Transcendental Argument For God

[Guest cornelius386]

I've been hearing this argument recently. It appears to be in vogue with Christian apologists these days. I've heard the claim that logic, the uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes are not meaningful without belief in the Christian God as the source of these things. I've been thinking about this argument. I want to share some of my thoughts and get your feedback.

 

Is it correct for Christian apologists to claim that logic and the uniformity of nature require explanation? I know that logic cannot be proven. Any proof for logic will depend on logic. The same goes for the uniformity of nature. Proofs for it will depend on inductive reasoning which presupposes the uniformity of nature. So, is it philosophical legitimate to consider logic and the uniformity of nature to be self-evident and requiring no explanation?

 

Can positing a god provide a satisfying explanation for logic and the uniformity of nature? The Christian believes that logic exists because his God is rational and the Creator of all. But how can such a rational god exist? Does the existence of such a god require an explanation? If the Christian says 'no' then has he explained the existence of logic? Is it legit to explain logic by appealing to a god whose existence cannot be explained? Positing such a god appears unnecessary.

 

Morality is a sticky issue with me. Maybe I'm ignorant but I tend to believe that there is no absolute morality. As intelligent beings we have to decide for ourselves what is morally right or wrong. Our species has an evolutionary history that guides us. Culture and environment are also factors.

[MathGeek]

Mathematics is similar in structure, in fact it likely the only other discipline besides philosophy that relies on unprovable, axiomatic logic to make any sense at all. The flaw in this argument is very simple, why must it be only the Christian God? Why not Allah or Shiva or Bob the Subgenius? It's just another argument that can deconstructed if thought about long enough. Blaise Pascal voiced "that not all men will be swayed by intellectual proofs", which is why he developed his wager to begin with. Believing in God, for me anyway, is not so much about logical rigor and proof, it's about bridging a divide between your thoughts and emotions that either help you explain or cope with the way nature is around you. I really sort of wonder if religion is a natural phenomenon after all. By and large, the logical proofs that exists are just mental extensions of humankind's want to believe in something greater than us.

[Guest cornelius386]

So, are you conceding that it is at least a rational demonstration of theism?

 

 

Mathematics is similar in structure, in fact it likely the only other discipline besides philosophy that relies on unprovable, axiomatic logic to make any sense at all. The flaw in this argument is very simple, why must it be only the Christian God? Why not Allah or Shiva or Bob the Subgenius? It's just another argument that can deconstructed if thought about long enough. Blaise Pascal voiced "that not all men will be swayed by intellectual proofs", which is why he developed his wager to begin with. Believing in God, for me anyway, is not so much about logical rigor and proof, it's about bridging a divide between your thoughts and emotions that either help you explain or cope with the way nature is around you. I really sort of wonder if religion is a natural phenomenon after all. By and large, the logical proofs that exists are just mental extensions of humankind's want to believe in something greater than us.

[Guest cornelius386]

Another thought:

 

Is not logic entailed by the nature of existence? To exist is to exist as something. To be something means to have a set of determinate attributes. Is this not the basis for the law of identity? The other laws of logic follow from this most basic law.

 

The uniformity of nature can exist because nature exhibits order. Cause and effect is the basis for order in nature. Because things exist with a set of determinate attributes makes cause and effect possible. Thus it's reasonable to believe in the uniformity of nature.

[MathGeek]

Another thought:

 

Is not logic entailed by the nature of existence? To exist is to exist as something. To be something means to have a set of determinate attributes. Is this not the basis for the law of identity? The other laws of logic follow from this most basic law.

 

The uniformity of nature can exist because nature exhibits order. Cause and effect is the basis for order in nature. Because things exist with a set of determinate attributes makes cause and effect possible. Thus it's reasonable to believe in the uniformity of nature.

 

I agree. There is uniformity to nature based from cause and effect. Now, what causes that cause which leads to the effect is still up for grabs. This is where the rational proofs for God come in. The teleological argument, the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, et al, are examples of this put forth by a variety of Christian philosophers throughout history. The transcendental argument is another one to add to the pile. Christianity has been around for 2000+ years and they have influenced Western philosophy in that time. Certain Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment scientists have written how science is wholly compatible with religion, which is the bridge between God and man. Science is some ways is the study of how God operates his universe, which is likely to be some kind of patterned, uniform manner. The universe is a patterned entity as is the human intellect, which picks up on patterns in a plethora of natural phenomenon. All patterns are just long, finite chains of cause and effect (and in some cases infinitely long). These thoughts I have raised are the major reasons why I haven't given up the possibility that a God of some kind may exist. The evidence is there, but the conclusions that are to be drawn from it are up to the individual.

