing after and before - therefore no purpose can be made.

However we don't know this. And no statement can ever be made about the purpose of existance, nor the logic of existance. A pedestal with your name on it is no where to lecture.

[Cahoot]

Apparently you (movingalways) are attempting to stir up a disagreement where none exists. Very well.

“Existence precedes logic” does not mean “you precede you.”

*

One can create confusion by mixing references to absolute and relative.

Logic or its lack does affect relative conditions that pertain to relative existence. So does eggplant, or its lack.

In saying “I am God” distilled to “I Am” distilled to “Am” (once attachment to ego identification is no more), you are referencing the absolute.

Whether or not you identify with the absolute so absolutely that you are incapable of disengaging your attachment to that identification, in able to discuss the relative in terms of relative conditions, is evidence of inflexibility with the gift of thought, don’t you think? Yes, I get it. You’re God. Come down from the throne for a bit to appropriately discuss relative conditions and absolute being within meaningful contexts.

For instance:

Logic led to inventions that heat dwellings in the winter. A heated home in cold weather affects relative existence, as does lack of heat.

Logic led to cultivation of eggplant. Eggplant is a plant which affects relative existence as nutrition, pretty purple colors to appreciate, a shape that could be useful depending on one’s personal inclinations, and the quality of ambiance in close quarters, depending on one’s capacity to digest eggplant.

:)

However, heat and eggplant do not determine absolute existence. They merely affect the relative conditions of relative existence.

In fact everything, even our knowledge of the universe, proceeds from "Am." "Am" precedes all that is inferred.

Inference flows from mind interpretations of sensory stimuli. Remove the stimuli and "Am" remains.

[jufa]

Cahoot states:

“There is no logic for existence” implies logic to be the fundamental premise, and existence to be the conclusion.

This implication is fallacious,

The above statement does not imply anything. It makes a statement that existence exist but you, I, nor the encyclopedia britannica, or Merriam-Webstes's dictionary can say WHY

because:

Logic is not the fundamental premise.

Existence is the fundamental premise, and precedes logic.

The above statement is not true. How can it be true when there had to be a logical vision somewhere beyond man to catch the vision of existence, then think out that vision and sat it into a conclusion manifestly?

Therefore:

Existence does not require logic.

Logic requires existence.

The above statement also is not true. In order for existence to be sat into motion there has to be a thought which initiated that motion. Thought itself is the logic of the Thinker. That which comes before and after the thought gives logic to the premise of existence. So existence exist in the logic of the thought, and the thought exist in the logic of the Thinker, and the Thinker is That which is the Life of the logic and the manifested conclusive of the analysis which cause the existence of that which the Thinker initiated. "let there be. . .and there was."

Though:

Logical inferences can lead to valid conclusions based on the self-evident premise of existence. (Your existence is self-evident to you.)

This also is not true because the Thinker is not separated from the thought It thinks, nor the objective/subjective logic which is the Spirit of life of the Thinker, the thought, and logic of the analyzed conclusion which is manifested because of the Thinkers life. This means existence valids itself in the existence of the Original Thinker, whose thoughts validates the logic which defines the manifested vision of, and within existence.

So the essence of the title of this threads opening does not make the statement as to logic or existence, but what, or who is the Original thinker, who existed before the logical manifestation of the universe, and you and I?

The references you presented to me does not go through the mind to go beyond the mind to tell me who the Original Thinker is beyond the label which man gives It.

In conclusion, show me how that which the Original Thinker thinks is separated from the thought, and the logic of the thinking which produced creation, or existence?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Cahoot]

Existence, or “I Am” is the fundamental premise.

Anything else that you have named, including logic, is an inference based on that.

For example, your notion of an Original Thinker is an inference based on “I Am,” as are your other inferences.

[jufa]

IJesusChrist allow me to give you some insight concerning dialoguing with me about playing the metaphysical game of life?

Do you remember these question?

Do you have a logical reason? If not, Why Not? - 2. . . What is the logic for you and I to exist, no less exisstence?. . .Why Not?

And what is the purpose of the universe?. . .when it is the breath of life that makes them aware they live and move and have their being within the universe?. . .Being you nor anyone else cannot answer the question, why did you not make this statement when you entered this thread, and be done with it?

If you will not give me the coursey of answering my question, you can stop right there in attempting to play in my ballfield.

Answer my questions, and I will answer yours, but don't tell me what I'm doing, and neglect to make yourself aware of what you are not doing. This is not no one-way street, and the game here is:

you are only as good as what you come up against - jufa

Answering my question will define how good you are in dialoging with me. My signature concludes what I have just stated.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[jufa]

Cahoots states:

Existence, or “I Am” is the fundamental premise.

Anything else that you have named, including logic, is an inference based on that.

For example, your notion of an Original Thinker is an inference based on “I Am,” as are your other inferences.

