/sci/ - Science & Math

>How is this not a logically valid proof that we should all die to avoid risking suffering?

I completely agree.

You first OP.

>>3678339
I'm currently waiting to move to an area where i'll have the right to die. I tried death by dehydration where I am now but I was taken to the hospital and force-fed fluids and then told if I didn't start eating that I would have a tube put in my stomach to force-fed food.

It's an inadequate definition of suffering. Any new experience would risk involving suffering since you don't know, thus everything would be potentially suffering.

Plus, it's not like suffering is the worst thing ever. Better break up with someone and feel pain for a few weeks than stay with him/her and feel depressed all your life.

by dieing you may cause yourself to feel Suffering after death worse that if you live, so it is not logical to die.

this assumes that you are able to feel something after death, which may be possible, and as it is possible, you should avoid it.

Suffering in its most straightforward definition is negative experience through physical, emotional or mental means. You defining it as a thing which is so bad that no one would risk it even for "infinite" happiness is contrived, arbitrary and inane.

If you really believe this to be true, then you should have painlessly killed yourself already.

>>3678315

We have already ruined your arguments one day ago.
Seek psychiatric help.

>>3678365
In death you're not conscious so you're not able to feel anything.
>>3678361
How is it an inadequate definition of suffering?

Suffering may not be the worst thing ever but its a thing that logically validates dieing in order to avoid it since by dieing you'll be dead feeling nothing while when living you could be potentially risking suffering.

>>3678381
Ok but given that its impossible to prove that such a thing as the suffering as I so defined doesn't exist, how is it at all logically valid to risk something like that when feeling nothing is an option?

>>3678352

Dude, I was only kidding. Get into a support group. You can't possibly make that kind of decision without discussing it with someone first.

>>3678315

>Suffering could potentially exist because nothing makes its existence impossible.

By that argument, you could be potentially infinitely tortured after you die, so you should try to live as much as you can to avoid it.
Idiot.

>>3678397
No I just got tired of the stupidity of the replies so I stopped. Try invalidating my argument in its current form.

How is this not a logically valid proof that we should all die to avoid risking suffering?

Because with the differences in people's judgement of the potential of suffering in relation to the potential of happiness in varying degrees will bring in one's own feelings on the matter. Therefore, when you say all people should just die, you're assuming that everyone will reach the same conclusions in the same situation, which they won't.

>>3678406
When you're dead you can't feel anything because you're unconscious. So you could not be infinitely tortured.

>>3678405
Try your best to invalidate my argument please.

>>3678415
I already defined suffering as something one would not want to risk even if given something INFINITELY ENJOYABLE. A pain that could hurt that bad.

Therefore it makes no sense to talk about weighing whether risking such a suffering is worth it or not, I already defined it as a pain that would hurt so bad that it would make you not even want to risk feeling it no matter if you got a feeling that was infinitely enjoyable for doing so.

>>3678402
The burden of proof is on you to prove your definition of suffering exists.

In reality, people feel varying intensities of suffering and have many differing view on whether it is useful or if they deserve it. To claim it is always and absolutely one way and of infinite negativity is logically unsound on many levels.

>>3678422

>When you're dead you can't feel anything because you're unconscious.

Then by that argument your definition of suffering is invalid as suffering is physical, and its physicality has limits imposed by physics and biology and neurology and psychology and physiology.

>>3678315

>Prove me wrong

>>3678422
You cannot empirically prove what will after you are dead just as you cannot empirically prove your definition of suffering exists or will exist.

If you are so fearful and certain of this infinitely bad experience, then kill yourself.

>>3678442
I'm not here to prove that it exists. I'm here to prove that its logically invalid to RISK its existence since you don't have any proof that it doesn't exist.
>>3678447
Yes it has limits but perhaps such limits don't disable it from becoming what I defined suffering as in the OP.