[♦ nivek ♦]

corny,

 

Your repeat post in Arena has been removed. Content of discussion, if any, would have been moved here to "here".

 

PLEASE bother to read up on the Guidelines before you post in any of the Areas, will save you quite a bit of typing, cut 'n pasting, and a few headaches looking for posts moved or removed.

 

Thnx,

 

kevinL

[Neon Genesis]

All patterns are just long, finite chains of cause and effect (and in some cases infinitely long). These thoughts I have raised are the major reasons why I haven't given up the possibility that a God of some kind may exist. The evidence is there, but the conclusions that are to be drawn from it are up to the individual.

This is one reason why I finally accepted atheism. People will claim that the universe needs a cause to exist and that cause must be God. If I ask them who caused the creator, they'll try to rationalize that God is eternal and is outside the realms of logic even though they were just hypocritically using laws of logic to prove his existence, so you can't use laws of logic to disprove their claims yet they can. Yet Christians have no evidence that God is indeed eternal, so any claims that he is indeed eternal and is most certainly outside our universe is pure speculation. In the book God Is Not Great, Hitchens made some really good points that made me think hard about this. Basically (this isn't exact quoting here), he said that you could call whatever first cause started the universe God if you felt like, but why bother? Since as Hitchens stated, the universe works just fine without God, then according to Occam's razor, there's no point in adding God into the mix when there's no evidence he exists, especially since it would just add in more unanswerable questions like what caused God. This isn't to say that it isn't impossible for God to exist, but I think the existence of God is about as probable as the existence of microscopic teacups in outer space or invisible pink unicorns.

[insanezenmistress]

All patterns are just long, finite chains of cause and effect. These thoughts I have raised are the major reasons why I haven't given up the possibility that a God of some kind may exist. The evidence is there, but the conclusions that are to be drawn from it are up to the individual.

 

Math Geek, i argeee with your out look. i do belive that god is there but *god * is of some kind of awareness of consciousness that i have yet to attain. As a human we catch glimpses of the *ideal*. Have fleeting moments while our frotnal lobes are being fried. ANd after have ahve inhaled alittle smoke of the yummy goodness. I want to try and tackle my own *transendental arguement for god. during this reply. Starting with the question of why do we insist that god be logical? What islogic? humans are cirtenly not logical, but merely potentioanlly logical. And most of the time problems are not sovled during brianstorming sessions but during play time. Did you deside you where in love or did the way the breeze touched you make you realsie the love? How logical is that. You may explain the science of the happening but not how the frontal lobe freaked out.

 

 

This is one reason why I finally accepted atheism. People will claim that the universe needs a cause to exist and that cause must be God. If I ask them who caused the creator, they'll try to rationalize that God is eternal and is outside the realms of logic even though they were just hypocritically using laws of logic to prove his existence, so you can't use laws of logic to disprove their claims yet they can.

 

Neon, cause and effect. who caused the creator.....well Any attempt to answer that satisfatorarilly will be a rationialisation, even to choe to remove god form the equastion. People dont know jack shit anyway. Individaules, on the other hand can ponder great depths with or with out the god notion. A nice way to be would be able to see the logic of the meaning or intent of the human cretion , *god*. And do you concider that merely delusion? Yet if we could all live the delusion of brotherly love.....well wouldnt it be nice? Do you have an answer for your own mind to why is it that human beings are seemingly not able to make for themselves a better world? Can you see the needed human lessons to be had in the various spiritaul sciecnes?

 

And as to that ole IS god beyond logic? No and also yes. The breeeze, the snanpsis of light in your mind. The inspiration. The wisdom beyond. The epiphany...you may rightly argue that they are belong to yourself.

 

 

But some how not the whole world is with you in the experiences. So they must be delusion, right?

 

 

What if god exixsts in part and personally....what it if it like we as humans must grow god together. Why else would Jesus speak of a yoke?

