If man, in his increasing knowledge, should recognize certain limitations that constantly dog his progress and impede his ascension to greater understanding, is it necessary to conclude that said limitations are endemic of his very nature and therefore inescapable? To phrase it differently, are there some categories of knowlege that are truly unworthy of purusit by mankind by virtue of their incommensurability and subsequently supposed uselessness? I submit that there are no such ideas, there are no vistas of knowledge that are beyond the grasp of man, for if there are, we surely do not know them. By virtue of even seeking for matters of truth and grasping that any sort of truth requires struggle before triumph, we are made worthy of the prize. If the human species had evolved to use something other than sight to detect prey and predator, then it would not have gazed at the sky and pondered such mighty questions as it did. By virtue of sight, and immeasurably more so by virtue of intellect, human beings are able to search out the mysteries of not only the macroverse beyond the limit of the sky, but also the microverse inside every atom. A question not worth pursing is a question that has never been asked, all others are vulnerable to human inquriy. Simply put, if we are capable of asking the question, then it is relevant to life and deserves an answer equal to its inherent magnanimity.
This need for truth applies especially the outcome of our survival instinct, which is namely the search for god and some hope of immortality. It is not enough to say that certainty cannot be obtained on this question outdating our entire species, even though that statement is true. For the individual, the question must be contemplated and comprehended else it will hound one relentlessly. Of course for that to be possible certain changes must be made to the question, because one can certainly not sure of something that is, in modern definition, unfalsifiable. Logical proofs may be constructed in support of the atheistic or theistic position, but they are all underpined by emotion. An indivudal, for instance, might not be able to speak matter of factly on either god's apparent existence or lack thereof. But that same individual is capable of wondering what the consequences of each possibility would be. The choice to believe in god is a logical decision only for those who have been free of hardship or who have not been raised to believe. Those who have suffered, and those who once longed for god cannot escape from their pathos when confronted with a question such as this. The choice, as always, lies with the indivudal, but it should never be said that such a choice is easy or logical. For it is assumed in most, if not all religions, that god is not a logical being and is not bound by such laws as would apply to such a creature. For such a reason religious people refuse to listen to the dictates of their reason; the emotional drive to believe is too great and they are constantly offered the loophole of god's impossible power, rooted in the Absurd. The original question cannot be answered universally; the answer is eternally relative. But that in no way hampers the impact of such a question on indivduals and on society as a whole.