WHY can't the religions bring the mankind forward ?

[Arising_uk]

...
Some homosexuals, wave their hands in the air as they talk, and have high pitched voices
Leo waves his hands in the air while he talks and has a high pitched voice
Therefore Leo is a homosexual! ...

And there you have it!! A complete misunderstanding of logical deduction in the quantificational logical system as 'some' does not entail your 'therefore' so the above is an invalid deduction.

[Arising_uk]

...
What does it have to do with truth, seriously, are you kidding me?

No we are not kidding you. The connection is to do with reasoning and truth the point is that if you have true premises you can reason to true conclusions if you are logical.

[Arising_uk]

Can the consistency of logic (not the person thinking it nor the language of it) be first? Can the fact that [valid] logic is eternally consistent be/exist "before" all other creation?

I think not as I think the point is that if there is existence or a 'creation' then Logic arises from that fact and there is no type or form of creation that can escape the logic of its existence, or some such.

[Arising_uk]

Is chaos a place of NO logic?

No, if there is a place then there is logic. Chaos cannot exist and not exist, chaos exists or it does not exist, etc, etc.

[Arising_uk]

Chaos is a condition, and by definition not logical. Logic is ordered and regular, Chaos is not ordered and without regularity.

This is not true, Logic is not about order or regularity that is Mathematics.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...
Some homosexuals, wave their hands in the air as they talk, and have high pitched voices
Leo waves his hands in the air while he talks and has a high pitched voice
Therefore Leo is a homosexual! ...

And there you have it!! A complete misunderstanding of logical deduction in the quantificational logical system as 'some' does not entail your 'therefore' so the above is an invalid deduction.

You don't pay attention to shit, and are CONSTANTLY, putting words in others mouths. You're either far too old and your mind is slipping, or your nuts! I said as much numbnuts. I'm beginning to feel sorry for you!

[SpheresOfBalance]

...
What does it have to do with truth, seriously, are you kidding me?

No we are not kidding you. The connection is to do with reasoning and truth the point is that if you have true premises you can reason to true conclusions if you are logical.

Again your ability to comprehend is severely lacking, or you're just a liar, take your pick!

[thedoc]

Chaos is a condition, and by definition not logical. Logic is ordered and regular, Chaos is not ordered and without regularity.

This is not true, Logic is not about order or regularity that is Mathematics.

If logic is not ordered and regular, what is your understanding of logic?

[Arising_uk]

If logic is not ordered and regular, what is your understanding of logic?

The boundary of reason and existence.

[Dalek Prime]

Thanks for the reference.
Believing there is a better place after you are dead, in distinction to the world of woes that Greeks loved to moan about, is not quite antinatalism, as such, but not far off.

Glad I could oblige.

In all fairness, it is antinatalism, as not being born is given preference, with living a brief life coming in second, according to him

...but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature’s excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can.

With respect Antinatalism is a phenomenon born of the 19thC. For Aristotle, saying it might have been better never to have ben born is a passing thought, not a philosophy.

I hear you Hobbes. The term antinatalism is actually much newer than even the 19th century. But the origins of the antinatalist philosophy have been around much longer, though it lacked a name. It's also probably not just a passing thought, but an unspoken longtime feeling within those thinking it, but not getting the discussion or literature it deserves because it's unpopular, almost taboo. Which is odd, because the almost exact sentiment is written even in Leviticus.

I always find myself disappointed to see people like Camus, the Buddha or Schopenhauer not living up to their philosophical beliefs. Samuel Beckett did, though he thought it prudent not to write heavily on the subject. Shame really. Oh well, I shouldn't be so hard on them. They didn't have the benefit of the various birth control methods I had available.

[JSS]

Can the consistency of logic (not the person thinking it nor the language of it) be first? Can the fact that [valid] logic is eternally consistent be/exist "before" all other creation?

