I know I have committed the blunder of art-overanalysis when I have broken its meaning down into several equations.

Formal logic, with it's numbered sentences equations and rules, often stretches into this area. How do I know this? How can I prove it using formal logic? I can't. But I can tell you for sure that God doesn't exist. How? I just know. It's impossible. Does Mickey Mouse exist? Not in the run-across-your-screen-in-a-movie or cartoon or even frolicking in the minds of children. Does he exist like other mice exist, in the REAL sense? Absolutely not. A priori truth is the only correct variety.

Should I need to defend myself against the accusation that I am not a human, but rather an elephant? Is it even worth my time to say, "I am not an elephant because I lack certain characteristics such as a trunk." And then to have hear arguments stating that I am an elephant because I dwell on earth and drink water and breath air, etc. The God question isn't a question at all, but a silly assertion not worthy of these very words.

--

Chomsky was right when he talked about the difficulty of overcoming propaganda--that very few people can come home from work and carry on a research project looking for news sources (i.e. truth) outside of the evening news. During my academic years, ideas were important to me. Energy for scholarly subjects abounded. Work was learning. Now work is something different and I have time certainly, but precious little energy to think for myself. Chomsky's speeches bundle up truth more neatly and accurately than any news source.