>>3678461
No I cannot prove if we will become alive again after death but as far as WHILE you're dead you won't feel anything. Or at least there's more likelihood that you'll be incapable of feeling anything when you're dead than when you're alive because when you're alive your system for feeling is ON but when you're dead you're system for feeling and consciousness is OFF therefore are incapable of feeling anything.

>>3678468
You can't assess the risk of something that can't be proven to exist. Might as well live in constant fear, which you probably already do.

>>3678461
Also, I forgot to mention - as for proving whether my definition of suffering exists or not isn't entirely necessary. The mere fact that you may be RISKING such a feeling is enough to realize that it would be best to be feeling nothing instead of living, feeling great, but be potentially actively risking such a feeling.

>>3678468

Yes it has limits and they invalidate your definition.
You also cannot prove your definition empirically so if you want to believe in your definition, you also must believe in the possibility that you could be infinitely tortured by demons with colossal-dicks, hence why you are logically compelled to live as much as you can.
End of discussion.

Your initial definition is tailored to force your conclusion. This is a stupid thread.

>>3678484

>No I cannot prove if we will become alive again after death but as far as WHILE you're dead you won't feel anything.

You have no evidence nor proof for that, just like you have no evidence nor proof for your definition.
Your argument is invalid.

in response to your when you are dead you are unconscious, if you are tortured eventually you will also pas out. thus no torture can be so bad that it nullify infinite pleasure.

>>3678491
If by 'assess the risk' you mean figure out the likelihood of the risk then yes its impossible to figure out the risk if I can't even prove it exists.

But if you can't prove it DOESN'T EXIST, then answer me, HOW IS IT AT ALL LOGICALLY VALID TO RISK ITS EXISTENCE?

I don't live in fear, I live with a perfectly appropriate degree of caution which has created my current argument. Notice how you just didn't invalidate my argument, but resorted to insulting me. INVALIDATE MY ARGUMENT OR ADMIT THAT ITS CORRECT - ITS THAT FUCKING SIMPLE. YES I AM MAD LOL.

>>3678502
How does the fact that suffering, since it is physical, has limits, invalidate the possibility of my definition being possible? The limits simply may not be low enough to make it so such a definition of suffering is impossible.

YOU.CAN'T.FEEL.ANYTHING.WHEN.YOU'RE.DEAD

At the very least, its more likely that you can't feel anything when you're dead than when you're alive. Therefore there will be no demons with dicks infinitely torturing me.

>>3678503
But such a definition of suffering is possible, is it not? Therefore the only logical thing to do would be to account for it.


YOU ALL SHOULD JUST ADMIT YOU'RE PARALYZINGLY ILLOGICALLY AFRAID OF DEATH. JUST FUCKING ADMIT IT!

>>3678541

I'm cool with a mindblowing DMT trip the likes of which the physically living never come back from.

>>3678541

>YOU CAN'T FEEL ANYTHING WHEN YOU'RE DEAD

And you cant feel the kind of suffering that you defined.
End of discussion.

>>3678521
You're more likely to feel nothing when dead than when alive because the systems that enable you to feel when you are alive are all not working when you are dead. Go to your local cemetery and poke a corpse, it won't move, blink, or even wake up. Now go poke somebody who is alive, they will react. Surely its possible that the dead person simply isn't able to react or show any signs of life, but its also possible that the dead person simply can't feel or isn't conscious while when you're alive it isn't possible at all for you to not be conscious while still staying alive unless you're in a coma or something similar.

As for having no evidence or proof of my definition of suffering, that doesn't really matter all that much. The mere fact that it COULD exist is enough to start acting logically about risking such a thing.

>>3678528
But the torture while you're alive could be enough to make you feel that you wouldn't want to risk such a torture not for an infinity of pleasure. You can't prove that such a feeling from torture doesn't exist, therefore should act logically about risking its existence.

>>3678562
Prove that you can't feel the kind of suffering I defined. The mere fact that you can't prove such a suffering doesn't exist should alarm you to realize that it isn't logically valid of you to be possibly risking the existence of something like that. Therefore just feel nothing instead of live, feel great, but be actively risking such a feeling.

