Existence Is Infinite

[Dontaskme]

If nonexistence is infinite show me nonexistence. Identify nonexistence.

I can't show nonexistence, I can only know it as a concept, as a concept, it is known, otherwise why speak of it as if it is known to not be known ? It's purely a known concept that's all, known by the only knowing there is which is this infinite knowing, infinity itself. It's like how is existence even known if it has no counterpart that differentiates between the two known concepts?

For example: I personally know I exist, because I also know that I did not exist before I ever came to know I existed.

Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Then why speak of it? by speaking of it, it must already exist to be able to know it, else it would not have been known conceptually.

Nonexistence has no extent so of course is not infinite.

Anything that is known to be infinite must by definition be all there is which is everything and not one thing more, so by definition, nonexistence can only be existence infinitely. As there is no such existence known as a not-existing existence. The two concepts both are known in relationship together as conjoined twins, as both existence and non-existence. In order to know existence as a concept, the opposite must also exist. Nonexistence is existence, and is unknown even to itself, because it's the only existence there is, there is no other existence apart from existence which is infinite, and cannot be shown or seen to exist, except as concept known.

Nonexistence is not finite, either. Nonexistence is not. To any degree.

Finite is a concept known by infinity itself, therefore the known concept finite, is included in this conception known, this infinite knowing.

[daniel j lavender]

What do 'ideas' and 'truth' consist of and/or are composed up of, EXACTLY?

That is a complex subject. Research is still being conducted in those areas to improve understanding, specifically ideas and brain function.

But that isn’t really the point. Regardless what ideas or truth may consist of the point is those things are immaterial, they are intangible, impalpable. They cannot be touched, interacted with or physically manipulated like typical material objects.

Even if ideas are declared to be products of brain chemistry, biochemicals and electrical impulses one could not reach out and touch ideas like one could touch a pineapple. One cannot touch ideas, one can only touch chemicals, fluids or tissues, material things.

In pursuit of truth evidence is gathered and considered. Material, eyewitness accounts and so forth. When truth, if truth is finally determined the truth itself cannot be touched. The truth itself is not palpable. The truth is immaterial. Evidence, materials may be gathered and touched, such materials are often palpable. But the concept, the idea, the phenomenon of truth itself cannot be touched, cannot be physically grasped. Truth is like an idea, a concept, something beyond materiality. Something that concerns material things but transcends them.

Ideas and truth are immaterial things. That is the point of the arguments and statements.

It appears you are confused. Immaterial expanse is not the same as nor does it encompass other immaterial things such as ideas, truth, etcetera. However immaterial expanse certainly is related to other immaterial things such as ideas, truth, etcetera.

Also, what is the 'etcetera' word here referencing, EXACTLY?

Other aforementioned immaterial things such as love and philosophy along with whatever else may be categorized as immaterial.

What are the qualities of 'immaterial expanse', EXACTLY?

Immaterial, voluminous.

Nothing or nonexistence has no qualities, cannot be interacted with and cannot be perceived as it does not actually exist.

But this here is NOT true AT ALL to me.

But what 'this' IS, EXACTLY, you do NOT YET KNOW, but you WILL just DISAGREE WITH, ANYWAY.

I cannot make your arguments for you. Present your argument.

[daniel j lavender]

If nonexistence is infinite show me nonexistence. Identify nonexistence.

I can't show nonexistence

Correct.

You cannot show nonexistence because it is not and cannot be to be shown.

I can't show nonexistence, I can only know it as a concept, as a concept, it is known

That is not nonexistence. That is a concept. That is part of existence.

What is known is existence.

A concept is. A concept exists. A concept is part of existence. It is obviously perceived, interacted with and acknowledged here in discussion. It has properties or qualities as it is conceptual. All of those are signatures of existence. All of those details concern being.

The reason you claim to “only know it as a concept” is because it is only a concept. Or word or term. Nonexistence does not actually exist.

All things, including the concept, are things, are parts of existence. All there is is existence. As you demonstrate here.

It's like how is existence even known if it has no counterpart that differentiates between the two known concepts?

Existence is known because it is perceived and affirmed by conscious entities such as ourselves.

Existence has no counterpart, existence needs no counterpart. Existence cannot have a counterpart. For if existence had a counterpart the counterpart would be as well, the counterpart would exist as well which would indicate existence which would be part of existence, which would be with and of existence, not a counterpart.

Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Then why speak of it? by speaking of it, it must already exist to be able to know it, else it would not have been known conceptually.

