nevertheless despite your protestations , a non belief is a belief in and of itself. again no need for the flaccid sarcasm, it does not support your point. if understanding what cannot be known is existential absurdity then i am guilty of that. no court convict me however. how can i know what cannot be known,i do not claim to but i am aware of the unresolvable , open ended nature of the response to certain types of questions. their are elements of existence that cannot be known. knowing that does not constitute knowing specifiy what that unknown is, now does it? but just as absurd in the logical everyday sense is to deny that your belief is in non its just semantics, dont be so offended. i know that the resolution to this line of dialogue is unknowable. how do i know that, common sense. well i have reached the paltry limit of my understanding. hey, a mans gotta know his limitations, to quote another great philosopher.. i think therefore i am. is that passe by now? well thanks for giving it a try. this all started with ho's.