>>3678585
Prove that you can't feel the kind of suffering after you are dead.

>>3678575

>The mere fact that it COULD exist is enough to start acting logically about risking such a thing.

Hence why a fact that you could be tortured infinitely after death compels you to live as much as you can.
Also your definition cannot be verified empirically hence why fact is that you can have a soul and your soul can be tortured after your death for infinity.

>Go to your local cemetery and poke a corpse, it won't move, blink, or even wake up.

Oh but now you contradict yourself since you try to invalidate to existence of your suffering after death empirically yet you avoid to verify your definition empirically.
You have to hold the same standards.
Face it you are a lunatic who believes in fairy tales.

>>3678585

>Prove that you can't feel the kind of suffering I defined.

The Burden of Proof is on you.
That another logical fallacy that you committed.

You should seek help.

>>3678606
I can't, it only seems more likely that the dead are incapable of feeling while the living are capable of feeling.

>>3678610
But its more likely that you can't feel anything when you're dead than when you're alive by looking at the vital signs of those who are dead versus those who are alive and doing experiments to test for brain activity and reactions.

As for trying to prove that suffering doesn't exist for those who are dead empirically yet not trying to prove my definition of suffering empirically. I can't prove my definition of suffering empirically nor do I have to because the mere fact that your unable to prove it doesn't exist is enough to realize that you should think logically about the fact that it could exist.

>>3678641

>I can't prove my definition of suffering empirically nor do I have to because the mere fact that your unable to prove it doesn't exist is enough to realize that you should think logically about the fact that it could exist.

Argument From Ignorance

Another Fallacy.

You are an idiot.

>>3678618
My point is not about me being able to prove the existence of the suffering I defined, but the fact that you CAN'T DISPROVE it, therefore have to account for the fact that it MAY EXIST and should act logically about its existence.

How do I at all need help? In what way? How am I helpless? How am I demonstrating some sort of mental malfunctioning? Because I'm not following some sort of pro-life order everyone is on about?

Not if I have to potentially risk something like the suffering I defined.

>>3678652
"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I'm not asserting that my definition of suffering exists all because you can't prove it doesn't exist. WHAT I'M ASSERTING IS the fact that since you can't disprove the existence of the suffering I defined, logically you should admit that it COULD EXIST. So, since it COULD EXIST, simply act LOGICALLY about the fact that it COULD EXIST. That's all I'm asking you to do.

The fact that you misinterpreted my argument makes you more idiotic than I.

>Something that you wouldn't want to risk feeling no matter what other feeling you could get by risking feeling it

That completely depends for example I would fucking hate and I mean hate to be shot in the leg, but if someone said I would give you £100,000,000 I would let them shoot me in the leg.

If the given situation is right people will suffer for something or risk suffering for something.

>no matter what

If this was true then everyone would just kill themselves to not risk it.

Your term of suffering is wrong.

>>3678674
What you quoted is the definition of suffering I'm using. Whether it exists or not is unknown. But the fact that no one is able to prove it doesn't exist means that it could exist, and therefore we should act logically about the fact that such a thing could exist and opt to feel nothing instead of live, feel great, but be potentially actively risking such a feeling.

>>3678673

>Argument from ignorance: It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false

>I'm not asserting that my definition of suffering exists all because you can't prove it doesn't exist.
>WHAT I'M ASSERTING IS the fact that since you can't disprove the existence of the suffering I defined, logically you should admit that it COULD EXIST.

>you can't prove it doesn't exist.
>since you can't disprove the existence
>it has not been proven false

You are an irredeemable idiot.

>>3678691

And if your definition held true in any sense people would all just commit suicide to avoid it.

If the definition >Something that you wouldn't want to risk feeling no matter what other feeling you could get by risking feeling it

Held true at all, you and I would be dead but yet we both choose to be ignorant of the fact right now we could be randomly tortured and kept alive for the next 50 years while enduring horrible torture, which we would both much rather choose death over.

