on parallel lines intersecting with reality

how do we know that parallel lines do not intersect? the perpendicular distances between them at any point on either line are equal in all cases..but how can we be sure that the ends of the lines do not meet at infinity? yes, surely a physically drawn line can never be perfectly straight, just as any object existing in three-dimensional reality is not perfect. but consider simply the idea of a straight line, and then the idea of two such lines satisfying the colinear property...then those lines will never intersect--not now, not later, never even at infinity.

so then here lies the point of the issue--it is not possible for reality to match up to ideality, much like how the best execution of an idea will never truly fulfill it: that the truest form of reality, is not real.

everything we act upon with our human bodies, are but projections of perfect ideas existing in our human minds. with better methods, one can at best produce a favourable estimate, but never the realisation of what we think. when we think of triangles, we know they exist, because we can draw triangles. but few of us know that no one can truly draw a triangle, only a triangle simulade. yet because we have been drawing triangles for thousands of years, we have deluded ourselves into thinking we have achieved such an idea. the corresponding delusion is that triangles do exist. in the fundamental sense...triangles do not exist--at least not in reality.

yet we are able to define what a triangle means: three straight lines, with each line intersecting the other two. we are able to form this definition of a triangle, only because we already possess knowledge of the idea of a straight line. continuing, we are able to form this definition of a line because we possess the knowledge of the idea of an interconnected series of dimensionless points..even though it is impossible to line up dots if each dot has no dimensions. straight lines cannot exist. yet we accept the idea of it, because it is useful (we can make triangles outta those! spiffy!).

therein lies the next point: we humans are really not concerned with what is real or unreal, but instead we accept anything that works. it has become a property of humanity that we define reality according to what is useful to us, not whether reality is real or not. this is the real reason for the existence of philosophers: we need them, because without them, we humans warp reality to our own faulty understanding of it. we need the philosphers to remind us that we are subjects of reality, not vice versa, as our repeated successes with controlling our environment has given us false confidence in.

yes, i think it is bad that we define reality as things that work for us. but there is one greater sin: defining unreality as things which do not work for us. this would be a fallacy of denying the antecedent. eg, a particular fruit not being an apple is not grounds for claiming that an apple is not a fruit.

we have accepted the definition of a dimensionless point, even though we know they cannot exist. we have accepted the definition of a straight line, even though we know they cannot exist. we have also accepted the definition of the triangle, even though we know they cannot exist. we have done all this because the point, the line and the triangle are useful ideas. they exist, because we have defined them to exist.

so when the question arrives, "Does God exist?" we cannot prove the answer; we can only define it's usefullness. the debate on it is fruitless abandon to all participants not educated on their own delusions of what reality actually is. these men and women should not lie on the bed of truth thinking they can define reality simply because they can make definitions.