There is no logic for existence

[bito]

Man will never achieve communion with each other by sharing his or her thoughts, hoping to bring the other into their subjective-objective world of thought and feeling so they can see the world as they see the world - read "change the worldview according to their worldview".

If one believes life is that, only he or she can know, by sense of feeling, what he or she believes to be that. To try and express this sense of that to another so they can feel that, in exactness, is not possible.

Thought is a silent activity of the inner Man, between the Creator Consciousness of Thought and the individual consciousness that receives it. We cannot leave our conscious awareness so as to step into another conscious awareness. Realizing this, there is no desire to change the thoughts of others so as to 'see/be like me', or belief that 'my thoughts should be/can be your thoughts'. It is this belief that thought is the intrument of change that is the cause of all conflict in the world.

There is no logic for existence, and yet man continues to speak to man as if there is.

[Smurf]

So using your own logic, I have no reason to accept your argument! :)

[bito]

There is no asking for you to accept anything. 'Be in' your silence and discover for yourself. :)

[scameter]

What about the logic offered by science?

[bito]

scam, you say 'science' as if science is an entity, a separate thing that contains something called 'logic' that can be offered to man so man can discover something called the scientific world.

All 'isms' are but words that divide human knowledge into categories, for the sake of communication. This division of human knowledge causes man to see the world as if separated into pieces and parts, and to believe that each piece and part is a Whole unto Itself. Words can never be a Whole, for they are always relative to one another. Science is relative to all other 'isms', as is philosophy, as is religion, as is literature, etc. Think about the 'subjects' you take at school. There is never just one subject, there are always several or many, the idea being that education (another 'ism') produces something called a 'well rounded individual'.

Words did not exist before man first spoke them. In speaking them, he fell under their spell, believing the words he was speaking were things of creation, not merely tools for body to body communication.

Creation is infinite form infinitely appearing. When Man is no longer under the spell of words, he sees/feels this infinity that is Life. Eternal Life. Divine Thought. The universe observing Itself in Love.

[Smurf]

So we should be like the "creater consciousness"?

[Michael]

I like this, bito. It strikes the bell of truth. It makes me aware of my desire to influence others and the futility of the attempt.

Of course, life is not 'that', it is this.

At the same time the paradox of the view and the putting of the view exists. Like a silvermark on a beautifully crafted jug.

Thank you for making the words.

[Michael]

Creation is infinite form infinitely appearing.

The universe observing Itself in Love.


Two of the great truths. It is lovely to see them in so few words.

[Taeguk]

Words did not exist before man first spoke them. In speaking them, he fell under their spell, believing the words he was speaking were things of creation, not merely tools for body to body communication.


Since you are so quick to deny any whiff of dualism or speration, why is it you are equally adamant about making a duality between "words" and "things of creation"?

Shouldn't you be out somewhere burning literature, if words are only intended for body to body communication and everything else is a delusion?

To be entirely frank I find your supposedly holistic perspective as partial and dualistic as the ones you criticize. You are still championing "this" over "that", while at the same time claiming that our whole problem is that we favor "this" over "that".

[Michael]

Taeguk, we constantly see the problems arising from mind and language on this site.
Can 'this' not embrace 'that'?
You are sounding more and more as though you 'know' something by which all expressions are judged.
There is duality, there is oneness , is that so difficult?
Yes, it is, to be able to hold such powerful and apparently opposing forces in balance.
I fail all the time. But it's fun trying when I don't take it too seriously (as I do).
Often it is best to speak with the heart and not the mind.

[the_aphid]

Bito: If one believes life is that, only he or she can know, by sense of feeling, what he or she believes to be that. To try and express this sense of that to another so they can feel that, in exactness, is not possible.

Scameter: What about the logic offered by science?

I can't help but agree with the argument posed by Bito. I am thinking of an analogy which might help articulate the idea (although not fully communicate my understanding of the problem - as that is seemingly impossible).