But yet we sit here and risk it by not killing ourselves.

>>3678699
"Argument from ignorance: It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false"

What proposition am I asserting to be true all because it has not been proven to be false? I'm not saying it exists for certain, just that since nothing disproves its existence, its existence is possible.

>>3678710
>And if your definition held true in any sense people would all just commit suicide to avoid it.

Is it not possible that people aren't committing suicide because...

1) they don't know of a painless way
2) they don't have a painless way
3) they are being forced to live
4) they haven't thought of the argument in the OP before

Suffering is part of the human condition just as much as any other sensation we are capable of. Therefore, it should not be regarded as different from other forms of sensation.

>>3678731

You assert that it is true that such possibility exists just because no one has proven it false.

Congratulations on reaching retard level.

Now even if we take the premise that your definition of suffering would be the correct one (it's not) you forget one aspect:

Happiness:
Something you want to constantly achieve no matter in what situation you are even if it takes some suffering to achieve it and even if there is the probability that you might not actually get it at all.

Happiness is a stronger emotion than suffering

>>3678757
Such a possibility MAY exist. Such a definition of suffering MAY exist since no one is able to disprove it. It is a thing that may be possible since it hasn't been proven to not be possible.

>>3678747
The definition of suffering is something that no one would want to feel or even risk, not even if by risking it someone could feel infinitely enjoyable. Therefore it is something to be avoided. All because its something that humans feel doesn't mean its not different from other feelings that humans may or may not want to feel.

>>3678743

There is a possibility right now we both could be kidnapped and kept alive for many years while being tortured in horrific ways.

Yet we do not commit suicide.

If these men that were to turn up and attempt this we would attempt to kill ourselves (atleast I would).

The higher the risk of it happening the higher the chance of us committing suicide.

But even though right now we know (even if retard level slim) that it is possible men might attempt this and there is a risk of us not commiting suicide in time before they get to us, we do NOT commit suicide.

We choose to stay alive until we know this risk has a high probability.

>>3678788

>Such a possibility MAY exist Such a definition of suffering MAY exist since no one is able to disprove it.

Argument From Ignorance.

Now you are a double retard.

>>3678787
the definition i used for suffering and the definition you used for happiness are not at all compatible. As in, they can't exist at the same time in the same system. Either my definition of suffering exists, or your definition of happiness exists. Your happiness would make going through my definition of suffering worth it even if you didn't get the happiness.

But I already defined suffering as something one would not want to risk even if one was made to feel infinitely enjoyable(ie happy) for risking it.

I can't prove my definition of suffering exists, but that's unnecessary for my argument to be valid. The mere fact that you can't disprove that such a thing could exist is enough for you to logically have to consider the fact that it may exist and based on the fact that it may exist, opt to feel nothing instead of live, feel happy, but be potentially risking such definition of suffering.

>>3678809

Happiness is a fact.
Your fantasy however is not.

>>3678800
So tell me, since no one is able to prove that such a definition of suffering doesn't exist, how is it not a fact that such a definition of suffering may exist?

>>3678796
You're stating what you're doing as if all because you're doing it, its the logically valid thing to do, it isn't. I already defined suffering as something that would hurt so bad that one wouldn't even want to risk it even if made to feel infinitely enjoyable in return for risking it.

The mere fact that such a definition of suffering may exist logically entails us to opt for death instead of living, feeling great, but be potentially risking such a suffering.

>>3678315

Desire is the source of all pain. Learn to control your desire, Grasshopper.

>>3678824
Your happiness can't be proven. Neither can mine. But given the fact that both can possibly exist, it would be better to feel nothing than to gamble that your happiness exists and my suffering doesn't when its unknown which exists.

>>3678826

>So tell me, since no one is able to prove that such a definition of suffering doesn't exist, how is it not a fact that such a definition of suffering may exist?

