Existence Is Infinite

[daniel j lavender]

you, however, just KEEP MISSING the POINT/s here BECAUSE you do NOT want to DELVE INTO what the "other" IS SAYING, and MEANING, and you do this BECAUSE you BELIEVE that your views here are ABSOLUTELY true, right, AND correct as they are.

You’ve yet to clarify your position.

If you can NOT YET SEE the CONTRADICTION, in your OWN writings, then the CONTRADICTION IS CLAIMING:

immaterial expanse is part of the structure of existence. Immateriality helps structure existence as spaces help structure sentences.

And then CLAIMING:

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

Evidently there is no contradiction as you cannot identify it.

[Age]

you, however, just KEEP MISSING the POINT/s here BECAUSE you do NOT want to DELVE INTO what the "other" IS SAYING, and MEANING, and you do this BECAUSE you BELIEVE that your views here are ABSOLUTELY true, right, AND correct as they are.

You’ve yet to clarify your position.

BECAUSE, as I alluded to earlier, I am WAITING.

OBVIOUSLY, one can NOT CLARIFY their position WHEN what has NOT YET been UNDERSTOOD has NOT YET been SHARED.

AND, 'demanding', as I POINTED OUT, EARLIER, does NOT WORK here.

If you can NOT YET SEE the CONTRADICTION, in your OWN writings, then the CONTRADICTION IS CLAIMING:

immaterial expanse is part of the structure of existence. Immateriality helps structure existence as spaces help structure sentences.

And then CLAIMING:

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

Evidently there is no contradiction as you cannot identify it.

Firstly, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is just how QUICK the peoples were, back then, to JUMP to A CONCLUSION, based on their OWN ASSUMPTION, even when NO ACTUAL PROOF for said ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION even actually existed. There are, at least, three False, Wrong, AND Incorrect ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS just in that little ten word sentence of yours here.

If it IS the CONTRADICTION, in your TWO CLAIMS there, which you NEED identifying, to you, then if you just SAID SO earlier, and had just ASKED for the IDENTIFYING FEATURES, then 'this' could have been RESOLVED, EARLIER.

Now, as I FOREWARNED you, EARLIER, you WILL NEED to ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, FIRST.

you CLAIM that the 'immaterial expanse' is PART OF the 'STRUCTURE of existence'. So, now, what is 'immaterial expanse' made out of, or up of, EXACTLY?

[daniel j lavender]

you CLAIM that the 'immaterial expanse' is PART OF the 'STRUCTURE of existence'. So, now, what is 'immaterial expanse' made out of, or up of, EXACTLY?

Immaterial expanse is simply immaterial expanse. It isn’t made up of constituent elements.

[Age]

you CLAIM that the 'immaterial expanse' is PART OF the 'STRUCTURE of existence'. So, now, what is 'immaterial expanse' made out of, or up of, EXACTLY?

Immaterial expanse is simply immaterial expanse. It isn’t made up of constituent elements.

So, if 'immaterial expanse' is NOT made up of 'constituent elements', then 'what' IS 'immaterial expanse' made up of, EXACTLY?

[daniel j lavender]

So, if 'immaterial expanse' is NOT made up of 'constituent elements', then 'what' IS 'immaterial expanse' made up of, EXACTLY?

Again, it is not “made up of”. Immaterial expanse is simply immaterial expanse.

[Age]

So, if 'immaterial expanse' is NOT made up of 'constituent elements', then 'what' IS 'immaterial expanse' made up of, EXACTLY?

Again, it is not “made up of”. Immaterial expanse is simply immaterial expanse.

AND what is ANOTHER WORD FOR 'immaterial expanse'?

IF 'immaterial expanse' is, LOL, not 'made up of', then 'it' is 'what', EXACTLY?

Now, if you can NOT find the Right answer, or just do NOT want to SAY the Right answer, because doing so would CONTRADICT your previous CLAIMS here, then so be it.

But as I FOREWARNED you, you NEED to be OPEN and Honest in ANSWERING a few CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, FIRST, before I will POINT OUT and SHOW the CONTRADICTIONS, and/or INCONSISTENCIES, in YOUR WRITINGS here.

[daniel j lavender]

IF 'immaterial expanse' is, LOL, not 'made up of', then 'it' is 'what', EXACTLY?

What the term indicates: immaterial expanse. A region or area unoccupied by materiality or energy.

[Age]

IF 'immaterial expanse' is, LOL, not 'made up of', then 'it' is 'what', EXACTLY?

What the term indicates: immaterial expanse. A region or area unoccupied by materiality or energy.

