Hey Frank, hows it going ? You still banging the drum ?

It was aimed at anyone interested to read it or care about it, or not.

By your last comment, very well then, we agree.

There are two different causes in play here — TheMadFool

I disagree as the law of Cause and Effect doesn't put two causes into effect at the same time (that would be non sense). Not least because the cause must come from the previous effect otherwise the entire chain would break down into chaos (and that never happens). The motivation behind "giving without receiving" is always the same one.

The cause of Mrs un's pleasure is the same pleasure one gets when they "give to charity". It is the essence of charity and the motivating force behind it. This is just simply another word for Love. When people give Love, they get Love in return from the very act itself. Those to do not give it, do not get it - that's part of the law of Cause and Effect too.

If Mrs un made the cup of tea and you didn't drink it, would she not get the pleasure from it?

we are before we are anything - existence precedes essence — Daniel C

In the mothers womb, there is "no thing" but your self. Existence, but without essence. So I agree, the order is most certainly in the order. Darkness was, then light appeared (no thing, then some-thing). Chaos was, Order appeared (no definable thing, then definable thing), etc.

All "things" are reported to you by your senses. Under sense deprivation, it becomes very hard, if not impossible to define anything in the "outside" world, hence leading some philosophers to suppose whether or not there is anything "out there" at all. Such is perception.

You're still using the reductionism of logic. It sounds like you are trying to "re-define" belief to be something that it isn't, then trying to fit it into some sort of framework ? Belief by its very nature is dual and can be used to describe "a best guess" or to "confirm that which is already in faith". Different people use this word in different contexts depending on their experience.

First lets separate "Faith" from "Belief". Faith does not require belief, and belief cannot exist without faith. They are in a hierarchy - belief is dependant on faith.

1. Faith
1.1. Belief

As said before, "Faith" could be "do have faith" or "don't have faith". Either way, the answer from the Faith question then creates the "Belief" question because without the Faith question, the belief question makes no sense. Who walks up to a strange and asks, "What do you believe?".

The faith question can be answered with reason alone, and doesn't require logic. In fact, logic being so limited, cannot get to the answer because the answer is beyond logic, beyond understanding, but not beyond experiencing. Those who claim to have had a personal revelation, would have had it in experience, being that it could not possibly be captured within a mind or memory (otherwise the mind would be the prison of God) ? Well maybe to some it is.

You see, where you have mixed these two up, you have created an argument that cannot really be reasoned and therefore is illogical. Unless of course, you can offer your reason for trying to redefine "belief" into "best guess" which then takes away the "faith" element of it because "best guess" does not require Faith. A "best guess" is always a logical assumption based on probability (or chance) whereas a belief can be that, but it can also be formulated in response to the answer from the faith question / experience.

the history of humankind indicates that there are exceedingly few people who are philanthropic — Shawn

And that's a good thing, because instead more people are charitable. Problem solving, especially when it is aimed at the outside world, is fraught with error and usually adds to the misery of the human condition - taking recycling for instance! Instead, problem solvers would do more good by solving the problems internally before trying to change the world. Have you discovered your purpose yet, or are you trying to create your own purpose in life?

What is preventing people from feeling self-love? — Shawn

If you say that "love" is simply "love", be it directed towards oneself or towards others then it makes it a little easier to work with and see.

We like to imagine that "hate" is the opposite of "love". It isn't. "Fear" is the opposite of "love". Where there is fear, there is no love. So you could say, love is always present but it gets obscured by fear or any other feeling that is "not love". Hence why "being kind and caring" which are attributes of love, help you feel more loving.

If you liken love to a completely still pond of water. The less disturbed that water is, the clearer it is. Love works the same. If there are small disturbances in the pond, love is only slightly obscured. If you create big disturbances, then love is more obscured. Eventually the pond becomes completely disturbed and love cannot be felt. It is still there, it is always there, but you can lose the sense of it by creating disturbances.

Does it require willpower to entertain self-love? — Shawn

It requires will power not to indulge your self in fantasies where by you are separate from the creation whilst still trying to maintain you are part of the creation. I have to agree with "Possibility" on this.

I am leading more towards the notion of the guiding hand of god while man slowly gains knowledge — Stoic Toad

I must say I'm inclined to agree with you. I refer this to being the "voice of reason" in our heads. Sure, we can use that same voice to apply logic and calculus or any other thing we choose, or to convince ourselves that X is true, or X is false but the voice remains the same.