Because it is a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The point of suffering is to avoid suffering. How can you avoid suffering if you can't suffer?

>>3678831
>Desire is the source of all pain.
Prove it. All you're doing is claiming something as true even though you can't prove it. Might as well stfu.

>>3678842

>Your happiness can't be proven Neither can mine But given the fact that both can possibly exist, it would be better to feel nothing

That is just your opinion.
No logic in there.
Id rather feel and feel happy then not to feel.

>>3678826

Ok I give up I thought I could have a reasonable debate or something but I truly don't think you know how fucking retarded your being.

>Someone replies with logical answer
You reply with nothing but a spin on words

Honestly you have been proven wrong but your stupid and stupid people cant think outside of a box.

Ok new question for everyone guys.

>Frogs: A animal that looks non very deadly but actually is super smart, to smart for us to even realise and all frogs are getting ready to hook us up to super smart machines that keep us alive for ever while they torture us.

WHY ARE WE NOT COMMITTING SUICIDE!!!

>>3678850

Prove that your definition is true.
Since you cant you may as well just be silent.

>>3678844
I'm not asserting anything to be true because it cannot be proven false. WHAT I'M DOING is asserting that something COULD POSSIBLY be true because it has not been made IMPOSSIBLE TO be true.

Any more responses from you on this matter will be ignored btw. I've sufficiently explained my case for you if you're not trolling in this post.

>>3678846
The suffering I defined may exist. Given that it may exist, the only logically valid option is to die and feel nothing and be more likely to be incapable of feeling such a suffering than to live, feel great, but be potentially risking such a suffering.

>>3678864

No stfu we are talking about frogs now

>>3678857
What logical answer did I dismiss?

You're not committing suicide because you're not acting logically, its that simple. Its possible to not act logically.

>>3678863
I don't need to prove that its true, the mere fact that it hasn't been proven false means that it could be true. Which is enough to start accounting for the fact that it could be true, and act as if since it could be true, what would be the best way to logically act about the fact that it could be true. Elaborated upon here: >"The suffering I defined may exist. Given that it may exist, the only logically valid option is to die and feel nothing and be more likely to be incapable of feeling such a suffering than to live, feel great, but be potentially risking such a suffering."

>>3678855
The logic is, when you have the option to live with the fact that your happiness or my suffering may exist, or die and feel nothing, its better to feel nothing because living entails a potential risk where death is less likely to do so.

>>3678864

>WHAT I'M DOING is asserting that something COULD POSSIBLY be true because it has not been made IMPOSSIBLE TO be true

Yes that is exactly Argument From Ignorance.
Whether predication in your proposition is possible, certain or uncertain or any other qualifier is irrelevant.
Your argument and your definition are invalid and fallacious.

>Any more responses from you on this matter will be ignored btw.

Then you concede that you are incorrect and that your argument and you definition are incorrect by default.

>>3678900

Your also assuming death holds no suffering.

You cannot prove that in death there is no suffering.

For example hell, prove hell wrong, you cant.

You cannot prove that suffering will not exist in death.

>How is this not a logically valid proof that we should all die to avoid risking suffering?

My answer, because there is no proof suffering may not exist in death

>>3678900

>The logic is, when you have the option to live with the fact that your happiness or my suffering may exist, or die and feel nothing, its better to feel nothing

That is an opinion.
As i have already revealed i would rather live and feel than not to feel.
You are now just arguing over preference and taste.
Return once you actually have some logic to offer.

>>3678920

Yeah dude your logic contradicts itself there

>>3678943

Aimed at OP if that wasn't clear, but yeah Rebecca Black contradicts your bitch ass.

>>3678943

That is Ops logic.

>>3678911
For those that can think rationally, here is my reply to this guy, it will be the same every time he posts that argument that i'm using a logical fallacy:
>WHAT I'M DOING is asserting that something COULD POSSIBLY be true because it has not been made IMPOSSIBLE TO be true.

