Existence Is Infinite

[Age]

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 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.

Thank you "gary childress" for the clarifying questions here.

No I am not really too concerned at all that those two words are contradictory in terms.

The contradiction I see and am concerned with is in what I was saying earlier about claiming that:

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

And then CLAIMING:

'Something and nothing cannot coexist.'

Now, and as I was 'trying to' get "daniel j lavender' to admit to, 'immaterial expanse', literally, consists of 'nothing', which then means that a 'part of' the structure of 'Existence', Itself, that is; the 'immaterial expanse' 'part' is 'nothing'. Therefore, this would and does mean that the 'something', that is; 'the material' 'part', does actually coexist with the 'nothing', that is; 'the immaterial expanse' 'part', of Existence.

And, the fact that the word 'spaces' was used above by "daniel j lavender" also works in perfectly with 'this'.

[Gary Childress]

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.


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

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


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.

Thank you "gary childress" for the clarifying questions here.

No I am not really to concerned that those two words are contradictory in terms.

The contradiction I see and am concerned with is in saying that

OK. I think I may know somewhat what might be the reason for your statement. Can you clarify a little more on your concern with saying "existence is infinite"? Perhaps we are in relative agreement to whatever extent?

[Age]

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.

Thank you "gary childress" for the clarifying questions here.

No I am not really to concerned that those two words are contradictory in terms.

The contradiction I see and am concerned with is in saying that

OK. I think I may know somewhat what might be the reason for your statement. Can you clarify a little more on your concern with saying "existence is infinite"? Perhaps we are in relative agreement to whatever extent?

I will have to apologize here "gary childress" I only submitted 'this part' because i was typing on my phone and wanted to transfer to the computer to find the exact wording "daniel j lavender" had used, and so then edited my post on the computer. you have obviously read the original version before I had edited it and posted the edited version, which is now above this reply of yours here.

[Gary Childress]

Thank you "gary childress" for the clarifying questions here.

No I am not really to concerned that those two words are contradictory in terms.

The contradiction I see and am concerned with is in saying that

OK. I think I may know somewhat what might be the reason for your statement. Can you clarify a little more on your concern with saying "existence is infinite"? Perhaps we are in relative agreement to whatever extent?

I will have to apologize here "gary childress" I only submitted 'this part' because i was typing on my phone and wanted to transfer to the computer to find the exact wording "daniel j lavender" had used, and so then edited my post on the computer. you have obviously read the original version before I had edited it and posted the edited version, which is now above this reply of yours here.

OK. I think I see what you are saying now, after reading what you added to your edited reply. I have the same problem sometimes, having to go back and edit something I stated hastily or "off the cuff". It happens to the best of us.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Age]

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.

Thank you "gary childress" for the clarifying questions here.

No I am not really to concerned that those two words are contradictory in terms.

The contradiction I see and am concerned with is in saying that

OK. I think I may know somewhat what might be the reason for your statement. Can you clarify a little more on your concern with saying "existence is infinite"? Perhaps we are in relative agreement to whatever extent?

The only 'thing' I would say would be concerning using the 'infinite' word in relation to the 'Existence' word is that the 'Existence' word brings with it more of a 'temporal' connotation rather than a 'spatial' connotation, well to me anyway. So, i would instead say, as I have, 'Existence is eternal', rather than saying 'Existence is infinite'. But as I said earlier this is of very little concern to me, for now.

I am trying to reveal the blatant contradiction I see here, first.

[Age]

OK. I think I may know somewhat what might be the reason for your statement. Can you clarify a little more on your concern with saying "existence is infinite"? Perhaps we are in relative agreement to whatever extent?

I will have to apologize here "gary childress" I only submitted 'this part' because i was typing on my phone and wanted to transfer to the computer to find the exact wording "daniel j lavender" had used, and so then edited my post on the computer. you have obviously read the original version before I had edited it and posted the edited version, which is now above this reply of yours here.

