Mar 15, 2012

Godly or Not To Be

invite your friends
 and sit with me
upon a branch
of not-a-tree,
and contemplate
"to be:"

if a tree falls in the forest
and no citizen is there,
to ask if something happened
is both reasonable and fair;

 should methodic observation
reveal not-a-fallen-tree
with evidence that indicates
there may be not-a-forestry,

 and, given human limitations
to perceptual perfection
(factored in our science use
of hypotheses creation)

 existence of a forest or not-forest
or a fallen not-tree in it
is neither proved nor disproved
 by hear-say or by legend;

so, is it not convention
in a civil discourse instance
to allow invisibility
is not-a-proof of existence

and that proving what-is-not
cannot be done logically?
Yet, irreverently, imbeds of theology
ask this of the religion-free;

religionists are not usually
thought of as having "special needs"
so full discussion does insist
they, to convention, must accede.

(hat-tip to R.Gervais)