How can you apply value assessments to something that it is literally impossible to be without?
Existence is a given. It is irrational to assess the value of its absence.
Because if no one can put forth a candidate which is more valuable than existence, then it follows that existence is valuable.
No one can take it away either.
If something has positive value, then its absence must have negative value. There is no absence of existence to be offered. There can be no “negative” and thus “positive” is meaningless. If a value is neither positive nor negative, how is it “value”?
Thus the value of existence is exactly zero, neither positive nor negative.
Just because we do not have the power to annihilate existence does not mean there is something more valuable than existence.
In order to reason on what is valuable in particular we must agree what on what is valuable in general. I propose:
- x is valuable if a subject desires it.
- x is more valuable than y if given a choice between x or y a subject chooses x.
Do you agree to this? - x is not valuable if no subject desires it.
In standard form your argument seems to be:
- We cannot cause existence to be annihilated.
- Therefore, there is something more valuable than existence.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
Moreover, you have to prove that something can have neutral value. You’re begging the question that I accept your definition of neutral value. As far as I can tell there is no such thing as neutral value. Either a subject desires something or a subject does not desire something. For example, there is a sodium ion on Saturn. It’s not that the sodium ion has neutral value, rather it’s worthless to me. Until you can provide a generalization involving neutral value, your argument fails.