>existence can exist
Proof: You
>existence can exist again
Cannot be disproved
>therefore literally everything has happened before exactly as it has happened in this lifetime in all aspects and will happen again ad nauseum
>implying this hasn't happened and will happen endlessly and is the only true example of infinity the 'universe' offers
>implying there is anything you can do to break the cycle
>implying you aren't in hell
>implying I am wrong
>>788528
>reading Nietzsche wrong
Not that I dislike the idea, it's great.
Prove "you" exist.
>>788595
Prove I don't you burden of sin.
>stickthatinyourdichoticpipe.hashtag
>>788528
>>existence can exist
>Proof: You
Jokes on you, I'm just a figment of your imagination.
>>788614
Not to me, to "yourself".
How do you prove your own existence? You can't. It would simply be an unprovable assertion as it would be circular at best. There are many ways to disprove it, such that simple observation would give us no indication of no such "you" or "self" existing.
>>788711
>How do you prove your own existence?
Me as I am is proof enough of my own existence just like you are proof enough of your own existence, you are misunderstanding the point, I do not need to prove my existence to you, you only need to prove your own existence to yourself which can be done instantly.
>>788721
A claim is not a proof. I think you're confusing proof with a claim.
>>788733
If you are questioning 'my' existence you must give some evidence against it, otherwise I am going to continue on existing.
>>788742
>Not to me, to "yourself".
Again, I'm not asking you to prove your existence to me, but to yourself. You can claim you exist, but that is still not a proof, but rather a claim that you assert.
>>788742
>if something can't be disproven, it MUST be true
If you really do exist, then you must be full shit. After all, you can't prove you're not.
>>788762
>Not the point, bro.
But that IS precisely the point. Just because something can't be proven not to be true doesn't mean anything.
>>788771
You are missing the point entirely, it's working on an assumption, obviously if it is proven to be disproved it wouldn't work.
Feel free to disprove it.
>>788779
Why even say anything if you cannot back any of it up?
>i dont always semantically shitfest
>>788804
That's got literally nothing to do with the issue at hand. You're literally saying you yourself 'you' do not exist in any shape or form even though you are right now shitposting on the internet and I can see and confirm it therefore confirming your own actions and being in some way shape or form, at least separate from me.
That being said, who can actually, with concrete evidence prove that they exist, you can't. Proof =/= faith.
>>788824
Its got everything to do with it.
You claim you know you can prove your own existence to yourself. How would you prove to yourself? Just claiming "I exist" does not make it a proof. Then you claimed that I must somehow prove that you don't exist for you to exist. This is basically what Russel is saying.
You have throughout given no indication of how you know that you exist and how you can prove to yourself that you exist.
>>788868
>You have throughout given no indication of how you know that you exist and how you can prove to yourself that you exist.
But I have said over and over again it's something that can't be proven ;^).
At least not to you which, even though you are saying you don't expect me to, you are. How do you expect me to prove to you that I have proven to myself that I exist?
You're simply feeding for attention and I am done here. Thanks for ruining a thread. Have a nice life.
>>788528
>therefore literally everything has happened before exactly as it has happened in this lifetime in all aspects and will happen again ad nauseum
Okay.
But that means literally fucking nothing if nothing about it changes, it'd result in the same thing as it all happening once.
First premise I'm fine with.
On what basis can existence exist again? I don't care if it can't be disproved, any positive truth claim requires justification and I don't follow your logic on this premise.
And for your third premise: what? What's the logic here? This argument is far from valid in the first place and I seriously doubt how you're going about to prove the second premise.
I think you need to learn a bit more about formal, analytical argumentation.
Also I fail to see the value of the conclusion.
Really I just don't understand what the fuck you're getting at.
>>788528
>Because we cannot currently disprove it, it is that way.