In some respects we could say "... while man slowly gains knowledge" but again, I would say we already have the knowledge, we always have done, it's more a matter of "... while man slowly remembers the truth he deliberately forgot (rebellion against the truth) for whatever reason".

There are times in our lives where all our knowledge comes together (and everything fits) and reason elevates us to a lofty point, but the fear of it makes us afraid and we beg it to stop or run from it. So we can remain in our den, just a little longer, just while we work things out. In effect, buying more time. But the outcome is inevitable because at the very least, we are going to die - that is guaranteed.

Nonsense. — Galuchat

Please expand?

Thus, we cannot reason when we come across a contradiction using these logics. — Alvin Capello

Or perhaps, contradiction only appears unresolved within logic. Reason, however, can rise above and incorporate the contradiction into a unity (like building a pyramid). Logic could be likened to a prison for the mind (or like stabilisers on a bike). Reason could be likened to a free mind. Plato acknowledged this by highlighting the danger of training philosophers to absolute truth and the "unrestricted" mind of such a person, which he labelled in context of morality, "potentially lawless". He then went on to say that people under 20 should not be given philosophical training because of their tendency to eristic behaviour for amusement. Instead he recommended people of 30 years of age be taught, for 15 years at which point they would potentially be ready to receive such wisdom, depending on how they have incorporated their knowledge to that point.

Is self-love possible without negative and highly selfish traits arising — Shawn

Yes, it is definitely possible, but fraught with error and traps. Hence the better method, also proclaimed by Jesus, is "To love your neighbour before your self", then "To love your self". This was clever. If you do it this way around, by abiding by the first, you automatically have the second. You cannot really love another person without loving yourself. A quote from the Children of the Law of One says,

“There is nothing wrong with loving your self either - unless that is a rationalization for actually being selfish, which is often the case. But you can really, Unselfishly Love your self. In fact, it is unavoidable if you Love Unselfishly at all. Because when you Love Unselfishly, you love ALL, and that includes your self. And when you Love Unselfishly, you feel so good about yourself that you can’t avoid loving yourself. But you don’t ever really feel good about yourself when you love selfishly - your self might feel good temporarily, but you don’t feel good about yourself. And if you don’t feel good about yourself, how could you really be loving yourself? And how could a heart full of selfishness even find room for truly loving its self simultaneously? So it is backwards- what ‘they say’ about loving yourself first. Now remember this - instead of ‘loving yourself first’, Unselfishly Love others first, and you will truly love yourself automatically. You just can’t go wrong that way. The other is too often just a clever trick of the selfish separate self, to rationalize selfishness.”

The first principle could be dialectic debate (Socratic dialogues) aiming at unity of the subjects, Arithmetic, Geometry, Solid geometry, Astronomy and Harmony, with the objective of freeing oneself from unrecognized errors. Plato - Republic (Book VII). All with the intention of turning inwards using reason to ascend to pure intelligence (in the only place it can be found).

You would do well to read Plato - Republic, specifically Book VII.

Extract:
BOOK VII
And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened
or unenlightened:–Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which
has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they
have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that
they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains
from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at
a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and
you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which
marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

I see.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels,
and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various
materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.

Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows
of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never
allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see
the shadows?

Yes, he said.

And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose
that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.

And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other
side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the...

... and so on.

It wasn't paraphrased, but I did forget the reference. My apologies. NIV Hebrews 10: 26-27.

I feel I may have caused confusion, so here's the full paragraph: NIV Hebrews 10:26-31

26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

I wasn't trying to offend, I stated it came from the bible so that it was clear. If it's not helpful, by all means ignore it. I believe you have just described forgiveness. I guess the question remains if you have received the knowledge of truth or not.

I won't pretend to be able to follow that as it seems rather complicated in terms. The blind are not particularly good guides for the blind. As I said before, I'm rather stupid in most respects.

It sounds somewhat like René Descartes who framed being within thinking, instead of thinking within being and came up with "I think therefore I am" which is reductionism and puts the cart before the horse. I fancy that whenever logic is used on its own it has a terrible habit of turning things back to front. How would this be related in simple terms, as in, if you were trying to explain it to a child?

Perhaps your confusing religion with faith.

Very good, got to hand it to those Jedi's!

Hi Frank, still at it I see. I found this in the bible this morning and thought it might be helpful...

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."

