The logical fallacy of creation

Originally posted by NorEaster
Okay, last time, but only for the benefit of any poor soul who might've run across this disaster and might actually be wondering, by now, exactly what it is that I have been claiming in this "exchange". Here is a quick overview.

1. The "breakthrough assertions" of scientists that include measurements of events that happen at speeds of up to 10,000 times the speed of light, are patently absurd since there is no possible means of establishing such rates of velocity.

If you read the articles, yes, they do actually have means of establishing these velocities. In fact if you spent the same amount of time reading the articles I linked to, and doing your own research, instead of arguing why it must automatically be wrong, you would already understand exactly how these measurements were possible.

When I stated that "I wish I had a better explanation for what's going on here", I was being honest about the fact that this information made its way into my head in a way without the traditional intellectual linkage of having read anything like it in any forum or published source.

Well I was asking for a better explanation of where you're saying everything in creation came from, so I hope that clears up the misunderstanding.

And concerning logic. Engineers use the tenets of raw logic to engineer computer "flip flop" circuits. They didn't invent the logic. Boolean Logic is the math that examines simple ramifications of highs and lows in series/parallel configurations. The basics of machine language.

They taught us Boolean when I was in high school, and I had it again in college. This is all greatly beside whatever point you were originally trying to make, and I'm still not even sure what it was even supposed to be.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Nostradumbass
Existence is anything but logical.

Just because humans can add up numbers and put things together doesn't mean we are any closer to figuring out our importance.

Really? Anything but logical?

Okay.

So, please enlighten us as to what it is that establishes redundancy in existence then. If not logic, and if not a net result of the existential order that logic requires, then what is it? Just redundancy. Oh, and gravity and that sort of fully developed "forces of nature" explanation isn't sufficient here. I need the pre-physics explanation. The explanation of why anything at all does anything the way that it does it, and at any level of existence. If you have the knowledge to dismiss the logical nature of physical existence, then surely you have the knowledge to detail what it is that does lay down the requirement that results in something as simple as redundancy. After all, it's not as if I'm asking you to fit redundancy into the suite of existential ramifications that build into organized structural development at the matrix level. Redundancy should be easy.

Redundancy is nothing more than a lack of an 'imagination'. Imagination being the reason why you think it's important to get from point A to point B.

I didn't say logic doesn't have it's place in deriving order from chaos, I'm just saying that religious and scientific logic are the same in that they state what it is people should focus on. The fact is, we live in a world that is completely dependent on it's only true if everyone can sense it, and when someone sees different things or diverges from that path we ridicule and suppress them (from relations with other countries to people who hallucinate). Right now the world is caught in-between an elitist world of order and a morally humanistic way of seeing things...it's only a matter of time before both sides clash and we are back living in caves and speaking one-million different languages. Back to square one like so many civilizations before us...how important is gravity then? We are born with all the instincts we need to survive, logic and knowledge just helps us exploit our environment and peers to ensure our own safety.

It's true, we all must do certain things to survive and there are we can observe what it is that triggers those reactions. We can observe the functions of cells, we can build space shuttles, and experiment with different types of medicines...but it doesn't mean we have any idea what the point of it all is. If scientists truly believed that the only reason for surviving was to pass on our genetics, why is it that these logically intelligent people would probably be devoured the minute civilization collapses because of their lack of understanding nature?

I am the most logical person in the world, sir, I'm four years into a electrical engineering and psychology degrees. But it doesn't take much philosophical reasoning before you realize just how conflicting and limited our race's logic is.

Can I ask you a question? If you knew you had the power to effect everything in the world in whatever way you desire, what would you do? Would you use your knowledge and power to exploit others, or would you use your imagination to reason living a frugal life and helping others like they were yourself?