Think of the uncertainty of the atom, this analog ambiance of energy and matter. The closer you try to define the position of the electron the uncertainty of momentum grows. Thus is the analogy of attempting to 'define' or 'articulate' an ambient and infinite understanding into digitalized words and concepts. Inevitably a greater 'understanding' is lost in the translation, in the attempt of cutting the concepts down to palatable words.

Science whittles things down more than anything else in human history. It attempts to refine the 'picture' and eliminate the 'fuzziness' of this ambiance of existence. It rejects things that don't follow the nature of predictability, and thus it provides us with a great understanding of the macroscopic nature of cause-and-effect, providing us with an understanding of how we can beneficially utilize this knowledge, however those 'fuzzy' elements of the greater understanding are lost. Thus is the problem with free will. We become caught in this cause-and-effect understanding and begin to realize that if the larger picture follows the paradigm we understand so well, that there is no room for choice.
Taeguk: To be entirely frank I find your supposedly holistic perspective as partial and dualistic as the ones you criticize. You are still championing "this" over "that", while at the same time claiming that our whole problem is that we favor "this" over "that".

I personally do not form a preference of "this" over "that", but simply feel that there are benefits and detriments with each. With "this" you might have a greater understanding of the ambiance, however you are isolated and alone, constantly plagued with doubt and a desire of reassurance. The only way to transcend that isolation is to begin grouping your understanding, translating the concepts into "that", in an attempt to form a connection with another person which can either reassure your greater understanding of "this", or increase your doubt if no connection is found.

Anyways, those are my 'spacey' opinions on the matter :mellow:

[sonrisa]

What about the logic offered by science?

-- I believe that science is in agreement with bito. Life runs counter to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so logically it should not exist. But it does anyhow. :)

[Taeguk]

Taeguk, we constantly see the problems arising from mind and language on this site.

I never claimed such problems don't exist. My claim is that in spite of these problems, we cannot throw away mind and language---nor should we even if we could.

Can 'this' not embrace 'that'?

It can, and in fact does---that's my whole point.

You are sounding more and more as though you 'know' something by which all expressions are judged.

I really don't know what you're talking about here.

There is duality, there is oneness , is that so difficult?
Yes, it is, to be able to hold such powerful and apparently opposing forces in balance.

Well, if there are "opposing forces" we are still in the realm of duality---which is really at the heart of my criticism.

Often it is best to speak with the heart and not the mind.

I personally see the "heart-mind" as a continuum, not as two separate aspects.


I personally do not form a preference of "this" over "that", but simply feel that there are benefits and detriments with each. With "this" you might have a greater understanding of the ambiance, however you are isolated and alone, constantly plagued with doubt and a desire of reassurance. The only way to transcend that isolation is to begin grouping your understanding, translating the concepts into "that", in an attempt to form a connection with another person which can either reassure your greater understanding of "this", or increase your doubt if no connection is found.

Well, that's what I was getting at---I was referring specifically to bito's opposition of "words" and "things of creation", which I referenced in my original post.

The tone of this thread (and many other threads I've seen bito post) affirms what might be called a "nondual perspective" while at the same time castigating language and thought. The irony of this approach if we oppose nonduality to duality, we are still in the realm of duality.

[scameter]

Taeguk:The irony of this approach if we oppose nonduality to duality, we are still in the realm of duality.

Is that similar to, if everything is impermanent, than impermanence is permanent?

[bito]

Michael :loveyou:

Stating one's view is not a good or bad thing, but if we exchange views with the idea that we can conclude anything within the limitations of relativity and duality, which is the nature of thought, then we are indeed operating within a grand illusion. One could say that they choose to play in this illusion of relativity and duality, not to arrive at a conclusion, rather simply to play, and hey, why not? But for those who do not wish to play in illusion, and seek a way out of the game, then there is indeed a way out - the Kingdom of Heaven is Within.

