{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/7/2015 11:40:44 PM
1
-
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.