I’m not speaking of nonexistence. I’m speaking of and with words, I’m speaking of contradictory concepts nonexistence, nothing, nothingness. All are things, all are aspects of existence.

it must already exist to be able to know it

That is precisely the point: It exists. What is it? Existence.

What is known is existence. What is is existence.

To review you have failed to show nonexistence or any evidence of nonexistence.

All referenced, all discussed were existent things, concepts, words, further reinforcing the idea that existence is indeed infinite and nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Not only are you claiming nonexistence exists, you are claiming it is infinite, unlimited, ubiquitous. Yet you can’t even show nonexistence or provide evidence of nonexistence. If nonexistence is infinite, if nonexistence is so prevalent why isn’t evidence of its presence easier to provide?

[Dontaskme]

You cannot show nonexistence because it is not and cannot be to be shown.

Except as a word.

I can't show nonexistence, I can only know it as a concept, as a concept, it is known

That is not nonexistence. That is a concept. That is part of existence.

What is known is existence.

Nonexistence is also known as a concept in this conception.

A concept is. A concept exists. A concept is part of existence. It is obviously perceived, interacted with and acknowledged here in discussion. It has properties or qualities as it is conceptual. All of those are signatures of existence. All of those details concern being.

The reason you claim to “only know it as a concept” is because it is only a concept. Or word or term.

There are only concepts known.

Nonexistence does not actually exist.

It exists as a word.

All things, including the concept, are things, are parts of existence. All there is is existence. As you demonstrate here.

Agreed.

It's like how is existence even known if it has no counterpart that differentiates between the two known concepts?

Existence is known because it is perceived and affirmed by conscious entities such as ourselves.

Agreed.

Existence has no counterpart, existence needs no counterpart. Existence cannot have a counterpart. For if existence had a counterpart the counterpart would be as well, the counterpart would exist as well which would indicate existence which would be part of existence, which would be with and of existence, not a counterpart.

Agreed.

Nonexistence is not and cannot be.


I’m not speaking of nonexistence. I’m speaking of and with words, I’m speaking of contradictory concepts nonexistence, nothing, nothingness. All are things, all are aspects of existence.

Agreed, nonexistence exists as a word. A complementary counterpart of the whole, what is always whole, existence itself.

it must already exist to be able to know it

That is precisely the point: It exists. What is it? Existence.

What is known is existence. What is is existence.

To review you have failed to show nonexistence or any evidence of nonexistence.

I never asked for the word nonexistence to be shown, you did. It can be shown as a word only, including the word existence.
Words only point to what can never be seen or shown, only known in this conception, a pointing to the illusory nature of reality.

All referenced, all discussed were existent things, concepts, words, further reinforcing the idea that existence is indeed infinite and nonexistence is not and cannot be.

But nonexistence also exists as a word in existence. There is here in existence, only concepts known.

Not only are you claiming nonexistence exists, you are claiming it is infinite, unlimited, ubiquitous. Yet you can’t even show nonexistence or provide evidence of nonexistence. If nonexistence is infinite, if nonexistence is so prevalent why isn’t evidence of its presence easier to provide?

But I never asked for nonexistence to be shown, you did, as if you somehow believed it was something to be shown and seen, which it can, but only as a word, a concept known by that which cannot be known, without making that knowing knower, a concept known.

For example: If I cannot know nonexistence, then how can I know existence, I know existence because I know I cannot not know existence. so nonexistence doesn't even arise to my knowledge except as a concept known in existence. I know I exist because I know I cannot know that I cannot exist, this is knowledge based purely on conceptual knowing.

As each and every concept arises in infinite knowing, it is known instantly by the only knowing there is which is infinite knowing...alternatively known as consciousness. Which cannot be shown or seen, only known, and that which is known, knows nothing.

[daniel j lavender]

You cannot show nonexistence because it is not and cannot be to be shown.

Except as a word.

That is not nonexistence.

That is a word.

That would be [part of] existence.

That isn’t even evidence of nonexistence. That is yet more evidence of existence; it is an aspect of existence.

That is not nonexistence. That is a concept. That is part of existence.

What is known is existence.

Nonexistence is also known as a concept in this conception.

And again, a concept is a thing. A concept is a part of existence.

The word “nonexistence”, the concept nonexistence are perceived. They are observed. They are interacted with. All signatures of existence, not nonexistence.

Nonexistence does not actually exist.

It exists as a word.