OK. I think I see what you are saying now, after reading what you added to your edited reply. I have the same problem sometimes, having to go back and edit something I stated hastily or "off the cuff". It happens to the best of us.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

I did not state 'it' hastily, nor 'off the cuff'. As I was saying, i was using my phone for the first time, and it would have been far more cumbersome to find "daniel j lavender's" exact words, copy and paste them, and then add them to the post on the phone. So, instead, i just submitted the unfinished version, and then just went on my laptop to finish off/edit that first submitted version, as I find it much easier to find, copy and paste, on the laptop instead of on the phone. I was not expecting anyone to read, and comment, before I finished doing that.

Which is ANOTHER GREAT example of WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER to NEVER ASSUME absolutely ANY 'thing'. If I had NOT ASSUMED that NO one would read AND reply, then I would have just finished my post, on my phone, and then I would NOT now have to be EXPLAINING what happened. Thus, it would have been EASIER and SIMPLER to have just finished on my phone, then it is now EXPLAINING.

[Gary Childress]

I will have to apologize here "gary childress" I only submitted 'this part' because i was typing on my phone and wanted to transfer to the computer to find the exact wording "daniel j lavender" had used, and so then edited my post on the computer. you have obviously read the original version before I had edited it and posted the edited version, which is now above this reply of yours here.

OK. I think I see what you are saying now, after reading what you added to your edited reply. I have the same problem sometimes, having to go back and edit something I stated hastily or "off the cuff". It happens to the best of us.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

I did not state 'it' hastily, nor 'off the cuff'. As I was saying, i was using my phone for the first time, and it would have been far more cumbersome to find "daniel j lavender's" exact words, copy and paste them, and then add them to the post on the phone. So, instead, i just submitted the unfinished version, and then just went on my laptop to finish off/edit that first submitted version, as I find it much easier to find, copy and paste, on the laptop instead of on the phone. I was not expecting anyone to read, and comment, before I finished doing that.

Which is ANOTHER GREAT example of WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER to NEVER ASSUME absolutely ANY 'thing'. If I had NOT ASSUMED that NO one would read AND reply, then I would have just finished my post, on my phone, and then I would NOT now have to be EXPLAINING what happened. Thus, it would have been EASIER and SIMPLER to have just finished on my phone, then it is now EXPLAINING.

OK. I'll rephrase what I said, I understand the reason for your edit. Stuff like that happens to the best of us.

Does that help?

[Age]

OK. I think I see what you are saying now, after reading what you added to your edited reply. I have the same problem sometimes, having to go back and edit something I stated hastily or "off the cuff". It happens to the best of us.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

I did not state 'it' hastily, nor 'off the cuff'. As I was saying, i was using my phone for the first time, and it would have been far more cumbersome to find "daniel j lavender's" exact words, copy and paste them, and then add them to the post on the phone. So, instead, i just submitted the unfinished version, and then just went on my laptop to finish off/edit that first submitted version, as I find it much easier to find, copy and paste, on the laptop instead of on the phone. I was not expecting anyone to read, and comment, before I finished doing that.

Which is ANOTHER GREAT example of WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER to NEVER ASSUME absolutely ANY 'thing'. If I had NOT ASSUMED that NO one would read AND reply, then I would have just finished my post, on my phone, and then I would NOT now have to be EXPLAINING what happened. Thus, it would have been EASIER and SIMPLER to have just finished on my phone, then it is now EXPLAINING.

OK. I'll rephrase what I said, I understand the reason for your edit. Stuff like that happens to the best of us.

Does that help?

'Help' is NOT the word i would USE.

But at least what you said and wrote here now does NOT that you completely MISREAD, MISUNDERSTOOD, or MISINTERPRETED what I had ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN.

Although your last sentence is STILL IMPLYING some sort of MISTAKE had taken place here. Unless, OF COURSE, the ONLY 'mistake' here, which you are referring to, is to the ASSUMING I DID, ONLY.

In which case I would suggest that 'we', ALL, ASSUME 'things', at times, and some just ASSUME FAR MORE OFTEN than "others" do, so 'stuff like that happens' to ALL of 'us' and NOT to just the so-called 'best of us'.

Now, would you like to comment on 'THE CONTRADICTION' that I POINTED OUT and SHOWED above?

If no, then why not?

