(June 14, 2015 at 11:27 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: Reason in this instance even if we can use that term is no different than cause and effect, to assume a purpose at this point is not necessary.
Yes, I agree, you may not need a "reason", but that's a personal emotional stance. Logic dictates we line up what we have and see what it's telling us. your stance has too much personal emotion associated with it for me. With what we know right now, it is more reasonable to say there is a reason than there is to claim no reason at all. "cause and effect" is how the universe works. How you used "cause and effect" is like stating there is no reason for the pieces being assembled like a car because it uses cause and effect. The car works by cause and effect, the reason is transporting my lazy behind.
It's like with the notion of illusion. If nothing has a "reason" then what we have is the reason. Using "no reason" allows some people the wiggle room to making up self justifying logic. That keeps us in this religious mess because the observations point to a reason. Just because we don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't true
anti-logical Fallacies of Ambiguity
