On topic resurrection:
Actually, Cumulusprotagonist's question is a different one. It just like Z's has a philosophical bend to it.
On avoiding religious debate:
I believe the spirit of Cumulusprotagonist's request is that we avoid letting it turn a direction that could promote religion-bashing or arguments about beliefs, in particular about Christianity. We've had a lot of previous discussions go pretty sour, and he's wisely wanting to avoid letting that happen again. (No one ever changes beliefs when someone angrilly shouts at him or her about how wrong one is. Most of my own rants about Fundamentalism are directed more towards neutrals who might be tempted to be converted for all the wrong reasons--fear tactics, rather than intelligent thought. Most Christians would likely support this stance, I suspect, against extremism.)
Now, the question itself:
Logic is not logical because it is logical that we exist which is not logical.
Let me reach for my blue shirt and ear points.
With all due respect, this statement itself is not logical. It is self-contradictory; it is either logical that we exist or it is not. I would offer that it is logical that we exist, because it is continuously demonstrated empirically. This assumption is made without regards to temporality versus permanance; it matters not how I came about or whether or not I will continue existing for any length of time, or whether or not time itself has any real meaning; at this moment, I, being defined as that which generates the stream of consciousness that I define as my own, must exist, because the stream of consciousness is indeed being generated. That stream of consciousness experiences phenomena beyond my absolute, irrefutable control (i.e., I am not absolutely omnipotent and omniscient within my experiences--philosophies such as Rhonda Byrne's "law of attraction" or Shakti Gawain's creative visualization techniques, which imply relative omnipotence, aside), then I know that something else exists beyond me. That something else exposes me to additional ideas, concepts, and images that are not originally my own, though I have creative liberty to take these concepts and work with them into my own original constructs.
Therefore, it is logical that we exist. By "we," I mean myself and you, "you" being defined as that which lies beyond my internal consciousness stream manifests in the form of something that emulates what I would expect a fellow consciousness stream to produce within a shared universe.
Of course you realize, asking Scott Gardener about these things is just begging for it...
Where does existence begin and how can it go on forever or just stop with no definite point of origin?
Logic does not specifically forbid infinity, nor does it require it. Time simply requires at least two seperate moments that are different. Causality is a consequence of time and a second principle,
continuity. The origin of existance is not presently absolutely known, though there are many working theories. Science and religion both offer plausible suggestions, and many of us have found ways to reconcile both into a single, unified idea--though each of our own working theories are different and debatable, as previously cautioned.
Is this confusing?
Not really.
I think it is confusing that we exist.
I wouldn't say confusing so much as puzzling. As I work through the specifics of science--which does a pretty good job mapping out continuity patterns that are readily observable and reproducable, and thus is a good, reliable fallback when all else fails--I have a hard time reconciling it with beliefs that suggest I should be able to do more through will alone--which I have also been able to reproduce reliably enough to my own satisfaction (though not neccessarily enough to a true, die-hard skeptic, though I'm not out to appeal to them, only to myself for my purposes of understanding my existance. I get more discerning when I step outside my personal realm and into the shared realm.)
I find it more confusing when people tell me what is and is not logical and yet when I bring this up they say it does not count. WHY!?
I would appear to be yet another guilty party. If so, my apologies. Still, I would hope my reasoning is self-explanatory. Perhaps a quick comment about what logic really means. Logic is simply a way of arranging facts and drawing conclusions. It's based on premises of "if / then" and operators such as "and," "but," and "not." (You might see the word "logic" applied to computer hardware at the most fundamental levels, since it's designed to work with these types of conditions. Granted, computers have a hard time with fuzzy logic, which introduces probability and possibility rather than absolute true and false facts.) Science ideally is logical. It can be wrong; history is full of wrong statements, like Ptolemy's Earth-centered solar system. It was a logical system model until science offered additional facts that were incompatable with it. Religion can be logical, but, being influenced by emotions rather than mathematical analysis of premises, is too frequently not. That is not to say that emotions are right or wrong. To say something is not based on logic is not to say that it can't be logical. One can have both.
Logic is a useful screening tool, but it does not itself generate ideas, only process them. Creativity, imagination, and emotion generate ideas. Tragically, these noble ventures can create bad ideas that stick and cause damage. That's where logic comes in.
