I have come upon this idea, and when I try to explain it to any one else, it is always tossed aside as though it holds no real significance. And in several instances, people seem to be angered by the idea that I state the possibility of them being non-existent. So, I wanted to see how all of you City folks respond. My little idea is this: It is easier to believe you do not exist than it is to believe that you do. Here is, in its least complex form, my logic for this statement. 1. To state your non existence, only this statement is needed: "You do not exist." 2. To state your existence, proof is needed. 3. Proof of existence is impossible. 4. With no absolute proof of your "existence" AND none of your "non existence", the argument is reduced to purely faith 5. Thereby, it is easier to believe that you do not exist than it is to believe you do exist. So, any takers??? PS. by "faith", I mean that in its original definition...a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that is not yet proven. Not "faith" in the religious meaning.