The question then becomes: what principles of logic are most relevant to existence. And what is the most obvious and efficient manifestation of these principles?

The most efficient and effective method of proving what is true is to show that if the presumption that it is false should some how still lead to the conclusion that it is true, then the fact is true, and it can no longer be argued with. For if even to suppose that a fact is false leads to the conclusion that the fact is true, then it is not possible to prove that the fact is false, and you must agree that it is true. This method of proof is called reduction to absurdity, and it is used by mathematician and physicist to prove the validity of their arguments and theorems. It is used when a statement can only be either true or false. Then they suppose that the fact is false. When the implications of this assumption lead to contradictions with that assumption, then they know that their assumption was wrong, and the fact must be true.

For instance, In 500 BC, Pathagorous showed that the square root of 2 could not be expressed as one whole number divided by another whole number. Pathagorous showed that if he assumed that the square root of 2 could be expressed as a fraction of whole numbers, then the numerator and denominator of this fraction would each have a factor of 2 which would violate the law that this fraction could be expressed in lowest terms to begin with. Thus he concluded that their are some numbers that cannot be expressed as a fraction of whole numbers.

Or as another example, let's suppose that it is possible to travel back in time. If this were possible, then you could go back in time to before you went back in time and prevent yourself from going back in time. Since your going back in time could prevent your going back in time, it is not possible to go back in time.

Lawyers try to get their opponent to change their minds. For if even the opposition proves his case, then the lawyer has won the case and their can be no more argument.

Physical systems express this principle as stable equilibrium. Stable equilibrium occurs when a force compels an object into a certain state - such as a ball inside a bowl. The fact that the ball is not at the bottom of the bowl means that the ball will role towards the bottom of the bowl. Therefore, we would expect the ball to come to rest at the bottom of the bowl.

To ensure the stability, integrity, and reliability of an electric signal, circuits employ negative feedback. These circuits work such that if the signal should stray from the desired value, a portion of the signal is inverted and added to the input of the circuit which tends to force the signal in the opposite direction from which is strays. Its straying from the desired value caused it to reestablish the desired value. And so the integrity of the signal is maintained.

And so if anything can be established for certain, then even the opposite must prove the thing for certain. In fact, you cannot legitimately change your mind about anything unless your presumptions lead you to believe the opposite. And so it must be a legitimate principle because you are trying to change your opponents position on the matter and show him the error of his assertions.

In fact, there is only one way of proving any proposition that you may consider. You must show that facts that are considered true lead to the conclusion that facts in question are also true. But this is equivalent to showing that if the fact in question being false leads to a contradiction of facts that are considered true, then the fact in question must instead be true. And so if a fact being considered false forces the conclusion that the fact is true, then the fact is true, and it can no longer be argued with.

If we are to make any sense of our lives, then we must be able to attribute human life with attributes that are characteristic of logic and reason. And logic is a description of how only propositions interact. Therefore, we must be able to consider a person to be a proposition subject to the rule of logic. You show that you consider your life to be a proposition every time you make a decision that effects your life. How you will live and whether you live or die is often the basis of your decisions which means that you yourself are treating your very life as if it were a proposition of logic.

Like a proposition that can be either true or false, a person can be either alive or dead. A proposition can not be neither true nor false. A person can not be neither alive nor dead. A proposition can not be both true and false. A person can not be both alive and dead. And so life and death is a good representation of true and false. This is especially true for humans since their arguments and debate many times result in killing one another. Then the victor thinks that they are right and their statements are true just because they are alive. Whereas they think that their enemies are wrong and their statement are false just because they are dead.

And so, if a human life can be considered to be a proposition that is either true or false. If humans are destined to demonstrate the principles of reason and logic. Then if a person shall prove to be true and just, his death must lead to his coming back to life. There must be a resurrection for those who are just and true.