The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)


Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
rezleader has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 722 times Debate No: 93548
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




sum of all logic=chaos+order

chaos=random cause+effect
order=specified cause+effect

logic is true, logic is absolute, reality is logic.. reason is the opposite of logic, there is no logic in fantasy


if all apples became


Cause + Effect = Logic means that Cause=Logic minus effect. This is where correlation comes in to the whole cause/effect argument. Let's set up a thought experiment ala Einstein. Cause = Stomach ache, Effect - Pain, Logic=Stomach ache caused the pain. If however you have "Cause=Logic - effect" then you have a stomach ache=Stomach ache caused the pain minus pain. That is an illogical statement and is the very basis of the indelible problem between those who try to prove scientific theories by doing countless experiments where they believe they have found the cause when they have actually just found a correlative factor that appears to be the cause (Drinking a glass of wine a day decreases risks of heart attacks). This was at first believed to be the cause and later, after much study, was determined to merely have been a correlative factor in the equation. Your very reliance on the term cause is, in my mind illogical, because we can never truly and absolutely determine the absolute cause of anything.

For example, there was recently an episode of NPR where they looked at bizarre coincidences and gave the example of a little girl who put her name and address on a balloon and let it sail into the air asking for a response from whoever received it. Apparently, the ballon sailed miles away and landed in the backyard of a girl almost exactly the same age with the same exact name. What was the "cause" of this and is there any logic in trying to determine so. The mere existence of "cause" as a variable has not logical underpinnings. Correlative factors are too many to ever determine an absolute cause for anything. There are always more than one correlative factors that bring about the nature of cause.

For example, cause=being hit by a bus, effect = getting killed, logic = being hit by a bus, the cause has a logical assumption that it was the reason for the death of the individual. But would't it also be logical to argue that the cause might be in question in the first place. What caused the person to be in front of the bus? Perhaps a power outage that turned off there alarm with the result being they had to walk to work. That would logically refute or cast doubt on the cause itself.

To me logic has to allow for all of the potential possibilities in an equation. To deny certain possibilities is not my definition of logic. We cannot take certain possibilities out of the realm of potentialitites for what cause in fact is in the first place. It would be illogical to rule out certain possibilities for cause to begin to examine effect and therefore try to prove the equation that you have constructed.

The element of uncertainty, of the possibility of the existence of God, or of predestination or even of love, to me eliminates the cause + effect= logic equational relationship.

Does [effect = logic minus cause]? If in the previous example the [effect of death]=Logic (bus resulted in person's death} minus cause {being hit by a bus} still hold true? that would mean that no death could take place from a bus hitting a person (if the bus hitting the person is subtracted from the logic itself which is dependent on the bus in the first place?

Would your equation hold up if a person was hit by a bus, they died, but died from a heart attack right before the bus hit? Or were perhaps struck by lightning as the bus hit. They would still be dead and the logical assumption for that death would be them being hit by the bus, but that logic would fail if there was no bus hitting a person in the first place. If you play out the equation mathematically, death would=logic. If that is true, maybe we are all dead already who attempt to reason and, in fact, engage in such a debate as we are engaging in. Perhaps we are all stars of the Walking Dead when we use logic in terms of cause and effect. It is not logical, in my mind to ever try to determine the chicken or the egg and which came first. There are too many contextual, minute, mirco and macoscopic factors for it to be "logical" that we can ever come to completely certain and sound conclusions, which is the fundamental principle of logic itself.

The only way for your equation, "Cause+effect=logic" to be true is if you include illogic or the lack of logic in logic's own definition. Include hunch in logic. Include chaos theory, one of the most illogical concepts known to man in logic and include God in logic, a very questionable, but perhaps necessary element of our debate.

It is somewhat, if not entirely, a semantical debate. For me the concept of perfection, includes imperfection because an entirely perfect entity would be lacking grit, style, intrigue and would therefore, in my subjective world lack perfection. If, indeed, you concede that your definition of logic include the concept of the illogical, then I guess we should just call it a draw right now.

Would love to hear your side of the argument. Pretty sure if we figure this one out we can move mountains. Great topic! Looking forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1


no effectless causes can exist.. a cause causes

or, cause and effect is 1, the chicken is the egg

stomach ache is pain..

i know you cant close your eyes and read on, unless you have transparent eye lids or something

and yet if the bus didnt hit the guy it wouldnt have mattered whatever caused him to go out on the road there.. you are sure that if he didnt get hit by the bus he wouldnt have died from getting hit by a bus

a hypothetical of logic is whatever i say it is becuase its not true.. i am causing it with my words.. this is also why morality can not be equated as a fictional example..

logic has nothing to do with the god claim as far as i see.. god claims are illogical or fantasy... sense is logic, i dont sense god.. if you did sense god, i bet you would include cause and effect as logic

love=positive emotion+returning at energy

logic IS cause AND effect.. cause and effect exist as one, like beginning and end.. no causeless effect can exist, and no causes that dosnt cause

sure then the person died right before the bus hit, the bus was esentially not the cause of death.. notice even thou its a false example i am right because i am just building on your example like with math in a way ..

i dont agree about the chicken and egg non certainty thing..

chaos is simply a non intended cause..
random is the opposite of specified

logic is not a concept... reasoning is of the mind, logic is true

as i see it, reason is the concept or mental simulation of logic..

i contend reason is the opposite of logic and there is no logic in fantasy

everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist


There are several arguments that you made that I would like to refute and one that you made that I must think you made in error.

