It is simply a continuation, and the logic isn't so "flawed" as you presume. — Derrick Huesits
We potentially agree more than you think, — Derrick Huesits
Non-existence can't exist
-so, there must be infinite existence in all directions for all time — Derrick Huesits
-something which exists carries certain attributes: is affected by things, effects things, takes up space and encompasses time — Derrick Huesits
-things are separated by things which are not of the same type, so the only thing that could separate existence itself would be nonexistence which cannot exist, thus there must be one undivided existence — Derrick Huesits
-this undivided existence must carry all the attributes labeled above. These attributes, when defined as being all-encompassing, define all the omni's associated with God: omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. And perpetual change through creativity: omnificent. — Derrick Huesits
-add to this the fact that it must encompass all time: eternal, and you get all the labels attributed to God
-thus, the notion of God can be grasped from a purely logical standpoint. — Derrick Huesits
That's a pretty strong indication that what you're trying to express is not coherent.Go ahead and form it better, I have run through many different sentences in my mind and any sentence discussing nonexistence in general seems to face a strange language breakdown
Non-existence can't exist
-so, there must be infinite existence in all directions for all time
-something which exists carries certain attributes: is affected by things, effects things, takes up space and encompasses time — Derrick Huesits
No arguing about your subjectivity. The real question is, why come on a philosophy forum that deliberates over the truth and say there is no truth assertively as though you have it? — Derrick Huestis
Indeed, it does. But then:If language, philosophy, etc. don't allow for the discussion of absolute nothingness, that says it all right there. — Derrick Huesits
I talk about absolute nothingness as being "smaller than infinitesimal" and existing for a time that is "less than instantaneous." — Derrick Huesits
Perhaps another way of putting it, you have enough understanding to create problems, but not enough to solve the problems you've created. — Derrick Huestis
Non-existence can't exist
— Derrick Huesits
↪T Clark
The physics here is unnecessary. The sentence above is simply not well-formed.
1d — Banno
little to do with philosophy — Derrick Huestis
I watched the video and it commits an error right from the beginning with question: Does nonexistence exist? — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.