That is the fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam
. Not being able to prove something true does not make it false. And, of course, you have not even established that it cannot be proven true.
If none of our senses can be trusted in deciding whenever we are inside an ilusion or not, because an ilusion would affect our senses, and if our senses are our only tool to perceive the world, then we cannot prove to not be inside an ilusion.
The first argument is actually dependant on the third. I really should unify this whole thing =)
I agree it is wrong as it is.
Have you never fallen asleep? The end of consciousness is quite common. (Presumably, you mean "conscious
" rather than "conscience
Not so. I perceive two moments of conscience, and between these two moments a very large amount of real-life time passes. For all pratical purposes, I was sleeping. Philosophically speaking, I can just have changed between two "slideshows".
So, you believe that no one else and nothing else exists when you personally don't perceive it?
I believe everything is more than I can see. Its pointless to see it as an ilusion because I cannot escape the ilusion, if I could, that would be relevant.
Why do you believe that your humanity is an illusion? Perhaps it is that that is the real illusion.
Ilusion is not the correct word due to the reason stated above. Its more like: There is more to me than just the "me" I perceive.
So you believe that nothing happens that is not percieved? That esse est percipi ("to be is to be perceived")? Why do you believe that?
Not exactly, I believe nothings happens then I am not perceiving time.
What is your evidence for such claims?
We cannot prove that there is nothing beyond the know universe, not ever. As the know universe exists, without any possible logical explanation, I dont think its logically possible to claim any limits for what there exists to be absolute.
An analogy: If a particle pops out of nowhere, an infinite number of particles will follow.
It does not follow from there being infinite space and infinite types of things, that therefore everything that one can think of happens. To give an example of infinity that lacks something, imagine the set of natural numbers but without the number 2. That set is infinite, but excludes something, namely 2. Indeed, an infinite set can leave out infinite things, such as the set of even numbers, which is infinite, but leaves out the set of odd numbers, which is also infinite. So, an infinite number of things happening does not entail that everything happens. So your argument is simply fallacious.
I think my previous quote answer answers this.
Prove that we can't prove that souls don't exist. (You might want to start with a definition of what you mean by "soul", as that term is used with somewhat different meanings in different contexts.)
I really dont wanna define "soul" =)
And if you accept that everything imaginable exists, souls are obviously included, so this answer isnt really needed (Unless you convince me of that certain imaginable things dont exist).