While I understand the logic behind this, the conclusions don't follow because the assumptions are not verifiable. This isn't a reasoned argument as it's based on something that is impossible to test. It's the same thing we as theists get blamed for when we bring up logical arguments for God. Something that is not empirically verifiable.
IMO, the argument stops after point #1. I cannot prove a negative, so I cannot logically then assume the premise to be true which is what is necessary for the remaining arguments to follow.
If there is no matter, let me chuck this encyclopedia at your head and see if you duck. If matter doesn't exist, you shouldn't be concerned with it hitting you in the face, right? Assuming you don't mind?
IMO, the argument stops after point #1. I cannot prove a negative, so I cannot logically then assume the premise to be true which is what is necessary for the remaining arguments to follow.
If there is no matter, let me chuck this encyclopedia at your head and see if you duck. If matter doesn't exist, you shouldn't be concerned with it hitting you in the face, right? Assuming you don't mind?
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
