Hey Suzy. I set it up. Am I a freakin genius or what? I figured out the name of the proof I was interested in. It's called the principle of anti-realism. And it claims that if a truth exists, then the truth is knowable. Well, that's pretty neato in and of itself, but then this guy named Fitch beefed it up even more. He created a proof that claimed that if something is knowable, then it is known. So that would imply (together with the anti-realism principle) that if a truth exists, it is known. But a lot of people don't approve of his proof. Unfortunately all of this proofing is done in a language that I don't understand. Its called modal logic, and as far as I can tell, it is definitely not constrained by the type of logic we normally think of. For example, in the logic I am used to, if you start out with an assumption and proceed by logic to arrive at a contradiction, then that proves the assumption false. But some modal logicians think that a contradiction isn't that powerful...that it can't prove something false. It seems like they like to leave the door open to the possibility that logic is wrong. I'm going to go read about it, see if we can't prove god exists after all. I mean if Fitch is right, then the existence of something proves that it is known. In that case either we know everything (in which case we are god), or there is a thing or things that together know everything (in which case the collection is god). At least as far as I am concerned. But that is certainly due to my bias toward knowledge. I am just assuming that an all knowing being is all powerful. But that is obviously not a guarantee. Anyway, exciting stuff.