and yet claim that they don't exist. There's no coherent response to that. I mean, their reality is vital to your picture, and that should be proof enough that not everything that exists can be physically touched or pointed to. I'm afraid that claiming that logic and reason don't exist, and then claiming that they are the best methods we have to understand reality, is as incoherent as it gets. "X is the best method of explanation we have for reality. Also, X does not exist." Sure. Logic and reason exist, as abstract, non-material entities. Why is that so difficult to swallow? |