[Gary Childress]

I did not state 'it' hastily, nor 'off the cuff'. As I was saying, i was using my phone for the first time, and it would have been far more cumbersome to find "daniel j lavender's" exact words, copy and paste them, and then add them to the post on the phone. So, instead, i just submitted the unfinished version, and then just went on my laptop to finish off/edit that first submitted version, as I find it much easier to find, copy and paste, on the laptop instead of on the phone. I was not expecting anyone to read, and comment, before I finished doing that.

Which is ANOTHER GREAT example of WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER to NEVER ASSUME absolutely ANY 'thing'. If I had NOT ASSUMED that NO one would read AND reply, then I would have just finished my post, on my phone, and then I would NOT now have to be EXPLAINING what happened. Thus, it would have been EASIER and SIMPLER to have just finished on my phone, then it is now EXPLAINING.

OK. I'll rephrase what I said, I understand the reason for your edit. Stuff like that happens to the best of us.

Does that help?

'Help' is NOT the word i would USE.

But at least what you said and wrote here now does NOT that you completely MISREAD, MISUNDERSTOOD, or MISINTERPRETED what I had ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN.

Although your last sentence is STILL IMPLYING some sort of MISTAKE had taken place here. Unless, OF COURSE, the ONLY 'mistake' here, which you are referring to, is to the ASSUMING I DID, ONLY.

In which case I would suggest that 'we', ALL, ASSUME 'things', at times, and some just ASSUME FAR MORE OFTEN than "others" do, so 'stuff like that happens' to ALL of 'us' and NOT to just the so-called 'best of us'.

Now, would you like to comment on the CONTRADICTION I POINTED OUT and SHOWED here?

If no, then why not?

OK. So you wanted to use a shortcut because you were using your phone to reply instead of waiting to post it from your computer where you would be better able to post a more thorough reply? Am I to understand it that way, instead of having done something unintentionally resulting in a "mistake"?

[daniel j lavender]

The contradiction I see and am concerned with is in what I was saying earlier about claiming that:

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

And then CLAIMING:

'Something and nothing cannot coexist.'

Now, and as I was 'trying to' get "daniel j lavender' to admit to, 'immaterial expanse', literally, consists of 'nothing', which then means that a 'part of' the structure of 'Existence', Itself, that is; the 'immaterial expanse' 'part' is 'nothing'. Therefore, this would and does mean that the 'something', that is; 'the material' 'part', does actually coexist with the 'nothing', that is; 'the immaterial expanse' 'part', of Existence.

Immaterial expanse does not “consist of nothing”.

As stated, immaterial expanse does not “consist of”. Immaterial expanse is simply immaterial expanse.

However that does not mean immaterial expanse is nothing or nonexistence.

It’s similar to saying an elemental or basic thing is not a thing, an elemental or basic thing is nothing because it is an elemental or basic thing. No, it is still a thing. Immaterial expanse is a thing.

There is no contradiction.

As defined in the original text, things can be perceived. Things have properties, things have qualities. Immaterial expanse is immaterial, it is incorporeal. Nothing or nonexistence cannot be perceived; nothing or nonexistence does not have properties or qualities because it is not and cannot be.

Something and nothing cannot coexist. If there is some thing, if there are things there is not no thing. In this case there are things, materiality and immateriality. There is not nothing. Nothing, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

And, the fact that the word 'spaces' was used above by "daniel j lavender" also works in perfectly with 'this'.

Yes, spaces in sentences is a perfect analogy because both concern structure and both are readily perceived.

[Age]

OK. I'll rephrase what I said, I understand the reason for your edit. Stuff like that happens to the best of us.

Does that help?

'Help' is NOT the word i would USE.

But at least what you said and wrote here now does NOT that you completely MISREAD, MISUNDERSTOOD, or MISINTERPRETED what I had ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN.

Although your last sentence is STILL IMPLYING some sort of MISTAKE had taken place here. Unless, OF COURSE, the ONLY 'mistake' here, which you are referring to, is to the ASSUMING I DID, ONLY.

In which case I would suggest that 'we', ALL, ASSUME 'things', at times, and some just ASSUME FAR MORE OFTEN than "others" do, so 'stuff like that happens' to ALL of 'us' and NOT to just the so-called 'best of us'.