 

What if god, being onmi, thus all kinds of awareness, interpretation, and understanding, exists only in part as far as our human understanding can philosphically reach...does not exist prooven out there, but he does exist with in the induvidaul human being?

 

Cause and effect are so topsy turvey that it is a pitifull method for disguessing the logic of god. Ill tell ya what god logic would be like.........me (barely a high school diplima) looking at the mathmematical fomrula for cherieos. It doesnt seem logical to me. but ill still try to make the best out of life. and if i belvie in god i shall seek to love him the highest possible way i can understand.

 

I do not belive it is religions fault that humans are not seeking to be good, but prefer to seek to dominate and hurt one another. i dont think that was the intent of it all anyway. So arent we at fault when we write off god? Had we concidered god beyond religion? And the thinking of man?

 

 

 

Yet Christians have no evidence that God is indeed eternal.

 

 

Perhaps God is etrenal because we ask the question.

[Asimov]

I've been hearing this argument recently. It appears to be in vogue with Christian apologists these days. I've heard the claim that logic, the uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes are not meaningful without belief in the Christian God as the source of these things.

 

Yea, it's total crap.

 

Is it correct for Christian apologists to claim that logic and the uniformity of nature require explanation?

 

No, because their double standard in stating that God requires no explanation makes their argument invalid.

I know that logic cannot be proven. Any proof for logic will depend on logic.

 

That's generally because it is a self-referential system. Logical axioms are derived through thought-processes and are generally like the agreed upon rules in chess. Given language x, what rules do we devise that are fundamental to being able to communicate as efficiently as possible? What ways of communicating are invalid? What ways of communicating are false? What ways of communicating are true and valid?

 

The same goes for the uniformity of nature. Proofs for it will depend on inductive reasoning which presupposes the uniformity of nature. So, is it philosophical legitimate to consider logic and the uniformity of nature to be self-evident and requiring no explanation?

 

No, all aspects of reality don't "require" an explanation, but it is the pursuit of knowledge which drives us to uncover those explanations and provide the most coherent and well-supported explanation that exists. The uniformity of nature is based on inductive reasoning processes, but doesn't necessarily state that the laws of physics will ALWAYS be the same way they are now or ALWAYS were the same in the past. Look at Big Bang Cosmology, which posits that the laws were unified into one law, or Multiverse theory which posits that other "universes" exist which have, depending on the distance from our own, different laws that determine their reality.

 

I would think it's legitimate to assume that for the most part, the laws of nature are uniform and there is no reason to think that they were different in the past, geologically speaking, or cosmologically speaking...up to a certain point.

 

 

Can positing a god provide a satisfying explanation for logic and the uniformity of nature?

 

No, because then we would have to provide an explanation for why that God is there and what determines his behaviour. Is it uniform? Arbitrary? Why? If theists assume that logic is absolute, then it couldn't have been dictated by God.

 

The Christian believes that logic exists because his God is rational and the Creator of all. But how can such a rational god exist? Does the existence of such a god require an explanation? If the Christian says 'no' then has he explained the existence of logic? Is it legit to explain logic by appealing to a god whose existence cannot be explained? Positing such a god appears unnecessary.

 

Of course, saying that God is rational is assuming a circular reasoning process, and not a self-referential one at that. How do we know that God is rational? Upon what is Gods rationality based upon? Himself? That's an arbitrary standard.

 

Morality is a sticky issue with me. Maybe I'm ignorant but I tend to believe that there is no absolute morality. As intelligent beings we have to decide for ourselves what is morally right or wrong. Our species has an evolutionary history that guides us. Culture and environment are also factors.

 

Absolute morality is an oxymoron. Morality is an objective system based on fundamental societal principles.

[Neon Genesis]

And do you concider that merely delusion? Yet if we could all live the delusion of brotherly love.....well wouldnt it be nice? Do you have an answer for your own mind to why is it that human beings are seemingly not able to make for themselves a better world? Can you see the needed human lessons to be had in the various spiritaul sciecnes?

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't understand your questions. Can you please clarify it better so I can understand? I don't mean to be offensive. I just want to make sure I fully understand what you mean before I answer so there won't be any confusion with my response.

 

And as to that ole IS god beyond logic? No and also yes. The breeeze, the snanpsis of light in your mind. The inspiration. The wisdom beyond. The epiphany...you may rightly argue that they are belong to yourself.

