Existence is Impossible

Con is using semantics to try an win this argument, Con says he does not have to prove that anything does exist to win this debate. Con does however, has to prove that it is at least not impossible. Con has failed demonstrate this. The effect that is existence has absolutely no logical cause, therefore it is absurd to think that it is possible that anything exists at all. Con took the safe route, and says he is not assuming that anything does or does not exist that it is just not impossible. This is a very clever rhetorical slight of hand that I did not foresee. (I must say pretty good for someone who does not exist). Con wants me to prove that existence is impossible, the only proof I offer is that it is logically impossible. Con might as well be asking me to provide proof that god does not exist. Con says that it is impossible for me to claim I do not exist, and says that from my perceptive that it is impossible for me to not exist. Its obvious that Con neglected the other half of my argument that what we perceive must be a hallucination. existence is logically impossible, therefore, perception is psychosis. Furthermore, this hallucination is true insanity because there is no such hallucination there is nothing there to even hallucinate. Con claims that your experience is self evident. I claim that your experience shows you are utterly insane because you are a non-being that thinks you actually have experience. Con makes the assumption that he has "experiences" that he/she does not. Con does not exist. Con goes on to claim that I have "experiences". Con criticizes my arguments saying they are "baseless assumptions" yet his/her argument is filled with them. "I think, therefore I am." This is a baseless assumption, it assumes there is an I. Furthermore, all of Cons arguments are moot because they all rest on the assumption that something really exists. If Con wants to use Hitchens', Occam's Razor, Descartes' Meditations, my supposed "experience" or yours; he is admitting that all those things exist, therefore, Con really is making the assumption that something exists. Con may argue that my use of language destroys my argument. It does not, my use of language is just a way of coping with my own madness. Con says the burden of proof rests on me. Con claims that I am trying to wriggle out of this argument. This makes absolutely no sense. how can i provide the burden of proof when nothing exists? how can I wriggle out of an argument when I, in fact, do not exist. It is obvious that Con must provide proof of existence because everything Con states relies on existence. Now, Con may argue wait that negates the whole argument, because everything that I say depends upon something existing. This is where Con is wrong, I am insane and I am hallucinating what "I" "experience." I am simply coping with "my" madness. I am not saying that existence is logically possible. Con, on the other hand, is saying that it is logically possible to exist. He gives his arguments which in turn are all based on the assumption of existence. Therefore, in order for Con to win this debate he must provide proof that existence is logically possible by stating a reasonable explanation of what is the cause of the effect that is existence. Otherwise, all of Cons arguments are merely baseless assumptions. Furthermore, Con may argue that a hallucination is something and by hallucinating, that shows that at least a hallucination exists. There are two things I have to say about this. If Con takes this route he is trying to wriggle out of providing proof of a first cause. "hallucinations" are just nothingness. The last thing I have to state is simply this, 42.