BluePixieWaves said:

Mmmmm cake

---

Cake?! 

Ahimsa said:

You don't exist in the way you think you do. Because if you did you would never have been born. You would have always existed. Since you think you were born, you must have not existed before. How could you possibly exist not having existed before. Therefor you couldn't have not existed either.

The correct answer, logically speaking, is:

• you don't exist
  
• you don't not exist
  
• you don't exist and not exist
  
• you don't neither exist nor not exist
  

There just is, logically speaking, no valid argument to prove any of these four conditions to be ultimately true.

Sorry.

---

amuzakat said:

Ahimsa said:

You don't exist in the way you think you do. Because if you did you would never have been born. You would have always existed. Since you think you were born, you must have not existed before. How could you possibly exist not having existed before. Therefor you couldn't have not existed either.

The correct answer, logically speaking, is:

• you don't exist
  
• you don't not exist
  
• you don't exist and not exist
  
• you don't neither exist nor not exist
  

There just is, logically speaking, no valid argument to prove any of these four conditions to be ultimately true.

Sorry.

---

I have a feeling of deja vu to old school Indian thought here. Besides the wording, you have in common that the old champs also rarely cared to "prove" the premises for many of their arguments. Just starting out talking about "existence" as if it by definition has to be something eternal etc. Nagarjuna etc. I still like the old chums, but from a logical point of view they're just presenting a big string of nonsense unless you accept their basic premises, which unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint, are mostly pretty far fetched.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Lay your pee pee on an anvil then hit it really hard with a hammer. Question answered.

---