That is not nonexistence. That is a word. That is [part of] existence.

Nor does the word allude to nonexistence as nonexistence is not here or there to be referenced.

Once more, a word is a thing. Not nothing. Not no thing. Not nonexistence.

The word “nonexistence” is not showing nonexistence. It is showing existence. See it? It is perceived. That is a signature of existence, not nonexistence. That’s why it’s considered a contradictory word or term. It contradicts itself. Which reveals the truth.

Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

I’m not speaking of nonexistence. I’m speaking of and with words, I’m speaking of contradictory concepts nonexistence, nothing, nothingness. All are things, all are aspects of existence.

Agreed, nonexistence exists as a word. A complementary counterpart of the whole, what is always whole, existence itself.

Nonexistence does not exist as a word. Nonexistence is not and cannot be. A word exists as a word. The word exists as the word.

The whole or entirety, being existence, has no counterpart. Any other existing would be part of the whole and thus not a counterpart, nor a copy, nor a duplicate nor an equivalent.

This is why it is considered the whole. The whole has no counterpart. To claim nonexistence is, at any capacity, is to attempt to fashion a counterpart which cannot be beside the whole.

…a pointing to the illusory nature of reality.

The nature of reality is not illusory. The nature of reality is reality. Illusion is illusory.

If I cannot know nonexistence, then how can I know existence, I know existence because I know I cannot not know existence.

We know existence through consciousness and sensory perception. As conscious beings we realize and affirm existence.

Needing to know some counterpart to know existence is unnecessary and nonsensical.

…so nonexistence doesn't even arise to my knowledge except as a concept known in existence

The more accurate statement may be “nonexistence doesn’t even arise except as a concept, a contradictory concept, constructed in the mind and then projected into existence”.

To reiterate what was stated in my previous post:

Nonexistence has yet to be shown, identified or located.

[Dontaskme]

You cannot show nonexistence because it is not and cannot be to be shown.

Except as a word.

That is not nonexistence.

That is a word.

That would be [part of] existence.

That isn’t even evidence of nonexistence. That is yet more evidence of existence; it is an aspect of existence.

I agree that concepts in this conception are evidence of existence, but what if concepts never existed, surely the knower of the knowledge of existence is in and of itself just a fictional conceptual character overlaid upon reality, a reality that in essence has no awareness of itself existing as a separate entity, where there is an observer here observing a reality to be out there? That implies two, the observer and the observed ..right? if that were right, then the observer would have to split itself in two, into the looker and the looked upon...right?

We can understand that concepts exist, but we can also understand that they do not have to exist in reality for reality to be...reality is, but for reality to be KNOWN..then concepts are that knowing.
But as I've said, concepts do not need to exist in order for reality to be...for example, a mute animal has no concept it exists, it never tells itself it exists, same with things like the sky or a tree, these things never tell themselves they exist, therefore reality is, but it's not knowing it exists.


Let me ask you a few questions. Has daniel j lavender always existed infinitely? or finitely within the infinite? and if finitely, then was there a time in the infinite when daniel j lavender did not exist, insofar as was there ever a time when daniel j lavender was nonexistent? ... lets unpack this carefully, we are talking about the knowledge of one's existence here, the knowing...ok?

Who or what is it that knows it exists, that can observe existence? is this observer of existence infinite, is daniel j lavender infinite?

Nonexistence has yet to be shown, identified or located.

Here you are asking that nonexistence has to be shown. But obviously I understand, there would need to be an observer of nonexistence for nonexistence to be shown to the observer that nonexistence is self-evident. This is not possible I agree, because an observer cannot witness it's own absence.

So, if the observer cannot witness it's own absence, then how does the observer witness it's own presence and know it? What I mean is can the observer be observed? or in other words, can the perceiver be perceived?

How would the observer show up, what would it look like as evidence of it's show/ presence?

I am digging deeper into the actual location of the observer/perceiver here... can daniel j lavender show himself the exact location of the observer or the perceiver?

[Age]

What do 'ideas' and 'truth' consist of and/or are composed up of, EXACTLY?

That is a complex subject. Research is still being conducted in those areas to improve understanding, specifically ideas and brain function.

But that isn’t really the point. Regardless what ideas or truth may consist of the point is those things are immaterial, they are intangible, impalpable. They cannot be touched, interacted with or physically manipulated like typical material objects.