Is this not what I said?:

The above statement also is not true. In order for existence to be sat into motion there has to be a thought which initiated that motion. Thought itself is the logic of the Thinker. That which comes before and after the thought gives logic to the premise of existence. So existence exist in the logic of the thought, and the thought exist in the logic of the Thinker, and the Thinker is That which is the Life of the logic and the manifested conclusive of the analysis which cause the existence of that which the Thinker initiated. "let there be. . .and there was."

Now don't be recipical, just give me the answer to what I asked you.

In conclusion, show me how that which the Original Thinker thinks is separated from the thought, and the logic of the thinking which produced creation, or existence?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Cahoot]

What, carry on with the validity of your inferred notions about Original Thinker?

Your question presupposes the ever-presence of thought. This supposition is an inference that follows from “I Am.”

Jufa, your confusion may well lie in the knowing of “I Am.” Or more specifically, you do know “I Am,” though this knowing may be conceptually obscured by static in the attic.

Though the words “I Am” represent a language-based conception, and though language and thought are intertwined, “I Am” is not thought, just as the word “tree” is not tree.

As movingalways advises, stillness unobscures “I Am.”

If you truly want to know, then find a way to still your mind. If you simply want to jack your jaws, then carry on making demands of other posters and passing judgements on postings.

;)

[mensa-maniac]

There is logic for existence!

Isn't the logic for existence to have a family? Considering both male and female can produce together. Why else would both man and woman be a part of the universe? Why would humanity be able to produce offspring if it wasn't meant to be?

And many people don't have families, so they are not living the logic for existence.

[Pam Seeback]

Apparently you (movingalways) are attempting to stir up a disagreement where none exists. Very well.

I make statements of that which I have become aware. No more, no less. Yours to accept or to reject. No more, no less.

“Existence precedes logic” does not mean “you precede you.”

What you have missed in my statements about existence and you is that you ARE existence, so when you say that existence precedes logic, you are indeed saying that "existence precedes logic" means "you precede you."

*

One can create confusion by mixing references to absolute and relative.

How can one mix references to "absolute", when there are no reference points in "absolute?" And being that there are no reference points in "absolute", there is no way to reference "absolute" with "relative." Reference points exist in the relative, but they are temporal-spatial reference points with no permanent substance and/or essence.

Logic or its lack does affect relative conditions that pertain to relative existence.

It is because of assumption (logic) that relative conditions exist, yes.

So does eggplant, or its lack.

"Eggplant" is alive in man's awareness because of assumption that there is a logical beginning and ending of life, yes, and that this belief in a beginning and ending of life gives rise to the relativity of "eggplant" in man's awareness.

In saying “I am God” distilled to “I Am” distilled to “Am” (once attachment to ego identification is no more), you are referencing the absolute.

I am not referencing the "absolute" for reasons stated above, I am aware of the unconditioned thought reality of me (I Am).

Whether or not you identify with the absolute so absolutely that you are incapable of disengaging your attachment to that identification, in able to discuss the relative in terms of relative conditions, is evidence of inflexibility with the gift of thought, don’t you think? Yes, I get it. You’re God. Come down from the throne for a bit to appropriately discuss relative conditions and absolute being within meaningful contexts.

What you present here is the thought process of coming to the boundary of one's senses and declaring this boundary to be the beginning or and ending of you (I Am). And why man continues to believe that he can discuss "absolute being" within meaningful contexts. He cannot, for anything he says about "absolute being" that does not state the truth that he can say nothing of "absolute being" (for he sits not on the throne of absoluteness so as to pontificate about his absoluteness) is but foolish chatter, foolish chatter that keeps man enslaved to his foolish chatter.

For instance:

Logic led to inventions that heat dwellings in the winter. A heated home in cold weather affects relative existence, as does lack of heat.

What you call logic, I state as being a directive by one's conscience of awareness to "form a dwelling of heat so as to be warm." It is man's vanity that believes he is the creator of an "invention" called a dwelling. Now who thinks they are God? :)

Logic led to cultivation of eggplant. Eggplant is a plant which affects relative existence as nutrition, pretty purple colors to appreciate, a shape that could be useful depending on one’s personal inclinations, and the quality of ambiance in close quarters, depending on one’s capacity to digest eggplant.

Again, you call it logic, I say it is by the Law of the Spirit of Life, which is one with your awareness of you, that directed your awareness of you (I and my awareness of the eggplant are one) to cultivate your awareness of you as "eggplant." As for my personal inclinations with regards to my being one with my sense awareness with "eggplant", I ain't telling! ;)

However, heat and eggplant do not determine absolute existence. They merely affect the relative conditions of relative existence.

What your intellect calls "heat" and "eggplant" do not determine absolute existence, for awareness of "heat" and "eggplant" emanates from absolute existence (again your words; what I am aware of is the metaphor of the unconditioned Mind or of Pure Awareness).

