"Non-existence doesn’t require existence to be true."

I disagree. To have something defined as "non existance", we would first have to have the context of existance to make that contrast. If we dont have that contrast you cannot call it "non existance"..there is just no context at all for that. It would just be what it is..but it wouldnt be "non-existance".

I know that sounds like we are debating semantics..and in part we are..but its more than that. As soon as you make the leap from it being simply whateve it is inate to itself, and start to call it "non-existance" it becomes to us somethng more than what it really is, it becomes a concept of humn value and human interpretation..a concept of the mind..it becomes categoirized relative to the contents of that mind.