And then from the actual source:

Fascinating.

Here's the logic. No one here is saying that lack of evidence means that something doesn't exist. We are saying that given the lack of evidence in something fantastical, to claim that said fantastical thing is true anyway, and to claim that logic says it must be true, is wrong.

You say that a universe that isn't designed, that has no ultimate purpose, is illogical. But you can't say what logical fallacy leads you to this conclusion. Because you are misusing the term "logic." Because there is no logical fallacy. Because there is no logic involved in making a postulation like that.

No Foob..it is you who is dishonest...

By resorting to critisize my understanding of what logic is you are completely side-stepping the whole debate all together.

I repeatedly told you and Kthulhu as to why have I come to the conclusion by logic and reason..why I stated on my own beliefs...... that the universe must have some sort of ultimate purpose and extension..and of our existence as well..you are both entitiled to disagree with my opinion of course but please refrain from using this tiresome rhetoric on the definition of what is logic here...to side-step the topic all together.

First of all, I didn't call you dishonest. I said you don't know anything about logic.

And just stating that you have used logic does not make it so. You have to show your work. Call it your opinion, what you believe, you get no complaint from me. Say it is logic, get a smackdown.

Show your work. Show the logical reasoning by which you state that the universe must have some reason, that a universe without reason is illogical. Or stop using the word logic.

I perfectly understand what logic is so stop with the rheteric both you and Kthulhu..bring something to the debate to show me why both of you have a sound case that supports random chance pertaining to our existence and not by some unknown ultimate purpose.

I already expressed my case for an intelligent designed cosmos that logic dictates...that for me there has to be some unknown ultimate purpose for why we are even here in the first place..we cannot simply be here because of some inconcievably flukey random chance.

If you don't accept my answer that's fine I ain't going to be pushed into a no-win situtation trying to defend my own logical conclusion as to why I believe in a intelligent designed creation...rather than by sheer random chance... just because my definition of logic doesn't fit what you or Kthuhu define is logic.

Here some food for thought.

http://bibowen.hubpages.com/hub/why-does-the-universe-exist

Part 2 of the video presented in the link;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpz7NaUDJU4

It's not rhetoric. You DON'T know what logic is, or how to use it. Just because "for me there has to be some unknown ultimate purpose for why we are even here in the first place..we cannot simply be here because of some inconcievably flukey random chance." doesn't mean that anything that goes against that is "illogical." THAT'S NOT LOGIC.

Here you go. Here's a nice little introduction to logic:

http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/RealWorld/logic/logicintro.html

Read through that, work the exercises, then come back and tell us how a universe without a reason is illogical.

If I know what he means, and what you mean, and possibly refer to, he means to, objectively be comprehensible, and as complete as required for such comprehension, given the information provided. Whether or not you prefer to not admit certain thoughts into your what could be called consciousness. Keeping the first sentence in mind, this was not what he meant.

Also, if that is what you meant, in the post of yours now often quoted, that you do not admit certain thoughts does not mean that they are illogical. Perhaps they contradict something else you believe, and are illogical given your beliefs, but your beliefs are not givens.

I don't know guys. I like to think of myself as fairly moral person, but not a really religious one. I know i sin. I commit lust; you tell because you can see me on this forum from time to time..

I'd like to point out something from the first page that's been bugging me. We can all agree and point out that yes there has been wars fought over religious ideals. We can also point out that there has been wars fought for other issues not including religion correct? so where people nitpicking about number? war is war. I think if a country wants to find an excuse to attack another they will find one. just like if a person want to hurt/kill another it will eventually find one.

That leads into another thought I'd like to mention... some people are looking for a reason to cause other pain. they can be religious, they can be just sadists... could be a person with a mental disorder, or a chip on there shoulder that got high up whatever food chain. Hell drop it down a bit from the global scale to a younger smaller ones. Bully's happen. sometimes they grow out of it, sometimes they don't, seen both religious and none religious ones..

religion has it's place as believing in something right or wrong has helped people, but not believe doesn't make you bad, just different. And different isn't bad.

guess what I'm trying to say is that being having good moral (something i should have rant about since there are good and bad ones and only really focused on one end) isn't mutually exclusive to being and atheist or religious. It's a might be a born or breed thing maybe some of both.

odds are I'll be editing this later to make more sense but wanted to get this down while the thoughts where fresh in my head

Due to the lack of conclusive evidence for both sides of the arguement, then there is no logic in believeing in god, also, no logic in not believing in god. It is merely that...belief, nothing more, right or wrong. This leads me to the logical conclusion that 1oldminer is totally illogical.