Logic is just tools for checking if the sentences are consistent without contradictions and fallacies in the arguments or propositions.

There are different types of Logics, and one which is mostly practical is based on just one simple law.
If the premise is wrong, then subsequent arguments and the conclusion will be wrong.

So always check the premise for its logical consistency, and take it from there.

There are other types of Logics such as Modal Logic (really for those who are interested in Maths or Computer Programming and A.I.), and Informal Logic or Critical Logic (used in the Courts by the judges and solicitors during the trials).

Logical conclusions are only to clarify right and wrong and consistency in the arguments or claims, but they will not cause actions or decisions or beliefs of the people who are using it. Only psychological motives and wills will decide their decisions, beliefs and actions. (based on the logical conclusions). i.e. with the right conclusions, they can still make wrong / bad decisions and vice versa.

There are many cases of people making up false logical propositions which are full of fallacies and just a pile of nonsensical mixture of contradictory sentences jumbled disguised as some sort of complicated logical statement. These are psychological traps to lure the others for parading their shady messages or endeavour to impress you for their intellectual superiority, which must be ignored at prima facie.

In most cases and the rule of thumb is, when reading a sentence, if it does not make sense, then it is not your fault, but more likely it is written badly or inconsistently.

I think it is largely due to the invention of language. When the first humans appeared on the Earth, they probably didn't have language. But then, on one funny day, they started making sounds and utterances, and then it developed into language. The mind invented and kept developing the language, and the languages enriched the consciousness. So, they kinda worked together for their mutual development. And they have invented many other abstract concepts such as Gods, paradise, immortality, good and bad ...etc under the frame of the Forms.

Now our consciousness is getting even richer and more diverse with not only interaction of language and mind, but also scientific developments and globalisation. The consciousness keeps expanding due to not only the global communications, but also the space crafts landing on the Moon and Mars, and looking into the other galaxies.

This development has provided a great deal of information and knowledge about the material world, but at the same time, it also increased more mysteries on the origin of the universe and life. Because sciences and religions still have not given us the answers to these origins beyond doubt. Our consciousness will keep on going seeking for these answers I guess.

I concur.

Atheist are on their own, that is a tough position to be. Agnostics are in the dark, but have hopes. Theist are having it all too easy - all the answers are in God.

And Science can answer the questions assuringly and comfortably, because they are observable via direct experience and sense data available.

Yes ! Absurdity !

When the doubting has exhausted, one will decide either to keep doubting or become an atheist? Reasoning itself alone, will not cause someone to decide or act, but it will be the basis of the decision or action depending on their will. All it can do is, "realising".

How can faith be anything but the excuse you give for believing when you don't have a good reason? — Tom Storm

Once reason understands the limitation of its own capability, it then realises that possible options available is either jumping into the abyss of faith, or be atheist.

But, of course, the most we can arrive at is certain ideas about why we others, and various life forms exist. These ideas are our perceptions and perspective, and are only partial. — Jack Cummins

I was thinking about "WHY" question again, and it seem to me that "WHY" only exists in human mind. Once we are looking outside world, there is no "WHY" at all. So, when you ask "why" questions, it can only be answered from one's direct experience about something, or one's own feelings and motives.
So when why question is asked for the universe and other lives existence, the answers will have to come from only from one's mind, which is either reasoning, imagination, or experience. Once we go out the boundaries of our reasoning, all the explanations and questions disappear. The universe keeps working as it has been for billions of years in silence, and live come and go living their own times without any reasons and explanations.

In the case of the question, if you seek the answers from science, history or religion, then the answers would be based on the First cause, or the Big Bang theory or Creation Theory by God, or Evolution Theories, but I would imagine these are not the type of answers that you wanted to hear or accept as the right answers for the question.

But it does not mean that we have reached the ultimate answers or knowledge, because thoughts always start in the middle and ends in the middle. When Kant has finished his CPR, he thought he had reached the ultimate knowledge and solved all the problems in Philosophy and Religion. But he was wrong. There came the Neo Kantian schools, Hegel and German Idealism, then Phenomenology. It all seems just a part of the process.

How do these lie in the context of history, comparative religion and thinking which goes beyond the specific focus of materialistic perspectives of Western philosophy? I am not wishing to offer any simplistic solutions, but open up the area of debate, beyond the ideas which are in fashion in the first half of the twentieth century. Do we presume that we have reached the ultimate knowledge? — Jack Cummins

Not sure if history or religions can offer us meaningful answers for the questions for the obvious reasons. No, I don't presume that we have reached anywhere at all. In fact, I would like to ask you, why do you presume that there must be reasons on the existence of the universe, the sentient beings and all forms of existence. Is there any grounds or justifications for believing why the reasons must exist? Could they exist, just because they do, and always have been existing without any reasons at all?

