Axiom of replacement theory

 If that which is good does not destroy (life). Then what justifies what is good? The truth you would think. The theory would also prove to be false. That if the truth is under somewhat of an umbrella, could we also not assume that freedom and comprehension play a part in how we perceive truth. Secondly, what is equally as false can be how common sense is communicated could also mean that man vs man himself would never diminish life. Therefore, everything is abstruse to reason. (If everything were in life made to be incomprehensible.) That which is obtuse to reason - would only be what is manipulation of x, y, or q. The nature of our intrinsic, or inherent truths would be ridiculed for an eternity. All knowledge would be deemed not as futile - but all future events would also be deemed as futile; in its perpetuity.

Accordingly. . .

My negation:

If there are worse things than dying

Then the axiom is unsound

According to your negation:

In principle - everything in the universe is unsound. If we conceptualize or fail (to conceptualize) what is truth. Then, what acts as truth is worse than dying. But my question to that syllogism is whether life itself can answer to what end is good? (i.e. truth - vis-à-vis - truth logic) This also MUST follow: What is it to others = we would consider as being evil not in fact translate into our own inability to act in good faith. How would we test this??

°●°○●°●°●°●

In summation: How do you test what is evil.  How would you test evil and define it to automatically ascertain that it negates anything worse than death. It also begs the question how do we know what is evil.  Is this not a necessarily circular argument.  In order to disprove the negation - that what is evil seems almost improbable.  Why?  Because nothing can be worse than death.  How? Not even death itself can be worse than death.  Unless, god presents you with a death sentence upon "its arrival"

°●●°○▪︎°●°●°▪︎°

Are you also not postulating (if I am incorrect in doing so). What is good :: cannot be justified nor inferred. ::

EXAMPLE: if as I claimed = not to "destroy" life also equates to what is good. However - killing animals (as food supply) if I am a vegetarian or not is also good nor bad. Then, what is good.

°●°▪︎°●▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°

Marco Almeida ©️ 2025

-The Peg