Again, can you please clarify this? And what evidence do you have that God is both logical and illogical? Isn't that an oxymoron to be logically illogic?

 

 

But some how not the whole world is with you in the experiences. So they must be delusion, right?

Can you please clarify your question for me?

 

What if god exixsts in part and personally....what it if it like we as humans must grow god together. Why else would Jesus speak of a yoke?

What evidence do you have that what Jesus said is true? And I'm still not understanding your questions.

 

What if god, being onmi, thus all kinds of awareness, interpretation, and understanding, exists only in part as far as our human understanding can philosphically reach...does not exist prooven out there, but he does exist with in the induvidaul human being?

What if invisible pink unicorns, being omni, thus all kinds of awareness, interpretation, and understanding, exists only in part as far as our human understanding can philosophically reach...does not exist proven out there, but he does exist with in the individual human being? The answer: doesn't that prove that God/invisible pink unicorns are nothing more than a product of human imagination?

 

Cause and effect are so topsy turvey that it is a pitifull method for disguessing the logic of god. Ill tell ya what god logic would be like.........me (barely a high school diplima) looking at the mathmematical fomrula for cherieos. It doesnt seem logical to me. but ill still try to make the best out of life. and if i belvie in god i shall seek to love him the highest possible way i can understand.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. That's like using the mathematical formula for Cheerios to describe understanding the logic of microscopic teacups in outer space. There's still no evidence and still no point to doing it.

 

I do not belive it is religions fault that humans are not seeking to be good, but prefer to seek to dominate and hurt one another. i dont think that was the intent of it all anyway. So arent we at fault when we write off god? Had we concidered god beyond religion? And the thinking of man?

Are we all at fault for hurting other people when we write off the invisible pink unicorn?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps God is etrenal because we ask the question.

If I ask the question "are invisible pink unicorns eternal?", does that prove that invisible pink unicorns exist and created the universe but don't need a creator themselves and that they are eternal because we asked it?

[Asimov]

To sum up...

 

<snip>

 

 

 

[insanezenmistress]

Hum i expected that....well let me sip some coffee and try to make sence of my questions......i tend to write off the cuff and it makes sence to me at the time. But i end up with that nice confused kitty picture. *pets the nice fur ball*

 

Ok why did you, Neon change my term *god* into pink unicorns? Was it to try and make rediculos my notion? I could have stated that humanity as a whole is made up of many minds and levels of awareness form the punk on 86 street to the Dali Lama. I might have said that the ability of the human mind to be what they are as well as to be logical may be a kind of omnishence. Human consciusness being omni-facited, is more real than tea pots in space. But if a tea pot in space helps you understand human potential go for it dude, if not dont argue about them.

 

 

How can god be logical and not logical? A humans/ use an understanding of the idea of *god* that serves the person where they are living. We all live on some point in the *logical* scale. It is times like these that i wish i had taken college. I might have the philosphical language to explain myself. I understand that where i am trying to come form is confusing. So if you will , allow me to bat this around my head. And try to clairify myself better, in another single post. (( too much quoting and responding i need to try to form a single simpler answer))

 

Hells bells i might find out i am full of shit. But Oxidental liniear logic is not the only type out there in the world. Oriental Logic deals with other sides of the question to include a state of "is and is not."

 

 

Justine

 

 

(edit= added to post) Neon you had tried to reverse everythign i said inserting the pink unicorn. In that vein if as a human race we worshiped the ideas containted in the form of god/pink unicorn/my oak tree, then i would use them . I mean the human notions wrapped up inside the place holder word *god* are true things. If humanity put their ideals of being honest and compassionate into the placeholder word pink unicorns, then i would use that word to defend not namle the existance of pink unicorns but the truth /exisitance of the rightness of being honest and compassionate.

 

AS To why i mentioned Jesus and his yoke. It does not matter of jesus is swimming in the space tea cup or not. What matters is the human instruction one can gain from the recorded human philsophy. The philsopher who wrote it may have understood being yoked to god as humanity building/creating reality together with the pink unicorn that is the emobdyment of their higest potintial. A raft if you will. As a race we use the notion of a flying spagghetti monster to as a crutch and a means. I didnt have to say jesus but the use of the wrod and associated meaning seemed to support where i was comming from.

