Lemme try.
Origins of:
1) existence
The sentence of "origin of existence" makes no sense. Something either exists or it doesn't.
How things come to be then.
Again I have problems with the term "come to be".
I get it. I understand what you are saying. Yet things come to be all the time. We witness a new life, a new existence coming to be. I'm asking you how did existence come to be? There are a cause and effect. What caused the universe?
Time began if there was a beginning. If not it is meaningless to speak of time in eternity. In this physical universe, if that is all there is, materialism/empiricism, there can't be a time before the beginning, if you believe the universe began and if you are looking to explain everything physically. So what you seem to be preaching is self-creation - something coming from nothing or an eternal universe or multiverse. Explain your origins. Is the universe eternal or did it begin?
I imagine this question makes perfect sense in your head, either that or you are not articulating your thoughts very accurately.
Yes, it does. We witness the beginning of things all the time. Is there a point we can trace that back to or is the universe eternal? I'm asking for your explanation for the origin of life and the universe, and explanation for their existence.
If your question is "How have all things that exist have come to exist as they are today?", that question makes sense, and I can try and answer it.
Is that not what I said? How did origins come to be? How did the universe come to be? How did existence of life come to be?
If you believe that empiricism or materialism is all there is (i.e., no eternal Creator) - things - then how did they come to be if they had a beginning?
if your question is "How/why does anything exists at all?" that that question also makes sense, and again I can try and answer it.
Yes, if you think there is a reason then how and why and you seem to suggest you have an answer? I'm interested in the plausibility of it. Is that not what I have been asking all along, for you to make sense or give the most reasonable explanation if you think God is not it.
But if your question "what is the origin of existence?" then that is incoherent to me, I do not understand what you are trying to ask, since it seems to me you ae treating "existence" as a type of "thing" that can be talked about in the same way as a statue, or a tree.
If your explanation is empirical then existence has to be explained in terms of the physical.
If you want me to talk past you than I can try in futility to answer the question in its original form and fail as anyone else here has tried to.
It is a two-way street. That is why we question what others mean. You are just as guilty of stringing me along and hiding in semantics.
2) The universe
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.
If you don't know then what is more reasonable to believe? What view is able to make sense of existence. What view is more reasonable in making sense of the universe?
Define "view".
I assume you mean "the view with a god, or the view without a god" and I am happy to answer that if that if what you are asking.
Worldview, the way you look at life and existence of it and the universe and what you build upon to explain such things.
3) life
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.
The what is more reasonable to believe. Explain what you believe and let's take a look at the reasonableness.
I already stated I believe I don't know. Do you want to rephrase your question more explicitly (I assume it requires similar phrasing to=== Q2) so I can answer it more to your satisfaction?
And I have explained that if you don't know then how do you know your explanation is more reasonable than any other? Can you say that empiricism from chance happenstance is more reasonable than creation? When you deny God what do you have left??? You no longer have intentionality. You no longer have an ultimate purpose. You no longer have reason coming from a reasoning and necessary being.
Note that I would normally be more charitable in discussions and not request rephrasing, but I assume we have very different terminology, culture and viewpoints, and it would all too easy for me to say something that doesn't answer the question as you envisioned it in your head.
But of course!
4) logic
Humans developed it.
So, without human beings, there would be no such thing?
Note that when I speak of logic, I think of formal axiomatic logical systems, such as those used in mathematics, or rules of inference etc.
Then how do you explain, without a Creator that is, that we can explain how the universe works via mathematical and logical principles that are not physical in themselves (grasp hold of twoness, show me the laws of logic). We discover these principles, we don't invent them. They have their existence before you existed or I existed. Thus, it is much more reasonable to believe a necessary, eternal/outside of time, Being is responsible for them rather than chance happenstance.
I see no reason why other species or aliens couldn't develop logic themselves.
That just takes the step back further. How did these aliens or other beings get to be? Are they eternal? Are you saying they are our creators? Are they the creators of the universe? Do they then exist outside of time? What is the reasonableness of your evidence? Do you have any? Is it more reasonable than the biblical God? I say no. Give me your proof/evidence if you believe this. If you have none then my evidence is more reasonable.
I assume your question is better rephrased as:
"So without beings to reason, there would be no such thing as logic?"
To which I answer "Yes". Since logic doesn't exist as a thing outside of the mind.
