[sirjohn]

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?

[fourthrider]

>Did you ever wonder where you came from?

Well, given that both parents are planted and barring any genetic evidence to the contrary, I assume I occurred as the result of an exchange of fluids between my parents.

But I suspect you are alluding to an argument of "first causes" which is both pointless and circular.

The only idea I'm trying to raise here is that human existence can be understood without having to rely upon mystical explanations.

For me that works, there is for me no mystical underpinning for our being around pumping air. And when we stop pumping air we just stop, that's it....nothing else follows.

I'm not bothered by that prospect in the least...but if one feels the need to infer that there is more beyond this life, there's no harm, no foul. If they're right, they're right, if they're wrong, it won't make any difference to them -- they'll never know :)

I, speaking for myself, and only for myself, find life to be a lot more understandable proceeding on the basis that there is no underlying mystical component to it.