Welcome to Gaia! ::

I've oft asked rather the inverse of this question. I generally ask how you can prove any existance. It's possible to hallucinate sights, sounds, feelings, ect. It's even become possible to produce a means by which to cause such hallucinations, so who's to say that the world that stands before you at this very moment is not simply an illusion? In a dream, an hour can pass like a day, or a day like an hour. Whose to say that you're even human? Who's to say that your entire life, you've been another creature entirely simply dreaming that you were experiencing this life?

I believe that this is a prime example of duality. If there is no definitive proof that something exists, there can be no definitive proof that said thing does not exist. All you have is probability.

I agree with some others who have posted on this forum, I do not think that anyone can prove a "non existence." I think that because no matter how many facts you have against something there will still be possibilities that you may never discover.

I personally believe the "theory" that the universe is so immense that there are endless amounts of situations, possibilities and multiple realities. For example; Today I wore blue-jeans, black sandals, and a black shirt. In another "possible situation" I could have worn blue-jeans, black sandals, a black shirt with a piece of lint on it (but the whole rest of my life would be the same as the one I have now.) The possibilities are endless.

OK lol now to get off of my little mini rant within the actual question.
I believe that possibilities are endless, there is now way to dis-prove it.
^^

It's more than likely that we cannot actually grasp the concept of non-existence.

Also it is rather easy to prove something exist, unless you wish to use the concept of physical existence.
Even so the concept of duality in here is basically like poking yourself in the eye.
It is currently improbable to prove something does not exist.
And in saying this you have already proved that you in fact do exist.
Not unless you use Buddhist Philosophy.

As long as you can prove the existence of something who's existence is mutually exclusive to that of what you are trying to prove doesn't exist, you can have proof of that thing's nonexistence.

Who's to say that existance is merely something as simple as the fact that your heart beats when you're alive, or as complicated as the lobes in your brain?

I usually don't really think about existing except for when it's in the wee hours of the morning and I can't sleep. I often feel severed from my body, and looking in on my mind and I can find the ideas most prevailant easily, but then when I "come back" for lack of a better explaination, there's a sort of empty groove in my chest that I keep thinking of over and over, and I ask myself "Am I real?"

Sure, our nervous systems allow us to feel pain, and other sensory feelings related to touch-contact, and we see and hear, and our brains comprehend other's logic, but who's to say we're not all part of some dream? Maybe, we're not truly exhisting, but maybe someone is dreaming all of us on this planet and others, and just watching what happens through their dreams.

I myself have had dreams where the opposite of what I wanted to happen happened, or something completely unexpected happened, so this provides a sort of logical reasoning for my dream theory...but then again, can I really call it a theory? No, more of a whim or a thought I guess...and also, if we don't exhist, my logic shouldn't apply, or should it?

I like this question. It's a thinking question. I'm very pleased with this question.

Anyway. I'm not entirely sure. You can scientifically prove that a disease doesn't exist in a human body....but that's not proving that it doesn't exist period. I suppose that, by human nature, we assume that something is nonexistant based on whether it has been encountered by human eyes. Dinosaurs for example, are extict because there are no longer any species of them left on the planet, or at least none of them have been encountered.

The biggest existant/nonexistant debate is most likely on God. There isn't any real way to prove that he exists or doesn't. People can look at a 'miracle', or a significant event and give credit to God, but that isn't proof. People who don't belive in God are usually nonbelievers because they've seen no proof. People will not believe what they can't see.

Does anyone know where I'm getting at here?