Now, would you like to comment on the CONTRADICTION I POINTED OUT and SHOWED here?

If no, then why not?

OK. So you wanted to use a shortcut because you were using your phone to reply instead of waiting to post it from your computer where you would be better able to post a more thorough reply? Am I to understand it that way, instead of having done something unintentionally resulting in a "mistake"?

your understanding is CLOSER, and thus BETTER.

[Age]

The contradiction I see and am concerned with is in what I was saying earlier about claiming that:

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

And then CLAIMING:

'Something and nothing cannot coexist.'

Now, and as I was 'trying to' get "daniel j lavender' to admit to, 'immaterial expanse', literally, consists of 'nothing', which then means that a 'part of' the structure of 'Existence', Itself, that is; the 'immaterial expanse' 'part' is 'nothing'. Therefore, this would and does mean that the 'something', that is; 'the material' 'part', does actually coexist with the 'nothing', that is; 'the immaterial expanse' 'part', of Existence.

Immaterial expanse does not “consist of nothing”.

So, what does 'immaterial expanse' consist OF, EXACTLY?

As stated, immaterial expanse does not “consist of”.

But this sentence IS NONSENSICAL, or UNFINISHED at best.

Immaterial expanse is simply immaterial expanse.

AND, 'a tree' is simply 'a tree', also. But this does NOT REALLY explain much.

So, if you can NOT explain 'it' simply, then do you, REALLY, understand 'it', FULLY?

However that does not mean immaterial expanse is nothing or nonexistence.

For starters 'nonexistence' in reference to some 'thing', which is existing, is NONSENSICAL, and just plain old ABSURD to BEGIN WITH.

And, if 'immaterial expanse' is NOT 'nothing', then 'it' IS some 'thing'. So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, and, what is 'it' made up of, consist of, or is constitute of, EXACTLY?

It’s similar to saying an elemental or basic thing is not a thing,

But asking you to EXPLAIN what you CLAIM IS some 'thing' is ACTUALLY made up of, EXACTLY, is NOTHING REALLY like saying, 'an elemental or basic 'thing' is 'not a thing', AT ALL.

The two ARE VERY DIFFERENT.

an elemental or basic thing is nothing because it is an elemental or basic thing. No, it is still a thing. Immaterial expanse is a thing.

What are you going on ABOUT here, and now?

There is no contradiction.

But how would you YET KNOW.

you are NOT YET EVEN AWARE of what IS 'THE CONTRADICTION', which I have been REFERRING TO.

As defined in the original text, things can be perceived.

Can an 'immaterial expanse' be perceived?

Things have properties, things have qualities. Immaterial expanse is immaterial, it is incorporeal. Nothing or nonexistence cannot be perceived; nothing or nonexistence does not have properties or qualities because it is not and cannot be.

From 'a distance' it looks like 'you' are DISAGREEING WITH and ARGUING AGAINST 'you' (or "your" 'self') here.

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

you have REPEATEDLY TOLD us 'THIS'.

I have ALSO POINTED OUT that you BELIEVE 'this' to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE, and so ALSO BELIEVE that there is ABSOLUTELY NO CONTRADICTION here.

Which, by the way, you ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO BELIEVE IS TRUE.

AND, so ONCE AGAIN, I will leave you WITH YOUR BELIEF here.

If there is some thing, if there are things there is not no thing.

BECAUSE you KEEP BELIEVING that 'this' is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, AND KEEP RE-REPEATING 'this' BELIEF of YOURS, then I am NOT in a position to INFORM you of WHAT ELSE COULD ACTUALLY BE HAPPENING, and thus True here.

AGAIN, I FULLY UNDERSTAND that 'that' IS YOUR BELIEF here, and that you are NOT in ANY WAY to COMPRISE NOR CHANGE YOUR BELIEF.

This is FULLY and Truly UNDERSTOOD.

In this case there are things, materiality and immateriality.

Are you ABLE to INFORM us of what 'materiality' is made up of or out of, EXACTLY?

There is not nothing.

BUT, THERE IS.

