• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Er Gen, Nep nature type 3 for 4th step cultivators.

Status
Not open for further replies.
because air has no form or shape almost as if it doesn't exist, does not exist in a specified place and contains all places at the same time, since it's literally everywhere
While I understand your concerns, I doubt air takes up no space at all, exist outside of time etc etc...
 
it's maybe me ovethinking and ovvercomplicating things, but i gave my example as to why
Why does the air does not exist in a specified place?
Are you claiming that there is no air in the atmosphere?
literally does not exist in space
but air is exist in the atmosphere.
 
Why does the air does not exist in a specified place?
Are you claiming that there is no air in the atmosphere?
literally does not exist in space
but air is exist in the atmosphere.
"doesn not exist in a specified place" as in doesn't exist in a specific place, it's everywhere

that's what i meant by the analogy, it may have simply meant that essence exists everywhere and thus contains everything
 
"doesn not exist in a specified place" as in doesn't exist in a specific place, it's everywhere

that's what i meant by the analogy, it may have simply meant that essence exists everywhere and thus contains everything
Yes, but the analogy is irrelevant because in expression said that the essence contains all places but also does not exist in any specific place.
The air is limited to such things as atmosphere and nothing beyond.
So air not contain all places.
Anyway, brother, I'm not gonna deal with this any longer.
Because you've already accepted op.
Also stay motivated.
 
Yes, but the analogy is irrelevant because in expression said that the essence contains all places but also does not exist in any specific place.
The air is limited to such things as atmosphere and nothing beyond.
So air not contain all places.
Anyway, brother, I'm not gonna deal with this any longer.
Because you've already accepted op.
Also stay motivated.
Bro first buried him and then praised him
 
Oh, I forgot about you.
I'm coming to give you the attention you want.
Okay, Dread, can you explain why you disagree with this?
Your implication of state of existence has no grounds while scans don't even state that.
 
Your implication of state of existence has no grounds while scans don't even state that.
"its almost like it doesnt even exist."
"Has no form or shape"
"the essence does not exist in a specific place"
"Essence takes up no space"

Why do you disagree that? when there are so many extra statements that they do not exist?
We have already explained them sufficiently above
Oh, I'm sorry, you must be so angry with me for making a joke about you to your boyfriend :D.
 
"its almost like it doesnt even exist."
"Has no form or shape"
"the essence does not exist in a specific place"
"Essence takes up no space"

Why do you disagree that? when there are so many extra statements that they do not exist?
We have already explained them sufficiently above
Oh, I'm sorry, you must be so angry with me for making a joke about you to your boyfriend :D.
Your implication of state of existence has no grounds while scans don't even state that.
 
yeah tbh, the essence taking up no space is all the evidence you need really, for something to exist it has to take up space no matter how small it is, if it doesn't then it simply doens't exist

you should put that in the original post
 
yeah tbh, the essence taking up no space is all the evidence you need really, for something to exist it has to take up space no matter how small it is, if it doesn't then it simply doens't exist

you should put that in the original post
This already exists in the op
At least it's on the imgur link I sent.
I will still add it as a text.
 
"its almost like it doesnt even exist."
"Has no form or shape"
"the essence does not exist in a specific place"
"Essence takes up no space"

Why do you disagree that? when there are so many extra statements that they do not exist?
Having no shape or form does not sounds like any paradoxical means.

God has no eyes but can see everything does not indicate anything complicated. It simply means he can see without eyes. Makes sense? Perhaps, within our logical terms, it does not but that's theological means.
We have already explained them sufficiently above
Explaining it without any additional context won't help the case.
Oh, I'm sorry, you must be so angry with me for making a joke about you to your boyfriend :D.
Don't see any relevance to the conversation.
 
God has no eyes but can see everything does not indicate anything complicated. It simply means he can see without eyes. Makes sense? Perhaps, within our logical terms, it does not but that's theological means.
Irrelevant because I use "no form or shape" and "contains all forms and shapes"
The example you should give
It would lead to something absurd like God has no eyes, but he has eyes, in which case he would again be in a paradoxical situation.
And this is not the only scene where we give an example of non existence.
""its almost like it doesnt even exist."
"the essence does not exist in a specific place"
"Essence takes up no space"

You completely ignore them
Don't see any relevance to the conversation.
Maybe.
 
Your counter-argument that it leads to absurd while your example is already absurd to some extent is kinda not counter.
 
What I mean by absurd is that it's a paradoxical thing.
And the example you give is your own nonsense
The example you should have given is that God has no a but has a, and this will be something paradoxical
But you used an example like God has no a and has b.
You're the one making the topic irrelevant
Also, you still didnt answer 3 example.
 
I don't see how it is paradoxical. The context behind the example is the same as yours but simply in other context. The outcome of statement is tends to say he has vision.
 
Yes, let's agree to disagree because both of you have been going round in circles on this issue. Let's let the staff decide.
 
And again you just reject something and cannot even give a logical reason
Also still continue to ignore examples
Gj Dread.
The statement is not logical. So no need to throw me with logical reasons.

Everyone interpret it differently.
 
The explanation is very clear because when you read this with examples this is clearly NEP nature type 3
And not everyone interprets it differently. You're the only one who does, Dread.
 
Anyway, I'm waiting for staff votes, and of all the people here you're the one who rejected it, you also still continue to run away from examples.
You can interpret it any way you want.
 
I think you miss a point; majority does not equate correctness. So you are not really here countering any points.

Sure you can wait, but you are the one who asked me and quoted me. So no need to get passive aggressive here.
 
I think you miss a point; majority does not equate correctness. So you are not really here countering any points.

Sure you can wait, but you are the one who asked me and quoted me. So no need to get passive aggressive here.
His point is that you interpret it differently while everyone else has no problem. One person's personal opinion doesn't really matter unless you're DT or Ultima.
 
Residing in a state that exists as nothing but contains everything that you're supposedly nothing of would be considered as paradoxical since you can't be nonexistent and existent at that same time, on the same level, as the same property without being paradoxical, that's definitively what paradoxical means.

I agree with the thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top