>Just because you don't want something to exist, that doesn't >mean it doesn't exist.
There's no "want" in the position I espouse...as I've said, I could be wrong, but I'm much more comfortable in a position that does not rely upon the mystical to explain existence.
And of course the converse of your collary is equally valid; just because you want something to exist, doesn't mean it does.
I never said I wanted anything to exist. Quite the contrary, to be scientific one should consider the possibility that nothing exists at all. Are you capable of this?
I did say that logic will get you nowhere.
For example, you seem to say you won't be satisfied without some kind of proof, i.e., a proof that answers to your intellect. But then you say that proof isn't even possible. So where does this leave you?
I agree with you that intellectual proof isn't possible. But you don't rely on the intellect to tell you water is good when you're thirsty.
I don't mean to be unkind, but since you think in terms of "A" versus "B" - it can only be one or the other, two logical opposites, both of which are absurd - this indicates to me you are a little slow of wit.
Are you the author of the intellect of which you seem so proud?
Did you ever wonder where you came from?