Alright, this is an add-lib and everyone gets to play. Make additions if you like or just watch it unfold. Whatever suits you. (I do not mean “Bob” as in the member Bob. I just wanted to use short names to speed things up.)
Try to stay on the subject. Don’t say some random shit and throw the rhythm off.
Bob: “X” does not exists.
Joe: What is it that you are claiming does not exist?
Bob: “X”.
Joe: Then how do you reference “X” in the statement while claiming that it does not exist?
Bob: I’m not claiming that “X” exists, I’m saying that it doesn’t.
Joe: If “X” does not exist, then it couldn’t exist for you to say it didn’t exist, and you could not make the statement.
Bob: I don’t understand.
Joe: Whatever it is that you are calling “X” must exist in order for you to doubt and make the claim that it doesn’t exist. If “X” truely didn’t exist then you couldn’t claim it didn’t exist because you would be refering to nothing in the first place.
Bob: Look, I’m saying that the idea doesn’t exist.
Joe: What’s the difference?
Bob: The difference is huge, dude! This rock right here does exist because I can sense it. The idea of “X” cannot be sensed, so that’s why it doesn’t exist.
Joe: That’s circular, Bob. You’re still not getting it. What makes your idea of “sense” any different than the idea of “X?” Is not the perception and experience of the “rock” just another idea? How do you decide what “sense” is?
Bob: I’m an Empiricist, didn’t you know?
Joe: How boring. I quit Empiricism years ago. Its like watching old people fuck. You can’t be serious.
Bob: Of course I’m serious. Anyway, back to “X.”
Joe: No. Explain your “Empiricism” first.
[Joe lights a cigarette]
Bob: Alright. Let’s designate “God” to “X.” I’m saying that “God” does not exist because it is an idea about something I cannot experience.
Joe: Explain, then, what kind of ‘experience’ provides for the ideation of the proposition: ““X” does not exist.” Saying that “X” has no empirical existence is not saying that “X” does not exist because, as I said earlier, you couldn’t pose the question. Furthermore, if what you consider “sense” is merely the presence to a belief that something does or does not exist, there isn’t much difference in an idea of a “rock” and an idea of “God.”
Bob: When I say “sense” I mean a physical reception of some stimulus. Anything more is a process of imagination. I can invent an imaginary concept in my head, such as a God or a munchkin, and refer to it as “X” when I say it doesn’t exist.
[continue]