I'd like to point out, first of all, that this is not my argument. I saw it posed by a Youtube user named npage85. I think the argument is interesting, but I suspect it is flawed. I'll expain why after I post the argument:
Premise 1: If an event is impossible to imagine happening, then it cannot happen.
Premise 2: It is impossible to imagine yourself not existing.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is impossible for you to cease to exist.
To clarify, at least in premise 1, "impossible" refers to logical impossibility. There is a distinction between what is considered physically impossible and what is logically impossible. An example of a physical impossibility would be, say, a person walking on water. It is still possible to imagine a person walking on water even though it contradicts our current knowledge of physical laws. However, logical impossibility means that it is not even imaginable. An example of a logical impossibility would be a square-circle. That is to say, a figure that is both square and circle at the same time and in the same sense. It is possible to imagine a square morphing into a circle (or vice versa.) It is possible to imagine a circle inside a square (or vice versa.) But it is not possible to imagine the figure as both square and circle at the same time and in the same sense. Logical impossibility is what premise 1 implies.
However, whether or not premise 2 invokes the same type of impossibility is one thing of which I am unsure. Therefore, I suspect there might be some equivocation in the use of the term "impossible." Still, I can't quite put my finger on this.
Another method of approach I have taken is to point out that not existing, per se, is not an event. The response (which I view as an addendum to the original argument) is that the "event," in this case, refers to the transition from existence to nonexistence. So, if a transition from existence to nonexistence is impossible, then it follows that nonexistence is impossible since the latter requires the former for existing beings.
Anyway, I find this argument to be interesting, at the very least.
Premise 1: If an event is impossible to imagine happening, then it cannot happen.
Premise 2: It is impossible to imagine yourself not existing.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is impossible for you to cease to exist.
To clarify, at least in premise 1, "impossible" refers to logical impossibility. There is a distinction between what is considered physically impossible and what is logically impossible. An example of a physical impossibility would be, say, a person walking on water. It is still possible to imagine a person walking on water even though it contradicts our current knowledge of physical laws. However, logical impossibility means that it is not even imaginable. An example of a logical impossibility would be a square-circle. That is to say, a figure that is both square and circle at the same time and in the same sense. It is possible to imagine a square morphing into a circle (or vice versa.) It is possible to imagine a circle inside a square (or vice versa.) But it is not possible to imagine the figure as both square and circle at the same time and in the same sense. Logical impossibility is what premise 1 implies.
However, whether or not premise 2 invokes the same type of impossibility is one thing of which I am unsure. Therefore, I suspect there might be some equivocation in the use of the term "impossible." Still, I can't quite put my finger on this.
Another method of approach I have taken is to point out that not existing, per se, is not an event. The response (which I view as an addendum to the original argument) is that the "event," in this case, refers to the transition from existence to nonexistence. So, if a transition from existence to nonexistence is impossible, then it follows that nonexistence is impossible since the latter requires the former for existing beings.
Anyway, I find this argument to be interesting, at the very least.