 

But our difference in comunication is not jsut myself being confusing but you are also rigid in how you interpret *insert iconic word here* Because jesus is a nonentity (even as a figure or placeholder of speech) i cannot make my arguement for god useing that icon. I may as well be argueing for the pink unicorn. But i am not argueing for a literal being called pink unicorn.

 

well i figured i just royally discombobulated the arguement. ((no wonder i am so afraid to talk philosphy with people too many thigns to define))

 

 

(edit 2= added to post) Neon if the idea of pink unicorn included seeking the goodness of ourselves and reaching toward the highest expression of our spirit then yes we would be at fault for writing off the pink unicorn when we lost faith in it. If we dont in turn replace the unicorn with another place holder or raft to seek attainment of our human potinal and make a better world for ourselves. You cant give up the beauty of being a good human or the many mehtods of attain ment for the same, just becasue you could not find a unicorn.

 

I asked you IF you could see any value to anything good in our human religions. You claimed you did not understand my question. Really?

 

alrighty then.

 

Jessy

[insanezenmistress]

An attempt to clarify myself.

 

In a transendtal argumewtn for/about god i believe some to err by veiwing *god* as an object. Namely as the illlogical object of the Bible. And most of our arguements are premissed on * object* as compared or opposed to *Ideal*

 

Someone one argued that to say that *object* does not exist because there is no * proof of Object* is an example of the fallacy , argument from ignorance.

 

So maybe as thus far we have all argued th elogical nature of *object* We use loaded words like , god, pink unicorn, space tea cups. To show that those * objects* are not, therefore ..... Therefore what? I wonder. Therefore the Bible god is not ...ergo all god object are not.

 

But i try to argue form a more exitential position. i conceed your points but belive that god is *not object* not * subject* but *meaning*.

 

Our purpose in the creation of *religion*. Allow me to present some mental exploration of where i think i am trying to *come from*.

 

When i say *object * is both is and is not. I belive that ultimately god, the ideal enactment and personification of our human desires/ goals is the desire containted in higest idea of wisdom and truth , and the best way to follow our religion would be to give a damn about its intentions for human goodness.

That i am saying that to *beliver in object* he calls god , it represents his human goals. Which are either good or not so good. Compassionate or only cares for himself. and so on. Where a *believer in object* that calls themselves A-theist inserts their human ideals into a more human context or *meaning*.

 

Meaning is eternal because we shall always seek it = Perhpas, god is real because we ask the question.

 

well i am sure to have fur balls hacking up now.....

 

Jessy.

 

[Neon Genesis]

Hum i expected that....well let me sip some coffee and try to make sence of my questions......i tend to write off the cuff and it makes sence to me at the time. But i end up with that nice confused kitty picture. *pets the nice fur ball*

 

Ok why did you, Neon change my term *god* into pink unicorns? Was it to try and make rediculos my notion?

Basically, it was to show how pointless such arguments for God's existence are. You could also replace it with Zeus, Santa Claus, any other mythological creature you can think of and get the same results etc.

 

Human consciusness being omni-facited, is more real than tea pots in space. But if a tea pot in space helps you understand human potential go for it dude, if not dont argue about them.

Huh? I second the confused kitty here.

 

 

How can god be logical and not logical? A humans/ use an understanding of the idea of *god* that serves the person where they are living. We all live on some point in the *logical* scale.

Yes, we all live on some point on the logical scale, but that doesn't mean we're both logical and illogical simultaneously like you're saying God is. We're either logical at one point and illogical at another, not both at the same time.

 

 

 

Neon you had tried to reverse everythign i said inserting the pink unicorn. In that vein if as a human race we worshiped the ideas containted in the form of god/pink unicorn/my oak tree, then i would use them . I mean the human notions wrapped up inside the place holder word *god* are true things. If humanity put their ideals of being honest and compassionate into the placeholder word pink unicorns, then i would use that word to defend not namle the existance of pink unicorns but the truth /exisitance of the rightness of being honest and compassionate.

If you're suggesting that God is not a literal being but a metaphor for humanity's moral ideals, why not simply call it humanity's moral ideals instead of adding some mythological label to it that only confuses us with more unnecessary questions rather than answers? To quote Richard Dawkins from The God Delusion, "God is not an answer. God is an I don't know."