Edit: NIV Hebrews 10: 26-27

Thats fair, so the logically illiterate and the experts are opposite ends of the spectum, meaning everyone. And i agree, but maybe its over complicated. We all make mistakes, with or without logic so mistakes simply happen. Then the counterpart to this is that mistakes allow us to learn.

It does turn fallacy on its head, i suppose it means that logic can answer some questions but it cant answer all questions. Reason must be superior to logic.

That sounds like a very nice comparison. So we were perfectly capable before logic was invented.

Ok so that I'm clear on this, what we are really describing by "application" is expression. And describing "formal study" is definition. If so, then we are really describing just logic and not reason. Because these are the attributes of logic. Logic does seem to have a place thats for sure, but only within reason, and certainly not without it.

We can happily say that the pyramids were built before the Ancient Greeks were about, and the Ancient Greeks invented logic by definition so it would appear, unless I'm mistaken, the cart is before the horse again.

If I use your last example, we are saying the Egyptians "knew" how to apply what we now call logic (if logic is within reason then reason knows everything about logic) and the Greeks then tried to describe it or define it. The Greeks of course may have had a very good reason to do such a thing, or not.

It sounds to me that we are kindred spirits. I say similar things about myself, about conversations like these, and about the ignorance, error and confusion that comes naturally to things like us. Perhaps you've also been inspired by the example of Socrates?

I agree that truth has priority over agreement. Nonetheless, I aim not only to seek the truth and speak the truth, but also to identify and expand consensus and common ground, in order to promote the common good.

It seems the search for common ground tends to direct my search for truth and the exercise of my critical powers in conversations like these. — Cabbage Farmer

I would have to agree :) Everything I have seen gravitates to (or is attracted to) that of the same vibration. This is sort of like a universal guiding force that draws like-kind together. I'm still trying to compose myself having seen the "inspiration" of Socrates and the like. Some lessons in life are suppose to hard I guess.

Definitely so, the built-in potential error with agreement, as I bet you know, is that if all are mad and all agree, all are still mad. Not a great outcome in any real terms. We definitely do seem to be of the same wavelength!

What a beautiful way to describe it, I definitely agree. From what I gather, there is an infinite spectrum of vibration, always one greater, always one lesser.

this sort of practice helps us avoid flying off the handle and chasing our tails in confused discursive adventures — Cabbage Farmer

Said the straight scientist. I'm sure a lot of the distraction in the name of entertainment works for some, but most certainty not for the likes of us. Reason must be purpose. And I only turn to purpose for a reason usually to learn something I don't know. Have you looked at Egypt much or before?

It seems to me that reason is the more basic and natural power in things like us. By contrast, logic seems a more artificial, arbitrary, and fragile custom that depends on a prior practice of reasoning. — Cabbage Farmer

Definitely so, logic is the lesser of the two by far but then it would be, logic was man made. I see logic at the beginning but then its soon surpassed by reason in the gap between.

I'm not sure to what extent our traditional confusion in such matters is the result of intentionally misleading gestures. It's not clear to me that there is an objective basis according to which we might sort out the motives and intentions of the authors — Cabbage Farmer

This is what I want to understand. Have you heard Kasabian - Days are Forgotten? Great tune. I think Plato's Republic - Book 1 gives an insight but I'm open and if the fiction can be put right then its something I guess.

It seems likely to me that the person who asks such a reasonable and pertinent question about terms as confused in our tradition as these, is a thoughtful and perceptive person. — Cabbage Farmer

You give too much credit, I'm just a simple person and as such am prone to error like anyone else, so I state this from the off so people don't mistakenly think I am in possession of the truth (I'm just testing everything). I have a passion for Truth, not necessarily consensus, but actual truth in fact. There are errors in anything we do, and to be honest, this type of subject is more prone than any other so if I'm wrong, great because I get an education, but if not well then maybe fiction can be replaced by fact.

I'm also aware how our language (spoken and written) can be misleading for all of us. The errors that it can produce are terrible, because it means someone may have the truth, and yet in the communication, the truth is lost and the false is accepted instead. So I try to be simple and baby steps all the time, to reduce error. My Dad would say to me, "KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid!" :)

But don't take my word for it, because I may have made a mistake. Some people want an argument, I don't. I want an answer and the facts.

The "Logic" system can be defined because it was created, so the rules are known. However, Reason doesn't seem to be the same. It seems to have a quality to it that is indefinable and yet it is considered less important than Logic, or worse they are considered the same. If this was an accident, it can be put right. If it was intentional, then that's something much worse (as in a deliberate error to mislead people, myself included).

