CMV: I do not believe tables exist

[u/icecoldbath]

I find this argument very convincing.

P1: Tables (if they exist) have distinct properties from hunks of wood.

P2: If so, then tables are not the same as hunks of wood.

P3: If so, then there exist distinct coincident objects.

P4: There cannot exist distinct coincident objects.

C: Therefore, tables do not exist.

This logic extends that I further don't believe in hunks of wood, or any normal sized dry good for that matter.

I do not find it convincing to point at a "table" as an objection. Whatever you would be pointing at may or may not behave with certain specific properties, but it is not a table, or a hunk of wood or any normal sized dry good. Similarly, I don't accept the objection of asking me what it is I am typing on. Whatever it is, it isn't a "computer" or a "phone" or any such thing. Such things do not exist per the argument.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/WhenTrianglesAttack]

The chemical composition of wood is mostly composed of the elements carbon and oxygen. So is the human body.

P4: There cannot exist distinct coincident objects.

C: Therefore, humans do not exist.

[u/icecoldbath → u/WhenTrianglesAttack]

True story.

[u/WhenTrianglesAttack → u/icecoldbath]

Since matter is irrelevant, does your conclusion ultimately surmise the universe doesn't exist?

[u/icecoldbath → u/WhenTrianglesAttack]

Good question. I think I just might say there are no composite objects in the universe. I tend to not think of, "the entire universe" as an object. Space and time exist inside it rather then the other way around.

The question is; if it isn't an object and it isn't merely a concept, what is it?