If "nonexistence" exists then it is part of existence. And if it doesn't exist then there's no point talking about it, because it doesn't exist.brokenhead wrote:Stop right there. How can you have existence without nonexistence?Anything that exists is part of existence.
That would be a very weird definition of existence - to purposely exclude particular things from having any existence.I can define nonexistence as that which does not belong to the set of things that exist.
That would be like me saying that everything exists except you.
Things exist if they can be contrasted with other things.And anyway, you don't even have a sound definition of existence.
If you can discern a boundary to "elsewhere" then "elsewhere" exists.I can conceive of there being something outside of the lightcone of any event - in the "elsewhere." Yet I can by definition never verify its existence.
If you can discern a thing in elsewhere, then it exists.So: does the thing in the elsewhere exist?
Genes are just collections of atoms. Those collections evolved in the same way that everything else does - ie, if they are able to reproduce themselves then they continue.How did the genes get there in the first place?
I understand fully that all things are caused, just in the same way that I understand that all magic tricks are not really magic but are produced by ordinary cause and effect.No wait, don't tell me, there isn't anything you don't understand fully, correct?
"Life" is just a label. We are no more than a particular pattern of non-life.So how do you account for life?