Great, we ARE GETTING CLOSER.

And, a region or area UNOCCUPIED by material NOR energy, can also be known as an area or region of ...? And, even an area or region of 'absolute ...'?

[daniel j lavender]

Great, we ARE GETTING CLOSER.

And, a region or area UNOCCUPIED by material NOR energy, can also be known as an area or region of ...? And, even an area or region of 'absolute...'?

Closer?

That is what it is: immaterial expanse.

[Age]

Great, we ARE GETTING CLOSER.

And, a region or area UNOCCUPIED by material NOR energy, can also be known as an area or region of ...? And, even an area or region of 'absolute...'?

Closer?

That is what it is: immaterial expanse.

EXACTLY. AND, BECAUSE you appear to NOT be ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY 'thing' MORE, then I will just LEAVE 'this' for the readers to SEE IF ANY of 'them' can SPOT the CONTRADICTION in YOUR WRITINGS here. you, OBVIOUSLY, appear to be CLOSED and FINISHED on the PRESUMPTION and CONCLUSION that there is NO CONTRADICTION ANYWHERE in YOUR WRITINGS, correct "daniel j lavender"?

[daniel j lavender]

Great, we ARE GETTING CLOSER.

And, a region or area UNOCCUPIED by material NOR energy, can also be known as an area or region of ...? And, even an area or region of 'absolute...'?

Closer?

That is what it is: immaterial expanse.

EXACTLY. AND, BECAUSE you appear to NOT be ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY 'thing' MORE, then I will just LEAVE 'this' for the readers to SEE IF ANY of 'them' can SPOT the CONTRADICTION in YOUR WRITINGS here. you, OBVIOUSLY, appear to be CLOSED and FINISHED on the PRESUMPTION and CONCLUSION that there is NO CONTRADICTION ANYWHERE in YOUR WRITINGS, correct "daniel j lavender"?

You are unable to identify any contradiction.

The very act of recognizing some thing as “absolute” qualifies said thing as a thing. It identifies a property or quality of that thing. As stated in the original text, things have properties or qualities.

[Age]

Closer?

That is what it is: immaterial expanse.

EXACTLY. AND, BECAUSE you appear to NOT be ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY 'thing' MORE, then I will just LEAVE 'this' for the readers to SEE IF ANY of 'them' can SPOT the CONTRADICTION in YOUR WRITINGS here. you, OBVIOUSLY, appear to be CLOSED and FINISHED on the PRESUMPTION and CONCLUSION that there is NO CONTRADICTION ANYWHERE in YOUR WRITINGS, correct "daniel j lavender"?

You are unable to identify any contradiction.

What are you basing this ASSUMPTION ON, EXACTLY?

I ALREADY TOLD you that you would HAVE TO ANSWER SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, OPENLY and Honestly. FIRST, BEFORE I SHOW you WHERE the CONTRADICTION IS, EXACTLY.

you had FINISHED answering, so I had left it.

The very act of recognizing some thing as “absolute” qualifies said thing as a thing. It identifies a property or quality of that thing. As stated in the original text, things have properties or qualities.

So what.

you will NOT inform us of what the 'thing' 'immaterial expanse’ is made up of, EXACTLY. Unless, OF COURSE, you want to now CLAIM that you do NOT recognize 'immaterial expanse' as some 'thing' nor as 'absolute thing'.

Or, maybe you just can NOT YET identify NOR RECOGNIZE the property or quality of 'immaterial expanse'.

Is 'immaterial expanse' even A 'thing', to you?

[daniel j lavender]

EXACTLY. AND, BECAUSE you appear to NOT be ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY 'thing' MORE, then I will just LEAVE 'this' for the readers to SEE IF ANY of 'them' can SPOT the CONTRADICTION in YOUR WRITINGS here. you, OBVIOUSLY, appear to be CLOSED and FINISHED on the PRESUMPTION and CONCLUSION that there is NO CONTRADICTION ANYWHERE in YOUR WRITINGS, correct "daniel j lavender"?

You are unable to identify any contradiction.

What are you basing this ASSUMPTION ON, EXACTLY?

I ALREADY TOLD you that you would HAVE TO ANSWER SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, OPENLY and Honestly. FIRST, BEFORE I SHOW you WHERE the CONTRADICTION IS, EXACTLY.

you had FINISHED answering, so I had left it.

The very act of recognizing some thing as “absolute” qualifies said thing as a thing. It identifies a property or quality of that thing. As stated in the original text, things have properties or qualities.