What if God is actually the combination of "Everything" and "Nothing" — Vinicius

Now there is a reasonable view point. If God by its very nature incorporates the entire thing, then yes, God must incorporate both. The real question is, how do we understand "nothing". We could say, this is God manifested in the dichotomy (polar opposites). One pole is "everything", the other pole is "nothing". Unity of them both = God / Creator / First Cause.

The corona virus and it's effect on the markets is a question of "good timing". The economy was in trouble before the corona virus started as the actions of the FED showed late last year 2019. The virus has just brought forward an already inevitable effect, being a massive market crash. It has been brewing for nearly 11 years following the last "botched" propping up of the crisis from 2007/8 or "kicking the can down the road".

An opportunity was presented in 2008 whereby the financial system (which really is only a shadow of the real economy system) was at breaking point. As Roosevelt (who was a reasonable man) did in the 1930s around the Great Depression, he took reasonable action by breaking up the banks. The banks got too big to be an accurate shadow of the real economy. Recognising this, he took action. And what followed, was real growth.

Unfortunately, when the same opportunity was presented in 2008, our leaders at that time relied on logical outcomes, instead of reasonable ones and DIDN'T break up the banks. The result of such is likened to a forest fire.

There is a natural sequence of events in a forest. A forest grows and grows. When it grows to big and the conditions are right, there is a fire. The fire "thins" out the excess growth and creates the ground for a new growth to occur. That's the natural sequence.

In our financial system, when the fire took hold in 2008, instead of allowing it to be, they put the fires out by adding more money to the financial system. If we liken this back to the forest, to put the forest fire out, they quickly planted loads more trees which the logical argument of, "well if we create enough trees, there wont be enough oxygen for the fire to breath". This is logical and makes sense. However, it is not reasonable and creates an even bigger problem. Now we have 10 times as much fuel available for the next fire.

What we are seeing now is a new fire. The financial system, swelled with so much "fake money" means that the shadow it produces of the real economy is completely, and madly out of proportion.

The fires have started, and they are taking hold. But this is precisely as it should be. If we look at the forest again (and we do this in real forests too) we put the fires out. But then we have created the grounds for a "super forest fire" when the next one strikes and there is little chance of putting it out. Because there are only so many trees we can plant before there is no more space.

The only real, and sensible and reasonable thing to do, it let nature takes it course and let the fires burn. This is painful but necessary. Once they have burnt out all the excess, we can then start re-growth. And re-growth will actually mean something this time because it will be "real" growth, not just a growing of the shadow.

If we use logic without reason, we are insane in our actions. We can use reason on its own, or we can use reason and logic together to solve our problems. But we cannot use just logic to solve our problems without reason.

I've been looking at this recently but from a different perspective and what I saw still shocks me now.

Sartre could see the effect of the issue but I'm not sure he identified the problem. The problem is in the limitations logic, which have been plaguing humanity for over 2000 years. The Ancient Greeks, having invented the logic system, which is a "faithless" system, then attempted to mix this with reason "faith". Once they managed to mix reason and logic together, then they switched the order and put logic before reason. However, to the reasonable man, this cannot be so.

Reason and Logic are like Oil and Water. They do not mix. You cannot mix Faithlessness with Faith, well you can but then it will well and truly put you in the insane camp. Any arguement of such would be illogical and therefore not capable of being argued by a counter logical arguement.

Logic says, A=B, therefore B=A.
Reason knows this is not true. Fast=Slow is not the same as Slow=Fast. Logic does not operate within Order, instead its only concerned loosely with sequence.

Everyone uses reason, but only some people use logic. Logic being an effect produced by reason, has no place in a philosophy. Because philosophy is asking about the the world with the goal of finding a first cause. Logic cannot answer the question. It is a "rubber shovel" , the wrong tool from the job.

I'm possibly being simple here but there are fundamental differences between reason and logic. For instance, logic say,

A = B, therefore B = A

Logically this is sound, because logic is interested in sequence.

Reason, however, knows this is not true because reason is interested in Order.

Fast and slow is not the same as Slow and Fast.

Reason can see this, logic cannot. Therefore logic can never arrive at real Truth. It cannot explain our world.

proposition is the only position an agnostic can't claim or assert. — god must be atheist

How about this now,
The position of the Agnostic / Antagonist = Logic is God or I am God if I win the arguement (faithlessness).