So, what you are essentially saying here, but 'trying to' REFLECT FROM, is that some 'immaterial things', like 'ideas' and 'truth' 'consists of', or are 'composed of' some 'things', yet, and amazingly, the other 'immaterial thing' known as 'immaterial expanse' does NOT 'consist of' (ANY 'thing').

Even if ideas are declared to be products of brain chemistry, biochemicals and electrical impulses one could not reach out and touch ideas like one could touch a pineapple. One cannot touch ideas, one can only touch chemicals, fluids or tissues, material things.

you ARE DRIFTING OFF, and MISSING the POINT, but this might be INTENTIONAL here, or UNINTENTIONAL, of course. But considering what the CLAIM IS here, one wonders.

In pursuit of truth evidence is gathered and considered.

And FURTHER AFIELD and FURTHER OFF you ARE GOING here.

Material, eyewitness accounts and so forth. When truth, if truth is finally determined the truth itself cannot be touched. The truth itself is not palpable. The truth is immaterial. Evidence, materials may be gathered and touched, such materials are often palpable. But the concept, the idea, the phenomenon of truth itself cannot be touched, cannot be physically grasped. Truth is like an idea, a concept, something beyond materiality. Something that concerns material things but transcends them.

WHY do you SAY and CLAIM here that 'truth' and 'idea' are BEYOND 'materiality' and TRANSCENDS 'material things'?

Could it NOT be that 'they' are JUST DIFFERENT, and NOT necessarily BEYOND nor TRANSCENDING?

Ideas and truth are immaterial things. That is the point of the arguments and statements.

you are now SO FAR AFIELD I am NOT SURE I could even BRING you BACK here, now.

It appears you are confused. Immaterial expanse is not the same as nor does it encompass other immaterial things such as ideas, truth, etcetera. However immaterial expanse certainly is related to other immaterial things such as ideas, truth, etcetera.

Also, what is the 'etcetera' word here referencing, EXACTLY?

Other aforementioned immaterial things such as love and philosophy along with whatever else may be categorized as immaterial.

What are the qualities of 'immaterial expanse', EXACTLY?

Immaterial, voluminous.

Is that the ONLY 'quality' of 'immaterial expanse'?

Nothing or nonexistence has no qualities, cannot be interacted with and cannot be perceived as it does not actually exist.

But this here is NOT true AT ALL to me.

But what 'this' IS, EXACTLY, you do NOT YET KNOW, but you WILL just DISAGREE WITH, ANYWAY.

I cannot make your arguments for you. Present your argument.

BUT you HAVE JUST ALREADY TOLD US HOW 'things' ARE here, right?

HOW could 'things' BE ANY DIFFERENT FROM what you TOLD us that 'they' ARE?

By the way, I do NOT pick a "side", and then 'argue' for 'it'.

[Age]

If nonexistence is infinite show me nonexistence. Identify nonexistence.

I can't show nonexistence

Correct.

You cannot show nonexistence because it is not and cannot be to be shown.

Can you SHOW 'immaterial expanse'?

if yes, then HOW, EXACTLY?

I can't show nonexistence, I can only know it as a concept, as a concept, it is known

That is not nonexistence. That is a concept. That is part of existence.

What is known is existence.

A concept is. A concept exists. A concept is part of existence. It is obviously perceived, interacted with and acknowledged here in discussion. It has properties or qualities as it is conceptual. All of those are signatures of existence. All of those details concern being.

The reason you claim to “only know it as a concept” is because it is only a concept. Or word or term. Nonexistence does not actually exist.

All things, including the concept, are things, are parts of existence. All there is is existence. As you demonstrate here.

It's like how is existence even known if it has no counterpart that differentiates between the two known concepts?

Existence is known because it is perceived and affirmed by conscious entities such as ourselves.

Existence has no counterpart, existence needs no counterpart. Existence cannot have a counterpart. For if existence had a counterpart the counterpart would be as well, the counterpart would exist as well which would indicate existence which would be part of existence, which would be with and of existence, not a counterpart.

Can 'concepts' have counterparts?

And, could 'Existence' have a conceptual 'counterpart'?

Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Then why speak of it? by speaking of it, it must already exist to be able to know it, else it would not have been known conceptually.

I’m not speaking of nonexistence. I’m speaking of and with words, I’m speaking of contradictory concepts nonexistence, nothing, nothingness. All are things, all are aspects of existence.

Is a 'unicorn' a 'thing'?

Are 'unicorns' an aspect of 'Existence'?

it must already exist to be able to know it

That is precisely the point: It exists. What is it? Existence.