That should be enough. Now for the others:

>>3678920
Hmmm... Gotta take time for this one. I'll get back to this one hopefully.

>>3678922
When you are alive you are risking the fact that such a suffering could exist, when you are dead you are no longer risking it. There is the logic, the fact that you shouldn't risk such a thing if you have a choice. All because you prefer to feel and feel happy even though you may be risking my definition of suffering doesn't mean its the logical thing to do.

>>3678967

Your logic is driven my your preferences, and so what's logical for you will differ from what's logical for someone else.

>>3678967

>When you are alive you are risking the fact that such a suffering could exist,

No i dont because your definition is unfalsifiable and so it cannot exist.

>>3678967

>>WHAT I'M DOING is asserting that something COULD POSSIBLY be true because it has not been made IMPOSSIBLE TO be true.

That is a logical fallacy.
Merely repeating it wont prove your argument to be correct.

Wait, so, you're basically saying that we should kill ourselves because eventually something might happen to us that's so shitty it makes you wish you weren't born?

I'm not going to off just because something really terrible -might- happen.

>>3678976
I like cake, so I eat cake. You do not like cake, you like some other food, so you eat that other food. That's an example of how logic will lead us to different actions.

This threads topic however is not one which is something that logic will lead us to different conclusions.

The fact that the suffering I defined could exist for you is enough for you to be logically compelled to make it so you are not risking such a suffering, any other action is illogical.

>>3678977
How is the fact that my definition of suffering is unfalsifiable lead to the fact that it cannot exist?

All because something is unfalsifiable doesn't mean it cannot exist. Prove otherwise or change your argument.

Grilled cheese, OP. It's the grilled cheese.

There is no grilled cheese after death, that's the reason people don't kill themselves.

Also, you are now hungry.

>>3678996

>All because something is unfalsifiable doesn't mean it cannot exist

Prove it.

>>3678988
>I'm not going to off just because something really terrible -might- happen.

Well that's your (rather illogical) choice (for now, anyways). Sadly, one you could come to intensely regret.

Anyways, refuting my argument with what you're choosing to do doesn't invalidate my argument. Try to invalidate my argument, or admit that you can't and its true.

>>3678996

>The fact that the suffering I defined could exist for you is enough for you to be logically compelled to make it so you are not risking such a suffering, any other action is illogical.

I disagree, since it is unlikely that such a thing will actually occur, so I think it is logical to play the odds and live.

>>3678996

>All because something is unfalsifiable doesn't mean it cannot exist.

Because it isnt Scientific.
If its Unscientific then its fiction.

>>3679009
I think that dying prematurely because of a hypothetical misfortune is pretty illogical.

If you disagree, why haven't you killed yourself yet? I don't think you even believe yourself.

>>3679005
Simple, all because something can't be shown to be false doesn't necessarily make it false.

>>3679019

Prove it.

OP DONT JUST FUCKING IGNORE REBECCA BLACK AND CARRY ON WITH YOUR SHITTY LOGIC.

REBECCA BLACK PROVED YOUR LOGIC CONTRADICTED ITSELF.

YOUR LOGIC CANNOT GO ON UNTIL YOU PROVE THERE IS NO SUFFERING IN DEATH.

>>3679011
I already defined suffering as something you wouldn't want to risk no matter if made to feel infinitely enjoyable for doing so. Whether such a suffering exists or not is unknown, but the mere fact that it could exist is enough to be logically compelled to choose to feel nothing than to live, feel great, but be potentially risking such a thing.

>>3679017
read: >>3678352
Also, prove its illogical, and by doing so-i'll see how you think, and i can tailor a response to you to show you how you're wrong.

>>3679014
The point is the suffering I defined could exist, so its not necessarily fiction.

>>3679036
How do you not know that killing yourself will not result in even greater suffering?

>>3679027
I just did, by showing that all because something can't be proven to be false, that in no way leads to the fact that it is false.