AND, IF you EVER would like to KNOW HOW, and WHY, then let it be KNOWN that I AM MORE THAN WILLING TO SHARE 'this' IRREFUTABLE KNOWLEDGE or INFORMATION WITH you.

Nothing, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

If you say so.

AND, if you BELIEVE 'this' is true, then 'it' MUST BE TRUE, right?

And, the fact that the word 'spaces' was used above by "daniel j lavender" also works in perfectly with 'this'.

Yes, spaces in sentences is a perfect analogy because both concern structure and both are readily perceived.

YES I KNOW. This is WHY I SAID that 'it' WORKS IN PERFECTLY.

Which WILL COME-TO-LIGHT.

[daniel j lavender]

So, what does 'immaterial expanse' consist OF, EXACTLY?

So, if you can NOT explain 'it' simply, then do you, REALLY, understand 'it', FULLY?

And, if 'immaterial expanse' is NOT 'nothing', then 'it' IS some 'thing'. So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, and, what is 'it' made up of, consist of, or is constitute of, EXACTLY?

But asking you to EXPLAIN what you CLAIM IS some 'thing' is ACTUALLY made up of, EXACTLY, is NOTHING REALLY like saying, 'an elemental or basic 'thing' is 'not a thing', AT ALL.

It has been explicitly articulated. The essay, the philosophy is straightforward, simple and concise. No need to get into minutiae where there is no need to get into minutiae.

Immaterial expanse is about as simple, is about as basic as it gets, hence the trouble simplifying or breaking it down further.

Again, you are arguing that an elemental thing is not a thing because it cannot be broken down or simplified further. In essence you are arguing that a basic thing is not a thing, or is based on nothing or nonexistence, because it cannot be any more basic. That is a fallacious argument.

Immaterial expanse is a rather basic aspect of existence, but not a nonexistent aspect of existence.

As noted in the original text, the basis of any thing is existence, is being. The basis of substance itself is existence, is being. The thing is. Substance is. Immaterial expanse is.

Can an 'immaterial expanse' be perceived?

Obviously, yes. You are acknowledging the idea of it in discussion here.

You acknowledge use of spaces in sentences per your comment above, you employ them yourself in continued interactions here on the forum, further verifying perception of such things. One cannot physically touch immaterial expanse or spaces between words but they exist, one acknowledges them, one perceives and interacts with them.

If not for immaterial expanse would there be density gradients? If not for immaterial expanse would there be distance, would planets, would other galaxies be as distant as they are? Would our solar system be allowed such an arrangement conducive of life and the human experience? You sincerely ask if immaterial expanse can be perceived?

Are you ABLE to INFORM us of what 'materiality' is made up of or out of, EXACTLY?

Materiality in this sense is a category which includes material things. Material aspects of existence generally speaking.

[Age]

So, what does 'immaterial expanse' consist OF, EXACTLY?

So, if you can NOT explain 'it' simply, then do you, REALLY, understand 'it', FULLY?

And, if 'immaterial expanse' is NOT 'nothing', then 'it' IS some 'thing'. So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, and, what is 'it' made up of, consist of, or is constitute of, EXACTLY?

But asking you to EXPLAIN what you CLAIM IS some 'thing' is ACTUALLY made up of, EXACTLY, is NOTHING REALLY like saying, 'an elemental or basic 'thing' is 'not a thing', AT ALL.

It has been explicitly articulated.

The 'it' word here refers to 'what', EXACTLY?

The essay, the philosophy is straightforward, simple and concise.

True, all you are really SAYING and CLAIMING is, 'Existence is infinite', and, 'something and nothing cannot coexist'.

Now, what you are 'TRYING TO' SAY and CLAIM is ABSOLUTELY True, Right, AND even Correct. BUT, what you are ACTUALLY SAYING, and thus CLAIMING here about 'nothing' and 'something' IS False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

No need to get into minutiae where there is no need to get into minutiae.

LOL

The words of one who does NOT want to DELVE INTO nor LOOK AT what could be Wrong in what they SAY and CLAIM.

Immaterial expanse is about as simple, is about as basic as it gets, hence the trouble simplifying or breaking it down further.

'Immaterial expanse' consists of NO 'things'. So, it does NOT get ANY MORE basic AND simple.

