ah... to all this, i have but one question.
"we will never actually achieve the necessary evidence without breaking the rules of existence."

what are the rules of existence?

- you have to think carefully about your answer, because what may seem like a simple answer of existence may very well be misleading. for example, as in Flatland, a zeroeth dimensional being understand the existence of the first dimensional being? could the first understand the second? the second the third? and the third... the fourth?
What may seem illogical to us may very well be obeying the laws of "nature" or "god" or whatever it is that is the definer or creater. it may simply be that we, as creatures with finite senses, with finite understanding, with finite knowledge, cannot comprehend the true logic and thus, have developed our own finite logic to make sense of our world. this doesn't mean that what is not logical cannot exist or that which is logical must exist. If you assume so, you yourself are commiting a logical fallacy of assuming something to be true or untrue simply because it hasn't been proven or disproven.

where does that leave us?

it leaves us as beings who must admit that our understanding, our logic, everything we believe in to truly exist, may actually be "wrong" in the true logic of things... or perhaps there is no true logic of things and it is simply that which is... nevertheless, we must use our logic, must use our understanding, because without it, we are lost, and have no means by which to analyze, examine, reflect, think about ourselves and our world.

posted by Bryan Lee   [8:37 PM]

[ website ] :: [ contact ] :: [ home ]

XML