Thanks very much for the help on this, I've update the 3rd position with a little more description as the Agnostic is very much the "antagonist" which no view but full of arguement. That's good the same conclusion was drawn :)

Yes. You only need one tool to work this out, its called, "Reason". Not to be confused with "logic" which has little hope of helping you out.

Sorry, I'm banging on about this at the moment. Ancient Greeks made up the system we now call "Logic". The logical system is relative because it was created. It has definition and expression. As long as both of these are kept the same at each step, logic will be useful. Socrates and Plato and the like were masters at this, they would split "definition" and "expression" which created an illogical argument that looked logical but one that couldn't be defeated by another logical argument (because it was illogical).

See the Agnostic view of the world, splitting the two aspect thus, "God" definition, "Gods" expression. Mixing singular and plural which cannot be. A big deception in their argument meaning "what ever they argued would stand because a logical argument could not beat it. Hence why they created "Rhetoric" and the like, because it would not allow "reason" to enter the argument - i.e. the only thing that could debunk the illogical argument first presented.

What an incredibly clever trick, but what God-awful consequences it has had on our world and our people for the last 2000+ years.

If you remove "logic" you are left with "reason". Everything in life is simple, just like me.

Okay, so the agnostics position ultimately had to end as it has. And I will tell you, using reason, why this is the case. I'm calling in the scientist again, because I'm just tired. So here it is, tell me if this is wrong, and remember, I'm as dumb as a lump of wood so I need simple explanation, and not digressions, so we can keep straight.

So, we created an example of using reason to see if we could prove there was or wasn't a creator. That we did to its conclusion, we couldn't actually prove either, so we concluded both the Christian (believer) and Atheist (non believer) were actually on the same side because they were both on the side of "faith". It couldn't be proved, so each had to use "faith" to make the conclusion. Nice and simple.

Then the agnostic appeared. Now, our scientist had no idea about this, because he thought the "atheist" and the "Christian" were polar opposites (in relativity). But it turned out the question was really, "Faith" or "No Faith". And the Atheist had faith, as did the Christian. It was the Agnostic that had "no faith". Bear with me please.

Now, unknown to our agnostic, he wasn't using reason. In fact he didn't understand reason, but what he did understand was "logic". What we know about "logic" is this. Firstly, it was a system created by the Ancient Greeks (Plato and the like), the system was created because the Ancient Greeks did not have "faith", far from it. They actually attempted to destroy faith, for whatever reason. The weapon of choice for the Ancient Greeks was "logic".

Now, using the Law of Cause and Effect, we know a few things about Order. That is, a cause creates an effect, creates a cause, etc. The law states, ONE cause creates an effect, it is not possible for a cause to be more than one, because Cause and Effect works like a tree and branch and creates a hierarchy. The "faith" question is always one of "First Cause".

So we look to the beginning of "logic". It was created. In fact, it was created just before 0 AD, dates aren't important. The system of "logic" was created using "reason". We can now say, Reason came first, and gave birth to Logic. Logic therefore can never be the First Cause because it is already an "Effect". As "Logic" was created, it is bound by relativity. You cannot create a logical argument with only one side (I've been telling my wife this for years). Hence why an agnostic needs an "opposite" in order to create an argument. The principles presented were just twisted logic so he could move position as he needed to. Otherwise the agnostic has no position. It is all "logically" good, but as people kept noticing, it is not reasonable.

If you look at wiki, you will see, the starting point for anything in "logic" is "Argument". Those Greeks were clever, but fortunately they weren't clever enough to beat reason. But then they couldn't, because "Reason" gave birth to Logic. The "son" does not come before the "father" that's just plain insanity if it did.

The agnostic's don't realise that "logic" is flawed against reason. Reason is always above logic. Plato - Republic is a classic example of this. Reason, like Growth, Love, Light, etc. are potential attributes of a creator. So, like the soul, as Plato highlighted, reason is unbeatable. The Ancient Greeks attempted to use the system of logic to debunk the faith. And this has worked for over 2000 years, to a degree because if you look at the statistics, its not "atheism" that has grown, its "faithlessness" that has grown. And the agnostic represents the "faithless". If the agnostic had a ground to stand on, they could tell us but they can't because the starting point in "logic" requires 2 sides or more.