 

AS To why i mentioned Jesus and his yoke. It does not matter of jesus is swimming in the space tea cup or not. What matters is the human instruction one can gain from the recorded human philsophy. The philsopher who wrote it may have understood being yoked to god as humanity building/creating reality together with the pink unicorn that is the emobdyment of their higest potintial. A raft if you will. As a race we use the notion of a flying spagghetti monster to as a crutch and a means. I didnt have to say jesus but the use of the wrod and associated meaning seemed to support where i was comming from.

Huh?

 

But our difference in comunication is not jsut myself being confusing but you are also rigid in how you interpret *insert iconic word here* Because jesus is a nonentity (even as a figure or placeholder of speech) i cannot make my arguement for god useing that icon. I may as well be argueing for the pink unicorn. But i am not argueing for a literal being called pink unicorn.

But if you're just using God as a placeholder, why argue for the placeholder at all? Why not simply call the placeholder what it is in reality? That seems unnecessarily complicated to me.

 

 

 

 

If we dont in turn replace the unicorn with another place holder or raft to seek attainment of our human potinal and make a better world for ourselves. You cant give up the beauty of being a good human or the many mehtods of attain ment for the same, just becasue you could not find a unicorn.

Huh?

 

I asked you IF you could see any value to anything good in our human religions. You claimed you did not understand my question. Really?

 

alrighty then.

 

Jessy

Uh, no. That is not what you asked. You asked some confusing question about have I considered finding God beyond religion which you failed to clarify. That has nothing at all to do with finding value in religions. I fail to see that question anywhere in your previous post. If that is what you intended to ask, if religion works for you, then it has value for you, but I don't see anything of value in religion that one couldn't find just as easily without it.

[insanezenmistress]

"""But if you're just using God as a placeholder, why argue for the placeholder at all? Why not simply call the placeholder what it is in reality? That seems unnecessarily complicated to me. """

 

 

Some humans cant or are unwilling to let go fo the place holder. That place holder word is also undefinables like *justice* you cannot disblieve in the undefineabel concept of Justice's existacne can you?

 

That is why i argue for the place holder because we are complicated in our ways of understanding. = humans are omni- facited ... many points of veiw and interpretation of reality. We need place holder words to express any notion. How is *justice* and *god* related. Human transfarence of our ideals onto an image to define meaning to ourselves.

 

hum..........*frustrated* never mind, you are also correct that it is silly to complicate it. I dont know how to make sence of it. Perhaps i am simply trying to deify, for arguement,s sake, something all humans would concider truth, and it is not found in the religions but in our minds..........i may be trying to deify my reason and call reason proof of god becasue it exists and is personally experiecned. But i am speaking presumeing god to someone presumenign not god, and that all thign smust be logical.

 

I am saying that humans are discovering the ends of logic. If science prooves a thing it goes in teh truth pile. If philosphy can make for probibility of a thing it goes is the hypothetical pile. On the issue of GOD and wether he is logical well if he is true then in teh end hemust be. But our interpreatiosn of *god* are perosnally limited to books thousands of years old.

 

The more thigns we find that are true in the world, to include which nobel ideals are benificual will refine our interpretations...........

 

hum.........wait...... it does seem i am endlessly bobbleing around the *obect god* when i dont need to in order to be human. My bad.....

your right i dont need to use a place holder in order to express truth logically, but i try to in order to express something true in another person's language.

 

(((so far atheism is challenging.... forgive my blabber i am trying to learn. and i cant see from your point of veiw *no god becasue it is not logical* ))))

[Legion]

These writings make me think of epistemology (<--- notice the big fancy word). I’m not sure what you mean by “the uniformity of nature" Cornelius. I do hold that causality, however complex, governs all natural systems. And I know that we make inferences. I believe natural law is demonstrated when we can infer what the action of causality will be. So in essence I am a believer of natural law. I don't know if there is anything transcendental about natural law though.

 

Does this have any bearing? Or did I go off on a tangent?

[insanezenmistress]

Natural Laws when followed can be transendtal compared to living the reality of mis-useing them. More awareness of the operation and our anlighnment to these precieved natural laws would help make a better more harmonious and logical world.

 

But the practices of these *laws* are not logical, they might be a-logical or para-logcial etc. but lead to a logcial end.