So many use spiritual teachings in the same way that they use intellectual thought, that is, simply to play with words, to manipulate them so as to appear wise, or to use them to 'feel good'. Some, out of ignorance, exchange spiritual dialogue as if the dialoguing itself is 'to be spiritual'.

What I am saying that is if one truly desires to leave behind the repetitiveness that is the intellectual 'search for truth', then they must stop using thought to try and discover that which lies beyond thought. There is no other way.

Again, if one is happy playing with thought for the sake of playing with thought, then this thread is not for them. :)

[bito]

So should we be like the "creator consciousness"?

Smurf, that is a question only you can answer. But I can tell you that thought will not answer it. :)

[Michael]

Taeguk, I said 'apparently' opposing.

I said 'to speak with the heart', I did not say, nor imply, that they are not part of the same continuum.

Of course we cannot throw away mind and language. The question is what informs them and how we use that.

And you know, the truly wonderful thing is that what informs each of us is different and utterly valid at the same time

[bito]

Since you are so quick to deny any whiff of dualism or speration, why is it you are equally adamant about making a duality between "words" and "things of creation"?

Shouldn't you be out somewhere burning literature, if words are only intended for body to body communication and everything else is a delusion?

To be entirely frank I find your supposedly holistic perspective as partial and dualistic as the ones you criticize. You are still championing "this" over "that", while at the same time claiming that our whole problem is that we favor "this" over "that".


Taeguk, I choose not to debate with you. It is not that I am being defensive or trying to ignore you, it is just that a dialogue between us would not be in any way be fruitful.

I am not here to criticize, that is your projection upon my intent. I am here to speak of what I am aware of, no more, no less. If what I am aware of upsets you, then it is simple - do not read my posts.

[Michael]

bito, my problem is that I 'know' and don't 'know' at the same time . And things you say remind me of them both.

[bito]

Michael, Rome wasn't built in a day, neither can be the transcending/overcoming/surrendering of one's humanism (the idea of being human or having a self and all the 'ism's' that have been created to support this one central idea). Conditioning to idea as a reality that can be manipulated to create 'something', runs deep.

Love is not of time. Continue loving for no reason except to to love as your layers of memory and history fall away, and before you 'know' 'it', Love will be all you see. As for thought, when love is all you see, thought takes care of itself. :)

[Taeguk]

Taeguk, I choose not to debate with you. It is not that I am being defensive or trying to ignore you, it is just that a dialogue between us would not be in any way be fruitful.

Well first of all, I am not here to "debate"---that would be, let's see, "your projection upon my intent." :P ;)

Secondly, why do you think that "a dialogue between us would not in any way be fruitful?"

I am here to speak of what I am aware of, no more, no less. If what I am aware of upsets you, then it is simple - do not read my posts.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that I find the content of your posts "upsetting". :think: I'm not really sure how anything you write here could be. I'm just curious as to how you reconcile certain things, that's all, but if you don't want to talk about it that's perfectly fine.

On second thought, I think I agree with your earlier statement----a dialogue with you would definitely not be fruitful. There is little point in discussing something with somebody who already has their mind made up.

[Thomas Knierim]

Taeguk: On second thought, I think I agree with your earlier statement----a dialogue with you would definitely not be fruitful. There is little point in discussing something with somebody who already has their mind made up.

Yet, these conversations may be like the proverbial dripping that wears away the stone. There isn't such a thing as a fruitless conversation. All conversations bear some fruit, although possibly not the one that the participants would like to see. :lol:

On the philosophical side, I have to agree with Taeguk (um, who would have guessed?) Arguing against language and using the intellect to establish its supposed worthlessness is not terribly consistent. On the other hand, I also agree with bito. Reality does not operate within the boundaries of human logic and thought. We are forever only able to grasp small pieces of it.

I suppose that's a diplomatic proposition, isn't it? Now shake hands, smile, and look into the cameras. :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

[Taeguk]

Arguing against language and using the intellect to establish its supposed worthlessness is not terribly consistent. On the other hand, I also agree with bito. Reality does not operate within the boundaries of human logic and thought. We are forever only able to grasp small pieces of it.