Logic has two aspects to it, it is relative, because it was created. It has "expression" that's the outside appearance of it, and it has "definition", that's the inside appearance of it. Plato, like the agnostic, plays a little game, using a single letter in the language (remember the Ancient Greeks invented the language we now use, albeit via Latin). The letter in question is "s". This is the difference between "singular" and "plural". Now our scientist couldn't understand why it was so important to keep re-stating "gods" not "god", even when our scientist hadn't mentioned "God". But this is why.

If you mix "singular" definition with "plural" expression (or switch them), you have a mess because the expression and definition have to match otherwise it is illogical. Or disorder, or chaos or whatever, it doesn't matter what its called, what you don't have it order or logic. Now if there is a creator, one very obvious trait is "Order". Everything of the creator is in order.

What struck the scientist was that agnosticism mentions "Gods" in one breath, then describe "God" in another (splitting expression and definition). I don't think this twisted logic is limited to the agnostic. They only been around for a few hundred years, so everything that ascribes to the Ancient Greek logic, will incorporate the error or splitting that which cannot be split. It can be manipulated.

If there is a creator (it will be by division), the effect of this is "multiplication". In terms of a creator, the plural is always in the effect whereby the cause will always be singular.

So the logic system was framed without a first cause, that was it's intention (logic is faithless). So it is impossible for logic to answer the question of "is there a creator" because logic itself was obviously created. Reason however, has an opportunity to answer the question. That was why we were very careful to stick to reason, and not let logic get in the way and introduce the fundamental error.

I have created another thread "Ancient Greek, Logic and Reason" for those who are interested or have a view on that. Because the Ancient Greeks knew what they were doing, they switched around the positions of "reason" and "logic" in the education system they created.

However, the universal law of Cause and Effect shows us, Reason came first, Logic came after. As the switch is done right at the beginning, or hidden in a tiny letter (devil is always in the detail) most people never even notice it and incorporate it into their thinking / logic. However, our thinking is, and always has been based on Reason, then logic arrived from 0 AD onwards.

Reason = Cause, Logic = Effect. If you have logic without reason, you are in the realms of insanity and the golden rule with that is "you cannot reason with insanity". You can bin them both off (Atheist) or you can have just "reason" Christian, but you cannot have just Logic because we already know, logic was created from reason, and that means its below reason in the causality chain.

The position of the Christian = There is a God (by faith).
The position of the Atheist = There is no God (by faith).
The position of the Agnostic / Antagonist = Logic is God or I am God if I win the arguement (faithlessness).

The agnostic position explains why the Ancient Greeks were very interested in Justice and guilt and the like, because they firmly believed they were God / Gods.

If anyone knows any really clever people (because I'm dumb as lump of wood) pass it on to them and ask them if it's right? Maybe its not, our scientist got it wrong (ish) last night.

Cause and effect says, one thing follows another, not two things. Intuition doesnt need to be involved at all. Reason comes before logic, thats it.

The notion of just God...means working with just one idea of a god. — Frank Apisa

Could you expand on this a little? You see, being careful with this and scientific, we cannot get to an "idea" of God, because we haven't yet established existence yet. Damn my stupidity, as a scientist, I understand the importance of Order and Disorder. I very easily fall out of order if I'm not careful.

The concept of "god / creator" is as being of the First Order, assigning to "creator" acknowledges this position. Would you say there are potentially many gods appearing as the First Order?

I've just a had a look at history regarding "Gods" to see if there is any concept of the First Cause being "multi" and so far, cause I'm stupid, I've not seen any. I re-read the wiki agnostic views again, and some of them seem to reference "Gods" but not in context of a First Cause, instead they reference "God" as the First Cause (existent of not).

Again, please be patient, I'm sure we will get there, if you can help with this bit, we can move on to the next bit.

If we use cause and effect to make sure we maintain order, then the correct order is thus, unless I'm being stupid...

Intuition which cannot be defined logically belongs to reason , or reason belongs to intuition because both of these can exist without logic. Therefore logic sits at the bottom of the cause and effect chain. We can remove logic without remove the others. We cannot remove the others without losing logic.

Excellent. Im not really sure what you mean by this, but i promise to remain neutral so i have a chance of learning your point of view. I wont be too long.

Yes maybe so I'm sure but i can be an asshole like everyone at times.

So are you ready to carry on ?

Ok, so again its reasonable to say, if reason were a branch on a tree, and logic a sub branch of that tree and i cut off the branch of reason, the branch of logic has gone too. So where there is no reason there can be no logic?