You say this because you have no grasp of how imaginally large Logic is. It's as large as reality and is exactly why we can come to credible conclusions.
Logic is as large as reality you say. Ok then, if you know that, tell us how large reality is please.
We have limited knowledge of an area we call the "known" universe. This is the sample of reality you are basing your assertion on.
Nobody has any idea what the relationship is between this sample, and the whole, all of reality. Thus, you are coming to a sweeping firm conclusion about all of reality based on a sample of unknown size, and calling that reason.
Your sample might be significant in relation to the whole and thus probably representative, or your sample might be so small in relation to the whole that we don't currently have the math to represent the relationship. Of course nobody has the slightest clue what the relationship between the sample and the whole actually is.
Further, what do we actually know about the sample? How "known" is the known universe? As example, we have only fairly recently discovered the microscopic realm, though of course it's been there all along. Are you under the impression that such ground breaking discoveries are now all in the past and that no new realms within the "known" universe will be discovered? If you are under that impression, then please address the following question.
When will science end? How long will it be until the scientists hold a press conference to announce their work is done? This could easily be hundreds or even thousands of years in the future, right?
And, we can reasonably propose that as science progresses the rate of knowledge development will continue to accelerate, as it already has.
If you accept that last two paragraphs as generally reasonable, it logically follows that what we know now is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of what can be known. That is, we know almost nothing currently.
And, oh wait, we forgot to ask what the relationship is between what humans can know, and what reality actually is. As usual, we have no idea, not a clue what that relationship might be.
Arising, your adamant atheist assertion that logic applies to all of reality is nothing more than a passionate statement of faith, just like theism. I could respect it if you would honestly label it as faith, but not if you try to call it reason.
I propose that the source of your fantasy knowing is much the same as that which fuels theist fantasy knowings.
It's the human condition to be afraid, because the nature of thought creates an experience of separation, isolation, aloneness. We want to know what the rules of the game are so that we can navigate our way to safety.
Theists cling to their God and holy books in the hopes that if they follow these rules all will be well.
Atheists cling to natural law and science in the hopes that if they follow these rules all will be well.
In both cases, each side clings to the illusion that they know what the rules are, because to face the unknown is too challenging.
In human terms, all of this is very understandable. And truth be told, I sometimes feel like a huge asshole for my ability to rip these fantasies to shreds.
But this is a philosophy forum. And we are men. And I take you at your word, as a token of real respect, that you can take whatever I can dish out. And so, philosophically speaking, using reason as best we can, it must be said...
Theism and atheism are fundamentally the same, and together are just a big noisy pile of fearful, dishonest or deluded, fantasy knowings.
To the degree there is a difference between the two, it seems to be that theists generally know their position is built upon faith, whereas atheists generally don't. This makes sense, given that theism is far older than atheism as an organized effort.
The truth is we simply don't know the truth, and are usually too small to simply admit it.