I suppose that's a diplomatic proposition, isn't it? Now shake hands, smile, and look into the cameras. :lol:


A diplomatic proposition, indeed. Cheese! :D

I of all people will never argue that reality is reducible to (or even fully knowable through) logic. Where I part ways with some people, however, is that I also do not deny words, logic, thought, etc. their place in the world. We are indeed the universe looking at itself, but that is not an argument against science, logic, words, etc. The development of all of these is an example of how the universe expresses itself, and in denying them we are denying that very expression.

[bito]

Agreement and diplomacy are the comfortable limitations of intellectualism. Dead thought. Recycled over and over again, going nowhere, saying the same thing, I agree, I disagree, this is my opnion, this is your opinion. Man has been indulging idle thought since he first tried to define an existence that cannot possibly be defined. Talking, talking, talking about that which shall ever elude him with his talk.

For those who are tired of trying to possess that which cannot be possessed, only lived,, I will share what I have come to comprehend. These will be my last words on the subject. Some will interpret these words as being arrogant or foolish, I do not care. No interpretation of man is worth anything to those who no longer live by human judgment, human thought.

Life is consciousness. Consciousness cannot be defined, for Consciousness is Self-Aware and is ever renewing Itself by its Thought-Feeling. Spirit-in-Love. Spirit-as-Love. Ever renewing Itself within the conscious awareness of Man.

To experience definition is to experience a temporary death of this ever renewing, infinite, eternal Loving Self Awareness. This is what man tries to do in his ignorance of his true infinite nature - to attempt to make finite that which is infinite.

Thought is not the enemy. Believing that we know, that we can say what Thought is, is the enemy. Consciousness is the activity of thought, but this activity cannot be known by human (intellectual/spiritual) thought. This Thought activity can only be lived as a singular relationship between Creator Consciousness and individual consciousness - 'me' and 'you'. The Singular within the Plural. Conscious union. Conscious living.

This is our choice. To continue seeking to make finite (logical) that which is infinite and beyond logic's grasp or to live as our true nature, which is infinite, conscious love-awareness.

Be still and know that I am God/Life/Consciousness/Spirit.

That's all. I'm done. :loveyou:

[Michael]

I must make one last observation which became very clear to me in the thread 'Profound Discovery' and to which I chose not to respond:

When the ground of the ego is seriously challenged it panics, leaps up and down and chatters.

[Smurf]

I would think that in order to appreciate something you need to have thought about it first. In order to apply "love" to "life" there has to have been a subjective comprehension of the abstract.

Do species apart from the homo sapiens (which we can only guess) who cannot "think" per se by default live in love?

Indeed in order to love, you must know...

Of course, one could argue that you can love that which you can never understand.

I'm sure, however, that defining something of.. err.. smaller stature such as a "table" doesn't really cause me to look inwardly and die a little inside...
But still the existence of the "matter" that makes the "table" would have been made by this creater-consciousness? Still one-part of the "infinite"...

[Michael]

I know! Let's think this one through!!!

[Dev]

Well then what better discussion to have than with a bunch of fellow fools. Here, here, my fellow donkeys. Nothing you say is truth and or lie. Ha! Everything out of your mouth is nothing but air that touches upon nothing. Who is right who is wrong? Please define with absolute accuracy what is meant. Then after that defintion of whatever define those words that you used to define that definition. Is anything definitive? We speak of awarness. But what makes us think that such a thing exists? What makes us think that existence exists? Can you tell me with absolute or even relative certainty what anything is? No? Yes? Maybe? How? Can you answer my question without the answer itself being a question? Can i question your answer without the question being an answer? What is life or death or breathing and breath? How utterly useless it all is. You quest for enlightenment and theres no such thing but quest you continue...why? Is the path really there in the first place? Is thereness there. Is hereness here? My fellow intelligent rockhead idiots, we do this.....:wallbash: Or do we? Tut, tut, its all a game, rich, poor or frivolous fame. So what do we do when we are no more wise than a shoe. And a shoe is wiser than us because this shoe makes not a fuss. It stays aloof from the enlightenment biz because it just is. Ah but what is ISNESS? simply a fools business. Thus we are fools dripping from a donkeys jaws like drool in one universal pool.

