infinite, eternal universe

larry

around and around we go with skarp, now he wants us to DEFINE? i knew it's a phony.

<i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />I started typing up my answer, but I realized I don't have the time to give it justice in that finding the right words could take hours to put out the equivalent of a few sentences. That means work gets in the way of completing the task.

____________________________________________________________________

skarp

take the time were patient and i'm sure you can simplify but i still think it is BEYOND you. take your time off to give it justice,if it is just, it's worth the time,is it not? otherwise such a cop out.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You have to concede that non-existence cannot be a cause nor an effect whatsoever.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Not really.

Although I find it unlikely that proof of this sort will come anytime soon. The best I can do is give you something indicating this to be so. You might concede that Non-Existence would be the equivalent of a rebel without a cause. Would you agree that this is possible?

If not - It would behoove you to say that MM is impossible also, leaving you in quite the quandary, because you are here, as opposed to what?

Yet another cogitation that answers the last question.

7. I Exist because I don't Exist.

Skarp,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">7. I Exist because I don't Exist.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm not following this line of reasoning. You either exist or you don't. Care to explain the semantics?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm not following this line of reasoning. You either exist or you don't. Care to explain the semantics?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> As I have been saying - "Being a single thing, there is an obligation or necessity, to occupy a certain place, used to indicate location, a condition of being, distinguished by absence. In other words - What you are is equally dependent on what you are not.

When you say you either exist or you don't. You are stating the truth, but you give no importance to what is equally vital to your existence {{{That you don't exist}}}.

As a further note - Logic's purpose is to define Illogic, while Illogic spew's out logic by it's very nature. What could be more Illogical than logic from the standpoint of illogic?. Non-Existence the equivalent of Illogic will spit out Existence (logic) like a bad taste in it's mouth.

Doesn't make sense?

I'm glad it doesn't, because if it did - We couldn't be what we are not. []