No. There’s no logical or scientific explanation for karma. Not even a spiritual one. It’s just a mindset that makes you do better in life. Much like you attract what you put out. It’s just a mindset. It’s not real. Karma doesn’t exist. The shittiest people get the best things and the best people sometimes get the shit end of the stick. If karma exists why would that happen? So no.
Part 1 of 0
"There's no logical or scientific explanation for it"
Firstly, this is an absolute statement. Absolute claims are difficult to prove because they require a perfect knowledge to be able to confirm. That perfect knowledge must either be direct, such as knowing how any single thing works, which allows you to confirm how it doesn't work. Or it must be holistic, whereby you know everything else so you can confirm what little remains. These may not be impossible, but in a discussion or context where proof is the name of the game, they must also be proven.
Secondly, this is an absolute claim where a non-existence is being claimed. Now a specific impossibility like normal water not being made of chromium is easy, but a non-specific one, dealing with a vague concept that itself requires clarification is almost impossible to back up. (I actually wanted to question OP itself first, but your post . . . ). That's why in scientific studies, you always hear claims of new discoveries, but not declarations of non-existences. It is correctly said that one can almost never declare something to not exist. That's actually one of the strong points of the atheistic arguement, that they don't mean that religion is wrong, but that they'd rather have proof of it being correct before committing to anything. So basically, to declare a non-specific impossibility, you must know everything, quite literally. If you know less than everything, then you don't know what might occupy the missing parts and so cannot declare a non-specific impossibility. So unless you can prove perfect knowledge, such claims are always wrong on their own. It is more accurate to say that YOU haven't SEEN . . . whatever evidence you said doesnt exist.
And that's another matter to cover, the "you" part of such discussions.
Thirdly, the specifics of your claim are questionable. You spoke of logic. That is in the realm of the mind. The mind of a person is not perfect, it cannot always recognise things. So it is not good enough to base a claim of a lack of logic on. It is more accurate to say that YOU cant FIND a logical explanation. And since this is so, you also can't base a claim on what is already a near-impossible claim of a lack of logical explanation.
Note that this is just looking at the claims on their own, before any attempt at backing them up can be made and scrutinised. The proof thing applies all around. Just as one side must bring proof to its claims, so must the other side, scrutinising it.
Fourthly, you spoke of scientific explanations. Now i have already covered the matter of claims of impossibility. They easily carry over to the science part, so there is no need to do them here as well. However, there are some unique factors at play here. What does "scientific" mean? It means 'of science' which translates to 'of knowledge'. Since science = knowledge, by definition. The thing is, though, that it is not used by definition, but by wording to mean 'all possible knowledge/information, as if the confirmations of what people know are anywhere near extensive or qualified enough to declare what they don't know as impossible to be true. On top of this, if you look at what knowledge is, it depends on what people are even capable of knowing. It could be that some things are beyond people, so their knowledge may not be good enough to confirm impossibilities like this in the first place. Even if it is, you would.have to measure it completely . . . And even before that, the common understanding of what constitutes science is faulty on its own. People usually mistake the work of a few people among those known as scientists as science. Science is knowledge, the work of people is only an attempt at gaining knowledge. Of course, the fact that they are people has its obvious flaws in this context. Still, even if they could gather and process and then express all gathered knowledge, there is the matter of limits. Limited people in time and capability cannot cover all angles of any field of work, never mind one as extensive as the world we live in. This means they prioritise their efforts and direction. So before one even applies their lack of evidence, they must prove that there was a good enough attempt at covering any topic. And of course, a lack of evidence is still not enough to prove a lack of existence, since people are always learning. The whole Copernicus things shows this. I mean, if scientists are still debating the issue of the earth being halo shaped instead of cubic or geoid, despite all the technology at their disposal, that should tell you that their claims themselves are not nearly perfect enough to base further claims upon, especially when dealing with such a vague concept as karma. Hmm, i could rage on about that one. It really irritates me.bIn this case, you're presenting a lack of claims . . .
"Not even a spiritual one"
This is an escalation.
The issue of absolute claims has already been covered. So has the one of claims of impossibility, as well as of lack of evidence, particularly for a vague concept. As has the unique qualities of each line of reasoning.
In this case, is spirituality. This one is difficult becauss even from my own side i can't imagine how you would try to legitimise this point. In a largely physical world with physical people with physical senses, predominabtly, spirituality becomes the king of vague concepts. So to use it as you have (aforementioned claims of imposibility) is always gonna be problematic. Unless, of course, you can prove sufficient knowledge of the spiritual realm . . .
"Its just a mindset . . . its not real"
"Just" = nothing more
As soon as you explain an effect, you imply more because effects require reason or desire.
Of course, every known thing has meaning/value to it, connections to greator things, so it's practically, if bot completely, impossible for anything to be just this or that, unless the 'this or that' you describe covers literally any and everything in existence.
Of course, this is also an escalation, because you pronounced another absolute claim, of a limit of quality.
Oh, and speaking of effect. If it is a positive effect, precisely along the lines the concept claims to offer, doesnt that qualify the concept? Wait, could it be you were playing some epic 7D Lunar Chinese Chess moves on us, and this whole time supporting karma instead of bashing it?
Anyway, why would being a mindset, a something, make it "not real"? Are mindsets not things or based on real things/experiences? Especially in the context where karma can be a thing?
" Does not be-efie"
Absolute claims, as noted . . .
In this case, you'd have to have a precise understanding of what youre dealing with plus the capability to know all existence.
That already applies in the physical realm. Imagine for the conceptual and metaphysical . . .
"The stinkiest . . . "
Another absolute claim, but this time of certainty
You'd have to know everything that happens, lest that one thing you don't be some epic counterbalancing event . . .
You'd then need a good enough moral compass to determine what people deserve . . .
Then the logical capability to connect actions with reactions, as per the karmaic mechanic
Finally . . . yeah no, thats it.
This is the "you" part of these discussions. Before you examine any topic, first examine yourself relative to it. How does the topic relate to you, in terms of what you should seek from it? Is the quality of the topic tied to you and your ability to know it? If so, how exactly? The first piece of context in any investigation is not the information, but the one who seeks it out and wields it. Hence we say: "know thyself, conquer thyself, then the world". If you understand the one dealing with the topic, you will not only understand the information they give, but even your ability to refine it will improve.
Otherwise, how have you been? I understand the times are cruel.
No.
Give me proof and I will give you proof you are wrong.
"Proof"
Premises . . .