So what.

you will NOT inform us of what the 'thing' 'immaterial expanse’ is made up of, EXACTLY. Unless, OF COURSE, you want to now CLAIM that you do NOT recognize 'immaterial expanse' as some 'thing' nor as 'absolute thing'.

Or, maybe you just can NOT YET identify NOR RECOGNIZE the property or quality of 'immaterial expanse'.

Is 'immaterial expanse' even A 'thing', to you?

This has already been discussed. You’ve not identified any contradiction.

I could NOT be bothered reading past the sub-heading - Existence is Eternal.

I suggest reading the entire essay. That should clear up any confusion you may have.

[Age]

You are unable to identify any contradiction.

What are you basing this ASSUMPTION ON, EXACTLY?

I ALREADY TOLD you that you would HAVE TO ANSWER SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, OPENLY and Honestly. FIRST, BEFORE I SHOW you WHERE the CONTRADICTION IS, EXACTLY.

you had FINISHED answering, so I had left it.

The very act of recognizing some thing as “absolute” qualifies said thing as a thing. It identifies a property or quality of that thing. As stated in the original text, things have properties or qualities.

So what.

you will NOT inform us of what the 'thing' 'immaterial expanse’ is made up of, EXACTLY. Unless, OF COURSE, you want to now CLAIM that you do NOT recognize 'immaterial expanse' as some 'thing' nor as 'absolute thing'.

Or, maybe you just can NOT YET identify NOR RECOGNIZE the property or quality of 'immaterial expanse'.

Is 'immaterial expanse' even A 'thing', to you?

This has already been discussed.

The QUESTIONS I have JUST ASKED here have NOT been discussed BECAUSE I ONLY JUST ASKED 'them'. And, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED the POINTS and QUESTIONS here have NOT ALREADY BEEN, FULLY, DISCUSSED AT ALL.

ALSO, you do NOT want to DISCUSS and ANSWER what I POINTED OUT and ASKED here because you would THEN EXPOSE THE CONTRADICTION itself.

You’ve not identified any contradiction.

I KNOW I have NOT YET identified THE CONTRADICTION, TO you.

you, also, BELIEVE that there is NO contradiction, right?

I could NOT be bothered reading past the sub-heading - Existence is Eternal.

I suggest reading the entire essay. That should clear up any confusion you may have.

What CONFUSION do you ASSUME, BELIEVE, or KNOW I have here?

I am just WAITING TO REVEAL the CONTRADICTION, to those who are Truly interested, in what you have written so far up to that sub-heading.

THEN I would move ALONG.

[Gary Childress]

What are you basing this ASSUMPTION ON, EXACTLY?

I ALREADY TOLD you that you would HAVE TO ANSWER SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, OPENLY and Honestly. FIRST, BEFORE I SHOW you WHERE the CONTRADICTION IS, EXACTLY.

you had FINISHED answering, so I had left it.



So what.

you will NOT inform us of what the 'thing' 'immaterial expanse’ is made up of, EXACTLY. Unless, OF COURSE, you want to now CLAIM that you do NOT recognize 'immaterial expanse' as some 'thing' nor as 'absolute thing'.

Or, maybe you just can NOT YET identify NOR RECOGNIZE the property or quality of 'immaterial expanse'.

Is 'immaterial expanse' even A 'thing', to you?

This has already been discussed.

The QUESTIONS I have JUST ASKED here have NOT been discussed BECAUSE I ONLY JUST ASKED 'them'. And, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED the POINTS and QUESTIONS here have NOT ALREADY BEEN, FULLY, DISCUSSED AT ALL.

ALSO, you do NOT want to DISCUSS and ANSWER what I POINTED OUT and ASKED here because you would THEN EXPOSE THE CONTRADICTION itself.

You’ve not identified any contradiction.

I KNOW I have NOT YET identified THE CONTRADICTION, TO you.

you, also, BELIEVE that there is NO contradiction, right?

I could NOT be bothered reading past the sub-heading - Existence is Eternal.

I suggest reading the entire essay. That should clear up any confusion you may have.

What CONFUSION do you ASSUME, BELIEVE, or KNOW I have here?

I am just WAITING TO REVEAL the CONTRADICTION, to those who are Truly interested, in what you have written so far up to that sub-heading.

THEN I would move ALONG.

Hi, Age. Is the "contradiction" that you are concerned with that "existence" and "infinite" are (perhaps) contradictory terms? And if that is not the "contradication" that you are concerned with, what is the contradiction that you are concerned with? Please clarify.