"We could be illusions of ourselves using an illusion of logic we believe to exist, simply because we're incapable of thinking in a manner that belies its existence. >_>"
in terms of being or not being - if we Are, then we are real in some sense, as are all illusions. if something exists in perception, it exists, even if only within the whole of that which perceives it.
"Strong though it may be, it does not take into account the possibility of the logic we utilize to come to that conclusion as not truly existing."
the logic we utilize would have no utility if it did not consider some things possible and some things logically impossible. it is logically impossible for us to come to the conclusion that we are not and have never been anything. if we came to that conclusion, it would be illogically (and inconclusively, because subconsciously and partly consciously, we would not believe it, because it is functionally impossible to believe, as belief is also a thing and implicitly linked to existence). I think it does take that possibility into account, but it does so within the very definition of logic itself. all language is built on a structure of logic - this means this and not that. one thing and not the other. definition. in nothing, there is no definition. there is no logic. nothing doesn't exist. even these quantifications of nothing can only imply something logical, because if used absolutely, they defeat themselves and become oxymorons, as does anything that treats 'nothing' as an absolute. so no one can ever come to absolute conclusions about nothing (yes this is also self-defeating). besides, if we do not truly exist, then logic can't tell us that we don't, because to know that truly we'd have to be objective. also, utilizing logic, coming to conclusions, thinking, believing, perceiving, all imply some level of existence and definition. either you disbelieve in the existence of definition (which is self-defeating because by disbelieving and in fact doing any thinking at all you have defined a moment of belief or thought, AND you have to define the term definition to believe or disbelieve it) or you can see how the circular argument did take into account that possibility, as being logically impossible. either you believe that nothing can prove itself (a belief which can't prove itself, is self-defeating, and defeats all other belief) or you believe something can prove itself (a belief which works).
"The neat thing is that if the logic we understand is only an illusion to go along with everything else, then it still reinforces my point. ;>.>"
no, because if it has a point, than it has a logic. if logic is only an illusion, than so is the premise that logic is an illusion. see what I mean by self-
defeating? to be illusory is to behave according to a certain kind of logic, the logic that defines the term illusory. to be nothing and insubstantial is to behave according to a certain kind of logic, which logic defeats itself in an attempt, in this sentence, to describe what it can't describe. nothing, and absolute insubstantiality, cannot be accurately described or encapsulated, even in this sentence. every attempt to handle nothing is useless, even this attempt, which defeats itself. the idea that logic is an illusion is likewise self-defeating. so when you start to recognize these oxymoronic loops in thinking, while you can spend as much time defeating yourself within them as you want, easier just to move on. all thought is a form of attempted organization; so disbelieving in logic, in the long term, amounts to attempting to organizing a way to realize that you never attempted to organize.
if what we experience is not existence, then the concept of existence is useless. if what we experience is nothing, than all conceptualization is useless (and nothing), so any questions in that direction amount to a snake biting itself in the ass. just because a snake can bite itself in the ass doesn't mean that that is the reason it evolved that ability.
the purpose of questioning is not to question everything, but to find things to believe in, things that are the least questionable. you can go on questioning forever but if you question questioning itself you know the point at which questioning destroys its own basis, which is Finding a Useful Answer.