Oh really???


























Taeguk, I choose not to debate with you. It is not that I am being defensive or trying to ignore you, it is just that a dialogue between us would not be in any way be fruitful.

I am not here to criticize, that is your projection upon my intent. I am here to speak of what I am aware of, no more, no less. If what I am aware of upsets you, then it is simple - do not read my posts.

[schrodinger]

Agreement and diplomacy are the comfortable limitations of intellectualism. Dead thought. Recycled over and over again, going nowhere, saying the same thing, I agree, I disagree, this is my opnion, this is your opinion. Man has been indulging idle thought since he first tried to define an existence that cannot possibly be defined. Talking, talking, talking about that which shall ever elude him with his talk.—bito--

Arguing against language and using the intellect to establish its supposed worthlessness is not terribly consistent. On the other hand, I also agree with bito. Reality does not operate within the boundaries of human logic and thought. We are forever only able to grasp small pieces of it.—Thomas

I have found the most fruitful discussions to be those which comprise as many diverse viewpoints as possible. The point of the discussion is not to force anyone to see things this way or that way, or even to reach some sort of blanket agreement or understanding. The whole point is heterogeneity of different viewpoints in the hope of coming up with an entirely new way of thinking. In this way, even individually passionate ideas are simply allowed to interact and ultimately lead to a perspective viewpoint of the much bigger picture. Maybe only a few extraordinary people will ever see the big picture, but it usually comes as the result of the efforts of many dedicated individuals working at the pixel level.

[j000han]

Agreement and diplomacy are the comfortable limitations of intellectualism. Dead thought. Recycled over and over again, going nowhere, saying the same thing, I agree, I disagree, this is my opnion, this is your opinion. Man has been indulging idle thought since he first tried to define an existence that cannot possibly be defined. Talking, talking, talking about that which shall ever elude him with his talk.—bito--

Arguing against language and using the intellect to establish its supposed worthlessness is not terribly consistent. On the other hand, I also agree with bito. Reality does not operate within the boundaries of human logic and thought. We are forever only able to grasp small pieces of it.—Thomas

I have found the most fruitful discussions to be those which comprise as many diverse viewpoints as possible. The point of the discussion is not to force anyone to see things this way or that way, or even to reach some sort of blanket agreement or understanding. The whole point is heterogeneity of different viewpoints in the hope of coming up with an entirely new way of thinking. In this way, even individually passionate ideas are simply allowed to interact and ultimately lead to a perspective viewpoint of the much bigger picture.
Maybe only a few extraordinary people will ever see the big picture, but it usually comes as the result of the efforts of many dedicated individuals working at the pixel level.

By your estimation currnently how many you think there are of this extraordingairy people who SEE the bigger picture?

There is no question about it,
[everything with none exeption whatshowever originates from the same source]
how come then, so very few can even begin to acknowledge that?:loveyou:

[schrodinger]

By your estimation currnently how many you think there are of this extraordingairy people who SEE the bigger picture?

There is no question about it,
[everything with none exeption whatshowever originates from the same source]
how come then, so very few can even begin to acknowledge that?:loveyou:

Maybe most people are so occupied with just trying to survive that they never get an opportunity to look. Others who have the chance often block the view with their own egos.