You claim: "everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist"
I'm not sure how this relates to logic. It does not relate to cause and effect, unless you are claiming that a cause it the opposite of its effect or vice-versa which seems patently false. You say "everything" has an opposite for it to exist. I'm not sure where you came up with that or on what you are basing that assumption, but I would merely suggest that it is possible that at the beginning of our universe, at the beginning of time, perhaps one thing, one spec, one atom existed without an opposite. Whether it be God or merely an atom, if there was one thing in the beginning, there was no opposite.

In addition, I'm fairly certain there is no "opposite" of me or you. We are such complex entities that it seems that would be impossible.

But keeping with the argument, you proposition is that cause plus (and) effect equals logic. Then you write about the chicken or the egg dilemma, but you fail to tie that logic or lack thereof to the cause and effect = logic argument.

Your reasoning "egg=chicken+lay" is very logical for every instance after the first, but there is no logical explanation that the very first egg did NOT result from a chicken (or more likely two chickens) that produce and egg. It seems more likely that some combination of factors came together to form one egg that developed into a chicken, then two chickens "randomly" being formed, mating and having an egg that results in another chicken.

You say that: "chaos is simply a non intended cause.." Again, I'm not sure where you came up with this, but assuming that chaos exists, you are again here proving my point in the fact that cause + effect does not equal logic. Intent and its effect on cause is not a logical proposition. Chaos exists and is the very definition of a random, unexplainable effect. Whatever caused the chaos, intended or not, we cannot logically define the effect. That is why chaos and logic, both existing, refutes your cause + effect = logic argument. Chaos is not logical, it is random, it is illogical.

You say: logic is not a concept... reasoning is of the mind, logic is true" If logic is not a concept why are we debating whether cause plus effect is its equivalent. If logic is "True" as you claim, can we not debate "truth." Can we not logically find various objective and subjective interpretations of cause and effect. If we can, then your reasoning is defeated. If you believe we cannot, I would merely present three points of a triangle and state that each one of those perceives and experiences a different concept of truth. This again, defeats your cause + effect = logic argument.

You also say that: "i contend reason is the opposite of logic and there is no logic in fantasy."

I'm assuming that was a mistake on your part, otherwise you are saying that the opposite of logic is reason (a strange notion) and that there is not logic in fantasy. Why the heck not? Many fantasies can have perfectly logical causes/reasons and logical extrapolations. Again, not sure how this comes back to your core argument.

I merely say that cause plus effect can be logical and it can be illogical. Inherent in chaos is the randomness of effect, the illogicalness of effect. We don't logically understand it so, we explain it away as something that is outside the realm of logic.
Debate Round No. 2


an atom has an opposite for it to exist.. the opposite of duality is non duality, and there goes duality

we is the balancing point between me and you

life being nature, there is no, before life..

chaos is logic.. storm winds caused trees in the forest to break and fall.. the tide swooped my wife away from my arms and she was never seen again.. we watched sun light melt the ice around an apple above our table

an example of logic is mathematically valid.. but like with morality, there is non in fantasy, so an example of morality has to have accured to explore its truth

imagination is false... there is no necessety of motion in fantasy, it is illogical

logic is the opposite of logical and illogical.. logic is now, not truth of false
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
hm but if an example of logic is mathematically valid one can build on it to explore its truth logically thou
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
Posted by TheBenC 2 years ago
There is proof that eggs came before chickens!
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
a blind man cant reason about what is on a picture i am showing him


i think reason is the concept or mental simulation of logic or cause and effect...
Posted by Imbster 2 years ago
How is it possible to reason without logic?just simply combining those words to form what you have stated takes logic.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
i dont do logicing i do reasoning.. and the logical and illogical would be to contrast with logic/sense.. or knowledge
Posted by Imbster 2 years ago
Well hahahaha that's how far logic can lead you
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
maybe they went fishing
Posted by Imbster 2 years ago
I think reason is part of logic and not opposite...also logic is usually applied in an incomplete information gap. Example everyday ur parents leave at 7 to go to work but then one day they left at 8 simple logic would be they are late for today complex logic=they did something last night so they were late for today cus they used up too much energy last night
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.