The Existence of Space

I would like to congratulate him on his arguments as they were of great quality. Do We Exist? In your opening paragraph, you stated that you thought it interesting that my argument basically says that nothing, including you and I, exists. Pro made it seem as if this was a very senseless opinion. I would just like to point out that this really isn’t that crazy, when you consider the fact that there are no facts to support the existence of, well, anything. My SyllogismPremise 1: • I think a better way to state this so that Pro can understand it is thus: the existence of one thing can only be if there is something in existence outside of the thing that supposedly exists. You yourself said “the universe is the sole existence”, so if there cannot be something outside of the universe, there is nothing. My syllogism goes on to prove that because there is nothing outside of the universe, it cannot exist. • Rebuttal of problem 1: What you are saying is that there is an infinite universe. As this is a very debated and unresolved question, I suggest that we leave this argument alone until the true answer is discovered. • Rebuttal of problem 2: In the first premise, I am trying to get you to see things in a way that you can understand it. I am proving that if something did exist, then it could not exist. I am taking your doctrine, so to speak, using your grounds, and disproving your beliefs. In my conclusion, I am showing how one should now see it, if one indeed believed that something existed. Premise 2: • When I say that space is in nothing, I simply mean that nothing can exist outside of matter; nothing can exist that is not in the universe. You say that by stating that there is nothing I am assuming that there is something, and therefore making it so. This is ludicrous and asinine. By saying there is nothing I say that something cannot be if it is indeed in a state of nothingness. This does not mean, under any circumstances, that something is. Conclusion: • I have proved that premises one and two are true, therefore making the conclusion true. • In my definition, when I said that space is all reality, I meant that space is all that is reality for the common person; i. e. everything physical. • You said, “If space does not exist, then I do not exist, Con does not exist, the voter/reader does not exist, and this debate does not exist”. Who is saying it does? • “If the conclusion is that space does not exist, then that would also conclude that there is only nothingness. ” The problem with this statement is you are using nothingness as if it were something. Nothingness is not something; it is the absence of everything. It seems like you cannot quite grasp that notion yet. • “Even if I existed as a sole singularity (in order to have thought or consciousness) then there is still some form of existence negating the conclusion. ” I agree that if one thing existed, there would be existence. However, what proof do you have that you exist? There is none, as I will show when refuting your argument below. Refutation of Pro’s ArgumentPremise 1: “If I or any entity exists, then there is existence. ”As I completely agree with this statement, I will not negate it. Premise 2: “I think, therefore I exist; or an entity that is able to project their consciousness as mine exists. ”This I have a problem with. You are using the famous quote coined by Rene Descartes, “Cogito ergo sum”, or “I think, therefore I am”, which has one flaw. Descartes is assuming what he is initially setting out to prove, that is, the “I”. Conclusion: Since the second premise has been proven wrong, the conclusion is wrong, i. e. there is not existence, and therefore space does not and cannot exist. I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate, and thank you for giving me the opportunity. I look forward to your rebuttal. Voters/readers: remember that the disproof of one thing does not mean the proof of its opposite.