Again, you are arguing that an elemental thing is not a thing because it cannot be broken down or simplified further.

LOL you could NOT be ANY FURTHER MORE Wrong AND Incorrect here.

But PLEASE feel absolutely FREE TO BELIEVE whatever 'it' is you WANT TO BELIEVE.

In essence you are arguing that a basic thing is not a thing, or is based on nothing or nonexistence, because it cannot be any more basic. That is a fallacious argument.

ONCE AGAIN, you could NOT MORE Wrong AND Incorrect here.

Here we have a PRIME example of just how DISTORTING 'things' can GET when one SEES 'things' when they are LOOKING FROM an ALREADY BELIEVED, or ASSUMED, viewpoint.

Immaterial expanse is a rather basic aspect of existence, but not a nonexistent aspect of existence.

I KNOW, and this IS WHY YOUR CLAIM here IS A CONTRADICTION.

As noted in the original text, the basis of any thing is existence, is being. The basis of substance itself is existence, is being. The thing is. Substance is. Immaterial expanse is.

While you KEEP REFERRING us BACK TO YOUR OWN WORDS, as though they ARE GOSPEL, you WILL KEEP MISSING THE CONTRADICTION in THOSE WRITINGS.

Can an 'immaterial expanse' be perceived?

Obviously, yes. You are acknowledging the idea of it in discussion here.

GREAT. We MOVE ANOTHER STEP CLOSER.

You acknowledge use of spaces in sentences per your comment above, you employ them yourself in continued interactions here on the forum, further verifying perception of such things. One cannot physically touch immaterial expanse or spaces between words but they exist, one acknowledges them, one perceives and interacts with them.

AND, the reason WHY one can NOT physically touch immaterial expanse IS because 'immaterial expanse' does NOT consist of ...?

If not for immaterial expanse would there be density gradients? If not for immaterial expanse would there be distance, would planets, would other galaxies be as distant as they are?

REMEMBER that it IS 'I', ALSO, who CLAIMS that 'immaterial expanse' HAS TO exist, or 'be here', IN eternal Existence.

Would our solar system be allowed such an arrangement conducive of life and the human experience? You sincerely ask if immaterial expanse can be perceived?

I ASKED you to FIND OUT and SEE what your response and ANSWER would be.

Are you ABLE to INFORM us of what 'materiality' is made up of or out of, EXACTLY?

Materiality in this sense is a category which includes material things. Material aspects of existence generally speaking.

Okay, ANOTHER STEP CLOSER.

So, if 'materiality' is made up of, or out of, 'material things', EXACTLY, then what is 'immateriality' or 'immaterial space or expanse' made up of, or out of, EXACTLY?

WHEN we GET a reasonable or sensible ANSWER, then we can MOVE ONE MORE STEP CLOSER.

[daniel j lavender]

AND, the reason WHY one can NOT physically touch immaterial expanse IS because 'immaterial expanse' does NOT consist of ...?

Because immaterial expanse is immaterial, it is intangible. Not because “immaterial expanse does not consist of”.

Are you ABLE to INFORM us of what 'materiality' is made up of or out of, EXACTLY?

Materiality in this sense is a category which includes material things. Material aspects of existence generally speaking.

So, if 'materiality' is made up of, or out of, 'material things', EXACTLY, then what is 'immateriality' or 'immaterial space or expanse' made up of, or out of, EXACTLY?

Again, materiality is not necessarily “made up of” or “out of”. Those are your words. It is sloppy language.

As stated, materiality is a category which includes material things. Material aspects of existence generally speaking.

Immateriality is also a category which includes immaterial things. Immaterial aspects of existence generally speaking.

Immaterial expanse is immaterial expanse. It is expanse. Asking “what is expanse made up of” is redundant and syntactically erroneous. It’s like asking what the basis of the basis is.

WHEN we GET a reasonable or sensible ANSWER, then we can MOVE ONE MORE STEP CLOSER.

By reasonable or sensible answer you mean an appropriate answer which will help you illustrate some supposed contradiction.

In essence you’ve already revealed your argument concerning the supposed contradiction. It is unconvincing.