>>3679036

>The point is the suffering I defined could exist, so its not necessarily fiction.

Just because you in your definition included the phrase "It could exist" doesnt prove that it could exist.
Its still just fiction and unscientific.

>>3679063

No you just described it.
Prove it.

A great wizard residing in Andromeda has great disdain for beings who squander their lives by suicide. So, with his space-magic, he revives such beings, curses them with immortality, and subjects them to as much pure pain and agony as their neurosystem can allow them to experience.

Because you can't prove that this can't happen, as far as you know, it might.

So what do you do?

>>3679070
I suppose I can't, but since you can't disprove it, its still possible that that which is unfalsifiable isn't necessarily false.

>>3679065
It could possibly exist, not because I said it could in the definition (which I didn't) but because it has not been proven to not exist, therefore its existence is still a possibility.

>>3679078
I'm going to kill myself. I'll report back here with my findings.

STOP IGNORING REBECCA BLACK.

EITHER SHE IS RIGHT, WHICH MEANS YOUR WHOLE QUESTION IS FLAWED.

>How is this not a logically valid proof that we should all die to avoid risking suffering?

OR SHE IS WRONG WHICH MEANS YOUR WHOLE LOGIC IS FLAWED.

CATCH 22 BRO.

>>3678315

>WHAT I'M DOING is asserting that something COULD POSSIBLY be true because it has not been made IMPOSSIBLE TO be true.

Then since you cant prove that Christian God exists, there is a possibility that he will penalize you by leaving you in hell in which you will suffer even more.
But you cant prove that such God doesnt exist hence you are logically compelled to live as much as you can as it is a fact that there is a possibility that there is hell and that you and your soul will suffer beyond what you can fantasize.

Your argument is invalid.

OP Im going to make this real simple.

Untill you can prove there is no suffering in death.

Your question

>How is this not a logically valid proof that we should all die to avoid risking suffering?

Is fucking stupid

>>3679084

>It could possibly exist, not because I said it could in the definition (which I didn't) but because it has not been proven to not exist, therefore its existence is still a possibility.

No it is still a fiction as you cant prove its possibility.
Just because you have no evidence doesnt prove its possibility.
You dont even know the basics of Science.

>>3679085

I forgot to add that the wizard keeps you in his indestructible meta-time chamber that will force you to keep existing and suffering unimaginably even if the entire space-time continuum of this universe implodes on itself and ceases to be. So you can't ever get back to tell us.

What now? You can't prove that the Space Wizard isn't real, so there's a chance that he does!

>>3678406

This post alone invalidates Ops idiocy but he just keeps acting like an idiot.

>>3679108
Its existence MAY still be a possibility* is what I meant to say, sorry.

>>3679122

There is no "may", heck you dont even know the Scientific Method.
Just leave.

This is the definition of faggot that we'll be using for this discussion:

OP.

I intend this to be a proof for all so since I can't prove a faggot such as OP exists for all i'll just state it as something that could potentially exist.

OP could potentially exist because nothing makes its existence impossible. Therefore its existence is possible. If something makes suffering impossible then if its possible for that which makes faggoty impossible to be not working then the faggotry would be possible.

Since faggotry could potentially exist, it would be better for OP to painlessly die and feel nothing forever than to live, feel infinitely faggoty, but be potentially risking being a faggot.

How is this not a logically valid proof that Op is a fag?

i haven't seen a thread this retarded that wasn't just a troll.

>>3678315

Op is a suicidal homosexual.

>>3679181

>that wasn't just a troll.

youll have to a little be less incoherent than that

I like how op ran away.

>>3679169

rpic comment is epic

ITT: anti-natalist gets ass handed to him and says

>this looks like my hat
>the one that i never acquired
>but isn't impossible for it to exist
>therefore i shall plan my trip out of my mother's basement as though i AM wearing my ass as my hat
andafewfucksweregiventotryandhelpthisdeludedbastard.exe