What is known is existence. What is is existence.

To review you have failed to show nonexistence or any evidence of nonexistence.

But to some of us the PROOF OF exists.

All referenced, all discussed were existent things, concepts, words, further reinforcing the idea that existence is indeed infinite and nonexistence is not and cannot be.

'Nonexistence' allegedly and supposedly is not and cannot be 'what', EXACTLY?

Not only are you claiming nonexistence exists, you are claiming it is infinite, unlimited, ubiquitous. Yet you can’t even show nonexistence or provide evidence of nonexistence. If nonexistence is infinite, if nonexistence is so prevalent why isn’t evidence of its presence easier to provide?

[Age]

You cannot show nonexistence because it is not and cannot be to be shown.

Except as a word.

That is not nonexistence.

That is a word.

That would be [part of] existence.

That isn’t even evidence of nonexistence. That is yet more evidence of existence; it is an aspect of existence.

That is not nonexistence. That is a concept. That is part of existence.

What is known is existence.

Nonexistence is also known as a concept in this conception.

And again, a concept is a thing. A concept is a part of existence.

The word “nonexistence”, the concept nonexistence are perceived. They are observed. They are interacted with. All signatures of existence, not nonexistence.

Nonexistence does not actually exist.

It exists as a word.

That is not nonexistence. That is a word. That is [part of] existence.

Nor does the word allude to nonexistence as nonexistence is not here or there to be referenced.

Once more, a word is a thing. Not nothing. Not no thing. Not nonexistence.

The word “nonexistence” is not showing nonexistence. It is showing existence. See it? It is perceived. That is a signature of existence, not nonexistence. That’s why it’s considered a contradictory word or term. It contradicts itself. Which reveals the truth.

Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

I’m not speaking of nonexistence. I’m speaking of and with words, I’m speaking of contradictory concepts nonexistence, nothing, nothingness. All are things, all are aspects of existence.

Agreed, nonexistence exists as a word. A complementary counterpart of the whole, what is always whole, existence itself.

Nonexistence does not exist as a word. Nonexistence is not and cannot be. A word exists as a word. The word exists as the word.

The whole or entirety, being existence, has no counterpart. Any other existing would be part of the whole and thus not a counterpart, nor a copy, nor a duplicate nor an equivalent.

This is why it is considered the whole. The whole has no counterpart. To claim nonexistence is, at any capacity, is to attempt to fashion a counterpart which cannot be beside the whole.

…a pointing to the illusory nature of reality.

The nature of reality is not illusory. The nature of reality is reality. Illusion is illusory.

If I cannot know nonexistence, then how can I know existence, I know existence because I know I cannot not know existence.

We know existence through consciousness and sensory perception. As conscious beings we realize and affirm existence.

Needing to know some counterpart to know existence is unnecessary and nonsensical.

…so nonexistence doesn't even arise to my knowledge except as a concept known in existence

The more accurate statement may be “nonexistence doesn’t even arise except as a concept, a contradictory concept, constructed in the mind and then projected into existence”.

To reiterate what was stated in my previous post:

Nonexistence has yet to be shown, identified or located.

But 'it' HAS ALREADY been SHOWN, IDENTIFIED, AND LOCATED. Well to some of us anyway.

But you could NEVER SEE, nor UNDERSTAND, ANY of 'this' BECAUSE you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that what you SAY and BELIEVE here IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. And, WITH absolutely NO 'counterpart' AT ALL.

[Age]

You cannot show nonexistence because it is not and cannot be to be shown.

Except as a word.

That is not nonexistence.

That is a word.

That would be [part of] existence.

That isn’t even evidence of nonexistence. That is yet more evidence of existence; it is an aspect of existence.

I agree that concepts in this conception are evidence of existence, but what if concepts never existed, surely the knower of the knowledge of existence is in and of itself just a fictional conceptual character overlaid upon reality, a reality that in essence has no awareness of itself existing as a separate entity, where there is an observer here observing a reality to be out there? That implies two, the observer and the observed ..right? if that were right, then the observer would have to split itself in two, into the looker and the looked upon...right?

We can understand that concepts exist, but we can also understand that they do not have to exist in reality for reality to be...reality is, but for reality to be KNOWN..then concepts are that knowing.
But as I've said, concepts do not need to exist in order for reality to be...for example, a mute animal has no concept it exists, it never tells itself it exists, same with things like the sky or a tree, these things never tell themselves they exist, therefore reality is, but it's not knowing it exists.