I think not as I think the point is that if there is existence or a 'creation' then Logic arises from that fact and there is no type or form of creation that can escape the logic of its existence, or some such.

Then back up to another related question.
For how long as the concept of a circle involved uniform radius (not the word or anyone's particular thoughts about it, but the concept itself)? Or when was the concept of a circle itself any different than it is today?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Same old tired crap from you. ...

That you think Logic is 'tired old crap' just shows how far you are from Philosophy.
Never said that, I said your same old diatribe is the same old crap, pay attention sweetie!

I don't believe you could prove anything, probably due to your denial, as shown by your attempting to program yourself with that pseudo-science. ...

Not again!!? NLP has never claimed to be a 'science' and as such cannot be a pseudo-science.
I like how you speak for it as if you could actually know, countering those that actually do. Sorry sweetie but wikipedia trumps Ariging_UK.

The reason why you dislike its approach as it would not allow you to use psychotherapy and psychoanalysis to justify staying where you are with your issues.
I'm not staying any where, I'm growing every day, just like the smarter people! And I don't use psychotherapy or psychoanalysis. I have, but I'm not. But anything about the truth of things is in fact knowledge, and thus growth potential.

How you manage to make this claim whilst also spouting the psychobabble you've made-up from your therapeutic experiences is just gob-smacking.
Again with your denial, you're beginning to not be worth ones time. Do you think you're the only one that can read and learn, I've also taken psychology in college, but then I've already told you that. You forever conveniently forget.

It's no wonder your head is a swirling vortex of misconception. ...

Show me where?
I have in this thread with my other retorts, your grip on understanding is sliding, my friend.

I really don't know how you could ever have believed that ones meaning could ever be contained in any response you might be capable of formulating. ...

The reason why you don't know this is because it is not the case that I've made this claim or belief.
But that's exactly what your little ditty led one to believe, funny how you couldn't see that it was true before I rubbed your nose in it.

Wait... Yes, How could I have even started such a line of thought, as it's clear that your confusion is exactly the reason you believe you could do such a thing! You know, dictionaries, NLP and all.

I know that you believe dictionaries provide the meaning for words but cannot explain how we had meaning before dictionaries were invented.
I've already explained that to you, that you've forgotten things said just 4 years ago again shows that your mind is slipping.

I also know that the above statement by you is not what I've said but your wishful thinking to avoid facing the consequences to yourself of what I actually said. Hence your confusion.
Not at all! It's funny indeed that you once had it attached to your profile and after I proved it was not a faithful synopsis of your longer explanation, and that it was instead you beating your chest, as if you're some sort of queen of the jungle, with respect to knowledge, you deleted it so the proof was no longer available. Funny indeed!

It seems that in some respects, I've taken the wind out of your sails.

[Obvious Leo]

Is chaos a place of NO logic?

Chaos is not "a place".

Chaos is a condition, and by definition not logical. Logic is ordered and regular, Chaos is not ordered and without regularity.

This statement is false. Chaotically determined systems generate order and regularity from within rather than have it imposed on them from without. Biological evolution is the most obvious example. Logic is not an applicable construct in such non-Newtonian systems but this is not because they are not deterministic but rather because their causal outcomes cannot be predicted, even in principle.

Physicists have problems with chaos as well and routinely conflate it with randomness.

[manden]

Correct logic is : where a creation is , must be a creator ! Or where anything exists , it must have been created !

Are you too corrupt and ill to grasp that ? I know very high for this forum . But you have a chance , because you are created by the real creator

of the universe .

[Obvious Leo]

Or where anything exists , it must have been created !

This is not logic at all. This is a completely circular argument because you are assuming as a premise that which you then derive as a conclusion. Simplicity is truth is one of the most ancient and revered principles in philosophy and to suggest that existence could have a beginning fails on the grounds of Occam economy. In fact it's a fucking absurd proposition. You know nothing about logic, manden, and even less about civilised behaviour in a discussion forum. Take your soap-box elsewhere.