{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/7/2015 3:31:42 PM
15
-
Non- prefix 1. Not doing; not involved with: (I.e. nonaggression) 2. Not of the kind or class described: (I.e. nonbeliever) •also forming nouns used attributively(such as "nonunion") 3. Not of the importance implied: (I.e. nonissue) 4. [u]A lack of: (I.e. nonsense)[/u] Using the fourth possibly usage of the prefix, it would imply a lack of existence.
-
That's no what am I am asking. Give me an example of nonexistence.
-
By scientific definition, anything that hasn't been proven is nonexistent.
-
Edited by The Cellar Door: 1/7/2015 4:15:40 PMI don't want you to define it for me, I want you to tell me, what is nonexistent?
-
Not existing. What more do you want me to tell you?
-
How can you distinguish what is non existent if you cannot distinguish what is existent? Being existent is, as you say, being proven, but how is that proof existent if the observer themselves is supposedly non existent?
-
Nothing is real, or everything is real.
-
Neither distinction can be proven, so they do not exist.
-
So...then....nothing at all exists?
-
Edited by The Cellar Door: 1/8/2015 12:07:18 AMNothing can be proven to exist if we cannot distinguish from non existence
-
Nothing can be technically proven, yes.
-
So the argument is illogical because neither distinction is plausible.
-
In which case, again, as I said, either nothing exists or everything does then.
-
So both distinctions cannot exist simultaneously, and as such you cannot prove existence from non existence, and furthermore your question is illogical
-
Lol I really don't even know what I'm arguing anymore. This thread reached a lot more replies than I expected.