A great song. :up: :smile: :pray:

I feel that members who initially started personal attacks and abuse on other members in the threads on the basis of gender, social status, race, beliefs, intelligence, qualifications ...etc must be subject to the consideration of ban.

Because it is unfair and unreasonable for the members who suffered those abuses and attacks out of the blue, to keep quiet and play saint, and show the initial attacker, kindness and compassion. Even Nietzsche wouldn't approve it.

We want to discuss philosophy, not getting attacks and abuses thrown at us by emotionally volatile and self centred members who are not interested in genuine philosophical debates, but parading here for some other shady purposes and motives. I am with Protagoras on this issue by the way. 3017 amen has been decent, calm and has never started attacking other people from his side from my knowledge and memory. The ban was a shock to me. Just my 2 cents ...

P.S.: Like yous, I don't take seriously FUCK OFFs as personal attack or abuse, when uttered in right context. :D

He also translated Don Quixote to Korean. What an intellectual man! — javi2541997

Sure. Please enjoy your readings. Thank you for sharing. :up: :pray: :smile:

How Deep Is Your Love by Bee Gees

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpqqjU7u5Yc

Exactly, it is Korean but surprisingly, this book was written in Spanish because back in the day Yong-Tae Min was a philologist teacher in Madrid. — javi2541997

Wow, a Korean Philology teacher in Madrid, and wrote poetry in Spanish? Sounds interesting.

The rain lasts eleven years by Yong-Tae Min (Poems). — javi2541997

The name sounds like Korean. A Korean poet?

Understandable logical consistency on Nietzsche, when he had praised for the Superman?

Thought it would tell something about what people think of intelligence when they are blindly smitten by it. :D Yes, the OP, quite surprising actually. If someone pointed out any logical problems with my OP, I would have been very impressed and thankful to the poster, because that means he paid attention to my OP, and read it albeit from different point of view. I would never declare my perfect logic, or upset by me having made something unclear or illogical. Because it is all a process of life.

I believe that philosophy is not for those who are intelligent beings, but for those who are seeking truths. If I were intelligent, I wouldn't be here, but gone to politics or business forums, and debate on how to get elected as an MP or make a mega dosh easy and quick.

Clement? You think reading Clement Freud will help me uncover my motives in drawing attention to your double digit IQ? I don't think so. It might help me cook salmon in an interesting way. But do I want to cook salmon like a pervert, that's the question I'd be asking myself. — Bartricks

No, Lucian Freud. He might be more exciting.

Yes, that was what I have been saying too. Emotions seem have taken over the reasoning. :)

Sounds like IQ test is your God. :D Of course it is full of mistakes and bogus sham system.

No one should be judged by any system or any one. People need respect, not judgement.
Get over it, and escape from your Rembrandt's self assembled maze.

Just mentioned Freud, because it could help analyse your unconscious or hidden motives for obsessing yourself with IQ tests. Although, I know it, I will try avoid going ad hominem.

There are also loads of low standard books for sale obviously written by the writers for making quick and easy money. Sure, they must be written with full of unclear and illogical sophistries, which were never checked out.

Anyhow, keeping on insisting IQ tests in Philosophical forum, is very unusual. Very weird. If you blindly believe, and are judging people by IQ tests (I don't know who even manufactured IQ tests), I do sincerely feel that you sure are not a philosopher, but a business man, and should not be in Philosophical forum. Philosophers are not that low level.

Have you read any Freud? Of course, you said you don't read books. Never mind. Good luck.

Test your own IQ. Sounds like you are deeply obsessed with your own IQ.
Read more books and try to learn.

I don't feel it is a good idea to continue arguments for philosophical debates with you. You are too emotional, and egocentric. There is nothing good to learn.

When you are that much hyper emotional, obviously you cannot tell good thinking from bad ones. I wouldn't expect that capability from you.

I don't think you are interested in philosophical debates, but looking and begging for some psychological engaging. Keep on arguing with yourself.

The problem is that our reasons work on the basis of the external sense data by being there in the world and situations, but unfortunately and unfairly, our life span is maximum 100 years or so, not long enough to be present and have experienced at the moment of the Big Bang, or the very first birth / creation of life by God in the universe, hence we are relying on the isms, historical speculations, scientific hypotheses. Not exactly the fault of the Reasoning.