How does reasoning begin from something that was devoid of it? We agree it needs a conscious, mindful being.
Now, logic is not dependent upon you but it is dependent upon thinking being. Without God (i.e., materialism or empiricism) how does something that is non-living, non-conscious, develop into something that is and is this more reasonable to believe than logic comes from an eternal necessary Being?
You do realise that logic systems with completely different axioms to those we commonly use in math etc. can and have been developed that have zero application or relevance to reality as we experience it right? You can even have entire mathematical systems that are inconsistent. The systems and axioms are wholly dependent on thinking beings.
Completely different? How would you differentiate without using the laws of logic - the laws of identity, non-contradiction, or middle exclusion? Both require mindful beings to be known. Why do we find principles that explain our universe that we can express by mathematical formulas? These principles seem to be before we (humanity) came to be or do you disagree? How reasonable is that last statement, in your opinion?
5) truth
The sentence of "The origin of truth" makes no sense. either something is true or it is not.
Okay. Is truth mind-dependent? Does truth depend on being or is there such a thing as truth without "being" to perceive it? If truth has its origins from beings you still need to jump the hurdle and develop how conscious beings come from physical matter devoid of consciousness. If truth is not an abstract mindful process then it cannot be known or explained.
And when I speak of truth, I speak of the truth of origins. How do you know your view of origins is what corresponds to reality unless a necessary mindful Being has revealed origins?
This falls into the same category of thing as Q4. So redress these arguments to that.
Addressed. The laws of logic would have to be prior to those of mathematics for us human beings to do and understand mathematics.
Truth falls under epistemology, and a lot of that will depend on your view of logic systems, which define within themselves "true" and "false". To state there is "truth" outside of imaged systems such as logic makes zero sense to me, thus #4 should be addressed first.
Number 4 answered. You can't do mathematics without first having these basic principles of logic.
Beginnings, origins, the existence of first life is something neither of us was there to experience. The truth of such things must be explained in one of a few ways. I argue they come down to two explanations - we are here because of a Creator or we are here by blind, indifferent chance happenstance. Again, which is more reasonable to believe for you? Once you identify we can examine how reasonable the one you choose is.
6) morality
Nihilism works fine as a meta ethical theory. Describing human behaviours and what human behaviours people would generally most prefer I don't categorise as morality. If you do though then I encourage you to read "Sapiens: A brief history or humankind" for some good speculation.
Develop that nihilistic thought. What do you mean?
There is no such thing as inherent right or wrong on any level. They are all imagined orders/realities.
So, you do not believe in self-evident truths, like the laws of logic or for there to be equality for justice? Right and wrong are qualitative values. What is your starting point for qualitative values? Is it the human mind? Which human mind(s) since we are relative beings? If you do not have a "best" or ultimate unchanging ideal to compare right and wrong to then how can you ever arrive at better? Better in relation to what? Do you just arbitrarily choose something you like and call it right?
Neither do I classify behaviour as morality for the following reasons: How does an 'ought' come from an 'is.' A behaviour is. It is a description of something taking place. A preference is a "like," a personal taste. I like ice-cream. Does that mean you SHOULD like ice-cream too?
"Ought" is defined within whatever imagined order you subscribe to. I do not subscribe to any, so asking me how "ought" comes from an "is" makes no sense, since "ought" makes no sense outside of an imagined order "such as a religious order, but certainly not exclusive to a religious order".
I'll have to work around that statement to find out what you mean. Imagined order? That would not really be the case. Does that mean there is a case in which it would be?
The Nazis subscribed to the imagined order that it was right to kill Jews. They don't like the Jews so they prefer to kill them. Kim Jong-Un subscribes to the imagined order that what he prefers is the right. Because he believes it, it IS what he likes, you ought to also. If not, off with your head! It is not his personal like that you like the opposite of what he likes. Abortion advocates subscribe to the imagined order that it is right to kill innocent human beings. They like to choose to kill or not to kill innocent human beings so you should too.
The problem with moral relativists is they cannot recognize right. Everything is shifting. They have no fixed measure.
What do these examples have in common? I would say they are all preferences, a personal taste, what IS, what someone likes. How does that make them right? (right meaning what everyone should do, what the ought to do)
What do the three examples share in common? They turn description (something that is observable, a physical behaviour) into a prescription (an intangible) thus violating the is/ought fallacy. How do you cross that bridge?
