cause+effect=logic

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.