If you are a theist, all the answers are in the bible or your own religious scripts, if atheist, then you would be either existentialist, phenomenologist or scientific realist, then the answers would be all there too. None of the answers would be either right or wrong. Because it is not verifiable. Then it becomes your choice and freedom to decide which one IS for you. But the fact that you have asked the question is very meaningful and significant. I feel that the philosophical questions must be NOT stopped, and kept re-asked and asked as long as human life continues in this universe.

I feel it is very important and meaningful to ask and have debates on these topics. It is not the conclusions which matters in most of the time, but the course of debates I feel that I learn a lot.

Asking validity of the questions is not, to belittle the question, but to suggest expectancy of the limitation of the nature of the arguments and answers.

Before trying to answer the question,  I would ask first, whether the question is a valid one to be answered.
When asking "why" questions, it is normally between human beings and their dispositions in their own daily lives, such as why have you ordered  the book? Because I wanted to learn more about Logic. Why did you wake up earlier than usual this morning? Because I was hungry. ....etc etc,   or their explanations to what has happened in the world, but the world must be where the replier had been in his / her life, experiencing the happenings, witnessing the situations etc. Why do you think the team lost the game? Because the players were suffering from fatigues, I guess ...etc etc.
But the OP's questions why human beings exist at all, and any forms of life exist, = this question is out of the boundary a living human being's experience, because no one right now has lived more than 100 years to have directly experienced the very beginning of life of humans or anything form of lives which could be millions of years ago.
Hence, answers will come from each person's imaginations, beliefs or the religious scripts or scientific theories, or some other philosophical systems he read.

Yes, it looks like the OP is presuming God exists, and listing Gods negative aspects.

Another point I was wondering was, if Einstein's brain had been exactly replicated, and transplanted into another person, would it then wake up a person with Einstein's identity? (with all the memories, personalities, and knowledges of him).

Question: Is mind also nonphysical? If I see triangular objects (nonphysical things) popping out of a machine (the brain), there must be something triangular in that machine (the mind must be nonphysical). — TheMadFool

I used to go by Functionalism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/), and then Epiphenomenalism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/).

I think that agnosticism is a better and more prudent position when it comes to the existence of God or a Diety then Atheism as per the above definition. — Deus

If these beliefs affect one's psychological state and decisions and action foundation, then agnosticism wouldn't be better or more prudent, as it would give more confusions hesitations and uncertain feelings in his life? Whereas it would be simpler and more consistent and certain on one's daily life when one has strong beliefs on either God exists or not?

It would depend on the fact that whether it affects your dispositions, feelings and the way of living, or the beliefs are taken just as on the theoretical level, I would imagine.

Also, these beliefs are suppose to change through time depending on the individuals' life experiences.

Forget about intelligent being, going back to God making mistakes, I think it is again absurd to imagine that an omniscient being to make mistakes, because making mistakes implies it was not omniscient, and not intelligent and humanly act rather than God's.

Maybe it would be possible for God making mistakes, if it were the Gods in Greek Myths. So that is why it would have been good to specify which God is being focused in the OP too.

But then the Greek Gods are not supposed to be Omni xn, so it wouldn't make sense to bring them into here.

Only way to have an intelligent discussion — Bartricks

An intelligent being would listen, debate intelligently and correct the logical problems in his OP, when it is proven unclear and unintelligent.

You aren't engaging with anything I argued. — Bartricks

You have been arguing with yourself not reading my points.

Never said you were wrong. I was giving my points to the OP, and your further points. I could be wrong. I will never say I am right. But those were my points, which I am willing to correct, if proven to be wrong or if there are better points for the topics, and learn from them during and after the discussions.

I have re-read the OP, and came to a couple of points.

1. To claim that God exists, you must supply some sort of arguments, proofs or theories, why it does, and how, otherwise, the whole thread quickly spirals into a Religious one. Because as Mr Flew has said some in his books(?? I cannot recall which book it was), that default position in philosophical debates in any religious topic is atheism. It is up to the theist to prove that God exist, prior to any further progression of debates or argument.

2. If God is omni x1 x2 x3 ... according to your definition, if we accept that definition and premises, then God cannot make mistake in his decisions or knowledge. If he did, then his omni x1, x2, x3 ... does not stand logical ground for being omni x1 x2 x3 ... etc.