[Flux]

I think I'd have to agree with Thomas and Taeguk. If agreement and disagreement amidst the exchanging of words is ultimately a futile repetative exercise, then why type about it? Personally, I believe that communication between people is extremely valuble despite its admittedly deep-rooted limitations and confusions. Although we may never be certain of how accurately, if at all, the thoughts of another have been communicated to us, it doesn't follow that our thoughts can't influence the thoughts of others, although perhapse the influense is indirect. Do I think that logic and language are all that there is? Of course not. But we don't speak of it--we can't. Trying to speak of the ineffable is ineffectatious for obvious reasons.

[rahulkumble]

Existence (in this case of Life) is a spontaneous thing. Things like these need not fall in place logically or in order or by any meticulous plan.

[Aad]

Hi Dev,
Very sharp...absolutely love your way with words and what they point to.
Reminds me of the author Guy Smith, ever read one of his books?
Not that they have anything to add to what you've written, but they're fun to read.

Oh really???





Well then what better discussion to have than with a bunch of fellow fools. Here, here, my fellow donkeys. Nothing you say is truth and or lie. Ha! Everything out of your mouth is nothing but air that touches upon nothing. Who is right who is wrong? Please define with absolute accuracy what is meant. Then after that defintion of whatever define those words that you used to define that definition. Is anything definitive? We speak of awarness. But what makes us think that such a thing exists? What makes us think that existence exists? Can you tell me with absolute or even relative certainty what anything is? No? Yes? Maybe? How? Can you answer my question without the answer itself being a question? Can i question your answer without the question being an answer? What is life or death or breathing and breath? How utterly useless it all is. You quest for enlightenment and theres no such thing but quest you continue...why? Is the path really there in the first place? Is thereness there. Is hereness here? My fellow intelligent rockhead idiots, we do this.....:wallbash: Or do we? Tut, tut, its all a game, rich, poor or frivolous fame. So what do we do when we are no more wise than a shoe. And a shoe is wiser than us because this shoe makes not a fuss. It stays aloof from the enlightenment biz because it just is. Ah but what is ISNESS? simply a fools business. Thus we are fools dripping from a donkeys jaws like drool in one universal pool.

Oh really???

[jufa]

THERE IS NO LOGIC FOR ANYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE TO EXIST. To be more percise, there is no logic to existence. Now this means, of all that exist in the universe should not be and so, to deal with the effect, will always lead one to deduct on that which has no meaning.

Let us get real with what is, and what is is that there is no logic to creation, therefore, there is no logic to the universe. Being there is no logic to be found in the universe, then that which occupies the universe has no logic to exist inclusive of man. This means there is no logic to exist, and if there is no logic for existence, then there is no logic for that which should not be [man] to worship that which should not be [existence].

Now all on this board have stated what they believe, but believe is not enough to override the truth which the Apostle Paul told us, when he stated "I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitutious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotion, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. WHOM THEREFORE YE IGNORANTLY WORSHIP, HIM DECLARE I UNTO YOU. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands, neither is he worshiped with men's hand, a though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things."

Now this alone nullifies any belief in a denomination, and or another teaching which has rules and by-laws. But going one step further, it also nullifies the belief that there is another god of this world who rule besides the LORD. And just one more step must be taken at this juncture, what one beliefs is not enough to make one a true believer, because the suppose god of this world whom some has stated to be satan, is also a believer in God. Yet look what his believes has done to the world, should he be a reality.

But let us return to the subject matter. There is no logic to the universe because there is no logic to existence, with one exception, and that is found in Rev.4:11, "Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.."

Now to go even deeper, we see in Gen.1:26 that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them. But wait, let us look at Heb.1:1-3, a parallel Scripture where it states God spoke once through his prophets, but now, "in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the EXPRESSED IMAGE OF HIS PERSON."

There is no logical reason for mankind to exist. There is no logical reason for this universe to exist. There is no logical reason for you and I to exist except for God's pleasure. And what is God pleasure, that which is the brightness of his glory, and the expressed image of his person. And what is that? Spirit male and female.

Should there be a reason for worship it is because God has spoke to His image saying THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED."

"Awake thou that sleepest, arise from the dead, and Christ will give thee life."