Let me ask you a few questions. Has daniel j lavender always existed infinitely? or finitely within the infinite? and if finitely, then was there a time in the infinite when daniel j lavender did not exist, insofar as was there ever a time when daniel j lavender was nonexistent? ... lets unpack this carefully, we are talking about the knowledge of one's existence here, the knowing...ok?

Who or what is it that knows it exists, that can observe existence? is this observer of existence infinite, is daniel j lavender infinite?

Nonexistence has yet to be shown, identified or located.

Here you are asking that nonexistence has to be shown. But obviously I understand, there would need to be an observer of nonexistence for nonexistence to be shown to the observer that nonexistence is self-evident. This is not possible I agree, because an observer cannot witness it's own absence.

So, if the observer cannot witness it's own absence, then how does the observer witness it's own presence and know it? What I mean is can the observer be observed? or in other words, can the perceiver be perceived?

How would the observer show up, what would it look like as evidence of it's show/ presence?

I am digging deeper into the actual location of the observer/perceiver here... can daniel j lavender show himself the exact location of the observer or the perceiver?

WHY do 'i' NOT get ASKED ALL of these sorts of QUESTIONS?

[daniel j lavender]

You cannot show nonexistence because it is not and cannot be to be shown.

Except as a word.

That is not nonexistence.

That is a word.

That would be [part of] existence.

That isn’t even evidence of nonexistence. That is yet more evidence of existence; it is an aspect of existence.

I agree that concepts in this conception are evidence of existence

As should be the case.

It certainly is evidence of existence. Not evidence of nonexistence.

Nonexistence has yet to be shown, identified or located.

Here you are asking that nonexistence has to be shown. But obviously I understand, there would need to be an observer of nonexistence for nonexistence to be shown to the observer that nonexistence is self-evident. This is not possible I agree, because an observer cannot witness it's own absence.

You claimed nonexistence is infinite:

Yes, non-existence is infinite also.

If nonexistence is infinite, if nonexistence is unlimited, ubiquitous, it shouldn’t be difficult to provide evidence of nonexistence.

Don’t even worry about actually showing me nonexistence. Show me evidence of nonexistence. You can’t even do that.

Additionally the statement “nonexistence is infinite also” is erroneous. It is a fallacious statement.

“Infinite also” does not make sense. There cannot be multiple infinites in the true sense of the term. “Infinite” means unlimited or unrestricted. If there is another thing that other thing would limit the extent of the former. Thus neither would be infinite or unlimited as each would limit each other’s extent.

It is not possible to show nonexistence, or even evidence of nonexistence, because nonexistence does not exist. Look at the trouble everyone is having with this task. Look at all the excuses and rhetoric. Just show me evidence of nonexistence. It shouldn’t be this difficult if nonexistence is infinite, if you’re so certain it is.

What I mean is can the observer be observed? or in other words, can the perceiver be perceived?

Yes.

How would the observer show up, what would it look like as evidence of it's show/ presence?

As a being, as an aspect of existence.

I am digging deeper into the actual location of the observer/perceiver here... can daniel j lavender show himself the exact location of the observer or the perceiver?

Tennessee, America, Earth, Milky Way, Existence.

[Dontaskme]

Daniel..nonexistent exists as an idea.

Those who existed who have died are evidence of nonexistence.

Those who are born, who pop aware to exist eventually become nonexistent….in death.

Both existence and nonexistence are ideas, that’s all.

My own mother who gave me existence is now nonexistent…meaning both existence and nonexistence are one and the same phenomena, they just differ in appearance that’s all.

.

[Dontaskme]

Tennessee, America, Earth, Milky Way, Existence.

These are not the observer. These things are the observed.

Where is the exact location of the observer?

[Dontaskme]

As a being, as an aspect of existence.

Again, these are ideas, they are the observed, not the observer.

[Dontaskme]

I’m my personal logic daniel the death of someone you once knew to exist is evidence of nonexistence.

But only as a conceptual idea, since nobody has ever witnessed their own absence.

It’s the same in existence nobody witnesses their own existence…how could they. They would have to split in two into witness and witnessed.

The apparent division is simply illusory. Nonexistence IS existence….existence is nonexistence….it’s this immediate unknowing this notknowing.

Both knowing and not knowing simultaneously…..a conceptual overlay upon the non conceptual. In the same context an image is an overlay upon a blank screen.

Nothing and everything are conjoined twins infinitely for eternity inseparably one.