Proof that our "souls" can be made aware of anything even after we die and proof that you have as much chance of suffering after committing suicide as you do if you chose to continue to live. Looking for someone to prove this to via e-mail.
https://sites.google.com/site/paulobrienhunter is the information I'll be proving to someone hopefully. E-mail me your misunderstandings/disagreements to my e-mail, [email protected] and we can get started. I should reply within 24 hours if not much sooner.
Let's keep this on the front page so it can get more views.
Any suggestions where I can take this post to? Like what other forums?
Is this a joke? You're not the first person to think about Zeno's paradox. This is especially embarrassing coming from someone trying to ape the Tractatus.
You need to stop assuming your intuitions have anything to do with reality.
>>8244801
If want me to prove to you the proof I said in the OP, simply e-mail me.
>>8244233
kill yourself and find out
>>8244233
kys
>>8244233
I just read your paper.
Steps 1 through 7 are basically an awkwardly worded argument that the universe and time had a beginning. Not much to say about this part. There are probably already a million ways that physicists and philosophers have come up with to deconstruct lines of argument similar to this one, but let's just grant it.
Step 8 struck me as pretty odd. "The first event came from nothing so there must be something about nothingness existing that leads to the first event happening." How can nothing have "something about" it? It seems to me that if something can be said to have properties, then it isn't nothing. This just seems like an incoherent statement to me.
Step 9 is where you really go off the rails. "The awareness that is aware that “Nothing exists” feels itself being aware of that “Nothing exists” from a “place”." Stop right there man. What awareness? You probably should have taken some time to explain why you think there is an "awareness" that is floating around prior to the beginning of the universe being aware of things. I guess you're taking as an unstated premise the idea that consciousness is some kind of inherent and essential part of the universe, or something like that.
I need more than that, because it's just not an intuitive notion to me. Imagine that you're talking to a naturalist/materialist who believes that consciousness is 100% explicable as an emergent phenomenon arising from the complexity of the brain, and that "awareness" did not exist in the universe until suitably complex biological systems evolved and started being aware of things. This is the "null" or "default" hypothesis, according to modern science and philosophy. Do you have a line of argument that can convincingly move beyond that? If not, start there.
After this, your paper actually gets pretty hard to follow. You said at the beginning that you were going to prove the existence of the immortal soul and also that suicide is not an end to suffering. You don't actually seem to address either of these points in your argument. But your diagram kind of looks like a Settlers of Catan board, so you get points for that.
>>8245164
see >>8244233
specifically...
>E-mail me your misunderstandings/disagreements to my e-mail, [email protected].
>>8245466
Why? You can read it right here
>>8244233
You've been reposting this exact same crap over and over here and /sci/ for months while people try to painstakingly explain to you how retarded you are
Either you're literally mentally ill or you're trying to farm e-mail accounts for ads or something hoping people will be stupid enough to use real ones
