Oh. Well, in that case I'm not really interested in that.Gengar003 wrote: Lol, No, I'm not. I do understand. I'm asking you what's beyond the edge that doesn't exist. I KNOW it doesn't follow the logic and is a dumb question. But what's the answer?
Likewise I'm not interested if the 4 dimentional chicken singularity's eyes are red or blue or green, and I'm not interested if there is one god or a number of them, and I don't care about their names (if they do exist).
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.Gengar003 wrote:YES! YES YES YES I KNOW! I'm pointing out that semantics WILL FUCK THINGS UP. We're saying the same thing (I think:)YarpsDat wrote: Again, playing with semantics.
When I say "Playing with semantics" I meant "using imperfectness of the language we're using in to obscure the flaws in the reasoning"
In the example I quoted the last time, you do two mutually exclusive assumptions: that the thing you call "nonexistence" does not exist, and that is does (it is "present"), except one of the assumptions is "cleverly" hidden between words.
You can assume the thing you describe as "nonexistence" does not exists. This bears no contradiction.
If you assume it exists, and doesn't exist, at the same time, it carries just as much contradiction as your example.Gengar003 wrote: Yes, except "Strawberry jam existing" does not carry [...] the conceptual contradiction of something that DOES NOT EXIST ending up existing.
Except I'm not playing with semantics.
Maybe some people will benefit.Gengar003 wrote:anyone who read this far in the thread is probably more knowledgeable for it.
I'm just afraid someone may mistake your pseudo-scientific babblon for actual science. Which, given the "brain shutdown syndrome" is all to likely. Unfortunately.
















