3582. Since [I say] I know not in regard to these things how they contribute to life, and deem it impossible that life should be the result - if on this account I should deny that the sparrow really lived and was what it is, [should I not act unreasonably?] Would it not be sufficient that it was plain that it did live and was of such a quality? And to reason in such a way, would it not be to cast the mind into such shades and darkness - which were at the same time thence represented - that I should deny what was [obviously] true? It was also given to represent a certain flower which I see to be a flower of beautiful colors. If now I should reason from the stalk, from its fibers, which simply rise on high, from the juice oozing forth, then from the root, how it could produce and form such things, so that the particles should beautifully arrange themselves as if they knew what they were about, causing such elegant colors and also the flower itself to exist - if from these things I should reason concerning the existence and quality of the flower, should I not fall into shade, and deny that the flower existed, and so on? Wherefore a thousand objections may be started; as many, in fact, as the objects themselves, and all of such a nature as to destroy truth and cover its light with darkness.