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

[jawn_doh]

isn't the very fact that your searching for a logical reason to exist an objective reason to exist initself? you seek, therefore you exist? you obviously have a purpose ("meaning") from the onset of your statement.

[bito]

isn't the very fact that your searching for a logical reason to exist an objective reason to exist initself? you seek, therefore you exist? you obviously have a purpose ("meaning") from the onset of your statement.

Jawn_doh, no matter what answer one gives at any moment of their seeking, even if it is to say "I am seeking for a logical reason to exist," they will find no thought with which to rest their question of "what, who, why, where" upon.

Rest is found when seeking is done, not in a philosophy with which to support one's "who or what am I?" rather, in the conscious union with the Spirit that (infinitely) moves thought.

Man always stands in the Unknown and lives the Unknown. In his ignorance, he beliefs he can make it known to himself, make it solid to himself, by use of thought manipulation, logic and reason.

This is how he discovers his ignorance and awakens to his true Spirit, infinite nature, by trying again and again to objectify his subjectivity. In seeking a conclusion to himself and finding it no where in his fragmented thoughts about Life, he surrenders his possession of thought and Life then (infinitely) lives him.

[jufa]

isn't the very fact that your searching for a logical reason to exist an objective reason to exist initself? you seek, therefore you exist? you obviously have a purpose ("meaning") from the onset of your statement.

So what is the logic of evidence which gives logic to the existence of "the very fact?"

And what is the logic of evidence " that your searching for a logical reason to exist and objective reason to exist in itself" when their is no logical reason for your existence to begin with?

"You seek, therefore you exist?" So what is the logic for you, and the logic for your seeking when there is no logical reason for you to exist, nor to have an obvious purpose for existence if it is not as I have stated?

[francis]

THERE IS NO LOGIC FOR ANYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE TO EXIST. To be more percise, there is no logic to existence. Now this means, of all that exist in the universe should not be and so, to deal with the effect, will always lead one to deduct on that which has no meaning.

Let us get real with what is, and what is is that there is no logic to creation, therefore, there is no logic to the universe. Being there is no logic to be found in the universe, then that which occupies the universe has no logic to exist inclusive of man. This means there is no logic to exist, and if there is no logic for existence, then there is no logic for that which should not be [man] to worship that which should not be [existence].

Now all on this board have stated what they believe, but believe is not enough to override the truth which the Apostle Paul told us, when he stated "I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitutious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotion, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. WHOM THEREFORE YE IGNORANTLY WORSHIP, HIM DECLARE I UNTO YOU. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands, neither is he worshiped with men's hand, a though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things."

Now this alone nullifies any belief in a denomination, and or another teaching which has rules and by-laws. But going one step further, it also nullifies the belief that there is another god of this world who rule besides the LORD. And just one more step must be taken at this juncture, what one beliefs is not enough to make one a true believer, because the suppose god of this world whom some has stated to be satan, is also a believer in God. Yet look what his believes has done to the world, should he be a reality.

But let us return to the subject matter. There is no logic to the universe because there is no logic to existence, with one exception, and that is found in Rev.4:11, "Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.."

Now to go even deeper, we see in Gen.1:26 that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them. But wait, let us look at Heb.1:1-3, a parallel Scripture where it states God spoke once through his prophets, but now, "in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the EXPRESSED IMAGE OF HIS PERSON."

There is no logical reason for mankind to exist. There is no logical reason for this universe to exist. There is no logical reason for you and I to exist except for God's pleasure. And what is God pleasure, that which is the brightness of his glory, and the expressed image of his person. And what is that? Spirit male and female.

Should there be a reason for worship it is because God has spoke to His image saying THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED."

"Awake thou that sleepest, arise from the dead, and Christ will give thee life."


jufa, I agree there is no logic for anything in this universe to exist, there is no logic to existence, and there is no logical reason for the existence of you and me. There are no exceptions.

