Something that can be created can also be destroyed

[bahman]

Have you NOTICED that an amount of your so-called "arguments" are based on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS?

And, you EVEN USE the WORDS, paraphrased, BECAUSE I ASSUME 'such and such', then I now HAVE TO show 'this or that'.

You have to strt the argument from something.

How about starting ANY and ALL arguments from what IS IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct ONLY, INSTEAD off from what you just ASSUME might be true, right, or correct ONLY?

In other words WHY NOT just make that 'something', some 'thing', which is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct ONLY?

If you have such an argument feel free to open a new thread and present it there.

[Age]

No.

What are you saying "No" to here, EXACTLY?

To your third statement.

So, are you saying and claiming that creation causes destruction, and, destruction happens because of destruction, correct?

But you have to provie it.

What are you on about here?

What do you mean?

I MEAN, what are you saying and claiming that I HAVE PROVE there?

[Age]

You have to strt the argument from something.

How about starting ANY and ALL arguments from what IS IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct ONLY, INSTEAD off from what you just ASSUME might be true, right, or correct ONLY?

In other words WHY NOT just make that 'something', some 'thing', which is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct ONLY?

If you have such an argument feel free to open a new thread and present it there.

Are you NOT ABLE TO just START an argument with the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth?

Also, I was NOT CLAIMING ANY thing here, which an 'argument' was needed for.

But this would be EASILY RECOGNIZABLE, that is; IF one was LOOKING CLEARLY and OPENLY here.

[bahman]

What are you saying "No" to here, EXACTLY?

To your third statement.

So, are you saying and claiming that creation causes destruction, and, destruction happens because of destruction, correct?

No, I am not saying that creation causes destruction. PLease read OP carefully.

What are you on about here?

What do you mean?

I MEAN, what are you saying and claiming that I HAVE PROVE there?

No. I already proved it.

[bahman]

How about starting ANY and ALL arguments from what IS IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct ONLY, INSTEAD off from what you just ASSUME might be true, right, or correct ONLY?

In other words WHY NOT just make that 'something', some 'thing', which is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct ONLY?

If you have such an argument feel free to open a new thread and present it there.

Are you NOT ABLE TO just START an argument with the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth?

Also, I was NOT CLAIMING ANY thing here, which an 'argument' was needed for.

But this would be EASILY RECOGNIZABLE, that is; IF one was LOOKING CLEARLY and OPENLY here.

I cannot do that. Feel free to share one if you can in a separate thread.

[Age]

To your third statement.

So, are you saying and claiming that creation causes destruction, and, destruction happens because of destruction, correct?

No, I am not saying that creation causes destruction. PLease read OP carefully.

So, when you say:

B can happen because of A.

What does this mean if 'B' is destruction and 'A' is creation, and you are NOT saying 'A' causes 'B'?

If 'B' can happen BECAUSE OF 'A', then what does BECAUSE OF mean if NOT CAUSED?

What do you mean?

I MEAN, what are you saying and claiming that I HAVE PROVE there?

No. I already proved it.

LOL

It was YOU who SAID that it was ME who, supposedly, HAS TO PROVE some thing.

And, LOL, FURTHER, what do you think or BELIEVE you have ALREADY PROVED here?

[Age]

If you have such an argument feel free to open a new thread and present it there.

Are you NOT ABLE TO just START an argument with the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth?

Also, I was NOT CLAIMING ANY thing here, which an 'argument' was needed for.

But this would be EASILY RECOGNIZABLE, that is; IF one was LOOKING CLEARLY and OPENLY here.

I cannot do that.

If you SAY and BELIEVE you are NOT ABLE TO do that, then okay.

Feel free to share one if you can in a separate thread.

[bahman]

So, are you saying and claiming that creation causes destruction, and, destruction happens because of destruction, correct?

No, I am not saying that creation causes destruction. PLease read OP carefully.

So, when you say:

B can happen because of A.

What does this mean if 'B' is destruction and 'A' is creation, and you are NOT saying 'A' causes 'B'?

If 'B' can happen BECAUSE OF 'A', then what does BECAUSE OF mean if NOT CAUSED?

Yes, A does not cause B.

I MEAN, what are you saying and claiming that I HAVE PROVE there?

No. I already proved it.

LOL

It was YOU who SAID that it was ME who, supposedly, HAS TO PROVE some thing.

And, LOL, FURTHER, what do you think or BELIEVE you have ALREADY PROVED here?

Read OP.

[Age]

No, I am not saying that creation causes destruction. PLease read OP carefully.

So, when you say:

B can happen because of A.

What does this mean if 'B' is destruction and 'A' is creation, and you are NOT saying 'A' causes 'B'?

If 'B' can happen BECAUSE OF 'A', then what does BECAUSE OF mean if NOT CAUSED?

Yes, A does not cause B.

But this is what I said before, to wit you replied, "No", and now you say, "Yes".

ONCE AGAIN, you CONTRADICT what you have previously stated, and even CLARIFIED.

No. I already proved it.

LOL

It was YOU who SAID that it was ME who, supposedly, HAS TO PROVE some thing.

And, LOL, FURTHER, what do you think or BELIEVE you have ALREADY PROVED here?

Read OP.

NOTHING 'proved' there.

In fact, I SHOWED what was Wrong and False there, to which you SAID, "No" to, but which you now SAY, "Yes" to.