You don't exist !

[Breakingthewall]

I exist. In fact, I am the existence. For some reason, or for no reason at all, I am taking the appearance of a person with some circumstances, an apparently limited appearance, but it is not, it is unlimited. In me is the totality, I am the infinite that is. There is no doubt, and I cannot stop existing, it is absolutely impossible. I perceive my quality, it is unlimited existence, mysterious but at the same time familiar. Everything is here, and everything is beauty. infinite dimensions, there are no limits. That's really what we are: absence of limits. 

[Yimpa]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

absence of limits

AoL… the reverse of LoA, hehe

[Thought Art]

@Keryo Koffa Sharing some tunes ain't trolling my friend. It's contemplative rock.

Edited October 8 by Thought Art

[UnbornTao]

I think it is important to first get clear on the subject. 

[Atb210201]

Yes we don't exist.

Non of us exist.

I don't exist.

You don't exist.

The world does not exist.

Every "thing" is non existant.

Thank God for that.

Only God (The Ultimate Goodness) Exists in Truth.

Let Us Pray to God please let me annihilate; let me die; and only You remain; because there is nothing but You; How can I claim I exist when You are the only thing there is?

God please let there only be You.

You The Supreme.

You The Sublime.

You The Good.

You The Just.

You The Omnipresent.

You The Omniscient.

You The Lover.

You The Beloved.

You The Love.

Edited October 9 by Atb210201

[Ero]

17 hours ago, zurew said:

It does. The claim isn't that non-existence exist, the claim is that certain things don't exist (in this case you).

I am curious if you can derive a contradiction from the premise of "you don't exist".

Observe that the same proof works for any collection of things that don’t exist, which you can denote A_1 \subset A^C (all things that don’t exist). If they did exist, then A_1\subset A, but this is a contradiction with the intersection A^C \cap A is by definition empty (whereas if A_1 did exist, it would be part of their intersection)

 

[Princess Arabia]

There is ultimately one body. One Self. It all exists, or none at all. It's like looking in the mirror. Your reflection technically doesn't exist, but it's still there. Without you there's no reflection of you. So whatever you're aware of is also a reflection of you.

Edited October 9 by Princess Arabia

[thedoorsareopen]

Actually I did the math again, and turns out you're right, you don't exist.

Pack it up, boys.

[Keryo Koffa]

12 minutes ago, thedoorsareopen said:

Actually I did the math again, and turns out you're right, you don't exist.

Pack it up, boys.

[zurew]

On 2024. 10. 09. at 5:19 PM, Ero said:

Observe that the same proof works for any collection of things that don’t exist, which you can denote A_1 \subset A^C (all things that don’t exist). If they did exist, then A_1\subset A, but this is a contradiction with the intersection A^C \cap A is by definition empty (whereas if A_1 did exist, it would be part of their intersection)

I don't see how that replies to what I asked you.

Again, the claim wasn't that non-existence exists or that your non-existence exists , the claim by op was that you don't exist.

 

Do you think the claim that "X doesn't exist" logically entails that "X exists"? 

 

To be clear if you just want to say , that the claim of "non-existence exists" entails a contradiction and for us to derive that contradiction we don't need to know the meaning of the word "existence" and "non-existence" - I agree with that.

Edited October 11 by zurew

[Yimpa]

"What you are basically, deep, deep down, far, far in, is simply the fabric and structure of existence itself.'

-AW

[Mellowmarsh]

On 07/10/2024 at 9:49 PM, Will1125 said:

Do you agree ?

''You'' does not exist as a concept known: ie as a concept known as ''You''.

 

Concepts known, know nothing of their existence.