Human beings made up stories, like the story of a big ban theory, gods and a supreme being to explain existence. But the one thing they have in common is they are all stories to explain existence. A rich source of such stories is provided in the bible.

As you say, the Apostle Paul told us "I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitutious”. So from there, it’s not difficult to see how man created God in the image of man, to explain the unexplainable.

There is no reason to believe in God, except that it provides an explanation for people who need an explanation. There is not one single scrap of evidence to support the existence of God. Most of the stories in the bible have been shown to be stories as human beings have discovered mathematics and science. From the belief that the earth was flat, to the earth being the centre of the universe, to the present day when the Church has dismissed the theory of creation theory, as just another story.

It’s up to you if you believe in God, but there is no evidence to support the existence of God outside peoples faith in stories.

[jufa]

Francis, it is true there is no logic nor reasoning within the grasp of men to comprehend existence. There is no reasoning nor logic within the grasp of men to comprehend a God or devil. And there certainly is no logic nor reasoning for birth, or death, or living between the arch of the two when the end results for individual men are eventually wiped away, and all which they accomplished goes back into the dust.

To believe in a God or devil, or mankind, or even in men believing in themselves has no logic nor reasoning when death halts individual mortality. Yet, even when logic or reasoning cannot unfold the mystery of life, life does exist to give life to logic, reasoning, birth, death, living and doing the good and evils assumed to be ascertain, to men, because life is truly conscious awareness.

We can say if there is a God why did He allow such and such. Or if there is a devil he influence or minds to do or not to do. But when man looks at the reality of his logic and reasoning truthfully, he will see that it is his belief in what is called the seven abomination of man's thinking, actions, and finalized interpretations which cause the good and evil and destructive spinning for, and to mankind. And such abomination of man's thinking has no logic nor reasoning because there is no logic or reasoning for such abominations.

Should there be a God or devil of influence upon man, it is the God and devil of man's spirit of conscious awareness, thinking; of doing, and finalized belief that he can become the power of God or satan. And the odd thing about this manner of thought, no one has logically nor reasonably established that a God or devil exist and is influential in the their lives , and the nature of this world.

[francis]

hi jufa. I think we, as human beings, can move beyond the dichotomy of good and evil. Good and evil are concepts that westerns use to make sense of existence, but there are other ways of looking at life. In eastern philosophies, for example, it is more about living intelligent, skilful lives of coexistence, in contrast to living ignorant unskilful lives of conflict.

Here is a bit from wiki: “Moral dualism is the belief of the coexistence (in eastern and naturalistic religions) or conflict (in western religions) between the "benevolent" and the "malignant". Most religious systems have some form of moral dualism - in western religions, for instance, a conflict between good and evil.

Alternatively, dualism can mean the tendency of humans to perceive and understand the world as being divided into two overarching categories. However that definition is considered a tad controversial. In this sense, it is dualistic when one perceives a tree as a thing separate from everything surrounding it, or when one perceives a "self" that is distinct from the rest of the world. In mystic traditions such as Zen or Islamic Sufism, a key to enlightenment is "transcending" this sort of dualistic thinking, without merely substituting dualism with monism or pluralism.”

So, in western religions good and evil are about conflict, and I think there are better ways to view like. Like raising conscious awareness through practices like mindfulness and/or insight meditation. Others might suggest that eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is not necessary a bad thing.

And while no one has logically or reasonably established that a God or devil exist, it’s certain that Siddhattha Gotama (Buddha) did find a way through the un-satisfactoriness (dukkha) of existence.

[jufa]

Francis, you are presenting to me events which are the results of living within the bounds of life. The question here does not deal with such. The question is, and has always been what is the logic for existences existences? Reasoning and logic for any attribute comes after one has established reasoning and logic for anything in life to exist including human life and logic and reasoning. This logic and reason is what you have excluded from your response. What is the logic for existence to exist? What is the logic for existence to exist to birth good and evil? What is the logic for existence to exist to establish a God or devil?