In fact everything, even our knowledge of the universe, proceeds from "Am." "Am" precedes all that is inferred.

Our sense knowledge emanates from "Am", yes, but not everything of Am is man's sense knowledge.

Inference flows from mind interpretations of sensory stimuli. Remove the stimuli and "Am" remains.

Bingo!! :) Am remains when the sense stimuli is removed, but without the sense reference that you have identified as being necessary for mind's interpretations, how can mind continue to reference "Am?"

[Cahoot]

mensa-maniac wrote:

There is logic for existence!

Isn't the logic for existence to have a family? Considering both male and female can produce together. Why else would both man and woman be a part of the universe? Why would humanity be able to produce offspring if it wasn't meant to be?

And many people don't have families, so they are not living the logic for existence.

Howdy mensa-maniac.

I see your point.

However, your reasoning supports logic for perpetuation of species rather than logic for existence. Both logic, and logic for the perpetuation of species are premised on existence, which is not dependent on either logic or no logic. Existence simply is.

The inference of:
- having a family being the logic of existence -

leads to the conclusion that without a family, or in other words without perpetuation of the species, there is no existence.

However, empirical evidence suggests otherwise. You exist, thus existence is. (Strictly speaking, from my pov, saying that “you” exist is only an inference of high probability based on the limitations of my knowledge, so logically, I can only say for certain that I exist, thus existence is.)

[jufa]

Hi Cahoot, I am enjoying you, hope you are enjoying this cahoots. Said not in terms of being dishonest. You stated:

What, carry on with the validity of your inferred notions about Original Thinker?
Your question presupposes the ever-presence of thought. This supposition is an inference that follows from “I Am.”

You have already validated my statement, not notion, of Original Thinker when you stated:

Existence, or “I Am” is the fundamental premise.
Anything else that you have named, including logic, is an inference based on that.
For example, your notion of an Original Thinker is an inference based on “I Am,” as are your other inferences.

Better get your head off the track, thars a train acoming. Going to tell you definitively about this I AM THAT I AM, and the ORIGINAL THINKER, THE THOUGHT, THE LOGIC, and EXISTENCE, and why they are one and the same.

I am the dancer. I am the dancer dancing. I am the dancer dancing the dance. I am the dance. This means I am the dancer [not the I AM who created the dance from Its vision of intent and purpose]. I am the producer [interpreted thinker of what I theorize, because I am not the Original thinker of intent and purpose of the dance. So being the dancer dancing the dance, I become the thinker, thought, and object projected by my finite mind of an activity that is a mystery which is over and above the thought interpretation of my finite mind.

This means the dance I produce is the production of the thought activity manifesting the objectivity of my the mind which has now become the interpreter of the Originator Thinker's intent for creating the dance, even though I do not know what that intent and purpose is. So who am I? I am an emanation of the Original Thinker, that is who I am. I am the I who give an imaginary analysis of what the dance I became consciously aware of by-way of thoughts. Thoughts which originally emanated from the Consciousness of Cause , which could not find any volume, breadth, or depth of form recognizable while I lived in my finite mind of I the dancer. My finite mind does not know why the dance was formed. I the interpreter of the Original Thinkeer's thoughts do not know why I was formed, or how I could emanating from the Original Thinker I AM., when that I AM is beyond the Eye of my Comprehension?

But let us not stop here. By I the dancer being the emanation of I AM, then there must be a cause of purpose to produce the illusion of that which is believed to be finite because of effect but is infinite by cause of infinite Consciousness. Sure one can say I am the dancer, I am dancing, I am dancing the dance, I am the dance, but this in and of itself cannot qualify as a true statement because the dancer has not manifested the cause which provides the substance and essence for dancing nor the dance, no less him/herself to say in absoluteness what the dancer, dancing, and the dance is.

Certainly rhythmical movement is not a qualification for the dancer to claim I am. Nor does the thought of I am dancing make the dancer a dancer, or produce true verification and a true cause which makes what is alleged to be what is claimed. There is rhythmic movement in branches and leaves of trees when swaggering winds blow and move through them.

Neither does being the thinker interpreting the thought of being the dancer make the dancer, and dance the truth of Consciousness' purpose. I receive thought because I am a vehicle by which Consciousness highway through, but not in observable form of that I AM Consciousness.

This lead into the question, how then can that which I state: "The thinker gives life to the thought. The thoughts gives life to the object which the thinker thinks" and who has received the thought from the invisible, thus making the object of the thought exist in I because the I AM is the Original Thinker who gives the thought existence, and the existence of the thought Its life is, which is to be that which the Original Thinker thoughts not be a statement of reality?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Gurrb]

logic is not logical in this case. logic is created by the mind and the mind is illogical.

i think we should examine how things can be logical if they are solely based on human thought. what came first, the chicken or the egg? in other terms, logic or the thought of logic?