Existence Is Infinite

[Age]

Particular things have form.

AND so to does 'Existence', Itself. That is; if one wants to LOOK FROM a MUCH BIGGER perspective rather than FROM just a VERY SMALL or NARROWED one.

AND, if you have NOT YET WORK OUT the DEFINITE form of 'Existence', Itself, then that in NO WAY does NOT necessarily mean that 'Existence' IS FORMLESS.

That just MEANS you are YET to SEE, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND the DEFINITE FORM of 'Existence', Itself.

I’d like to know what you think this “definite form” of existence is.

You use the terms “look” and “see” when discussing the subject as if you have actually observed the form of existence. There would be no way to do so. There would be no way to travel outside of existence or to some point beyond existence to ascertain any definite form of existence. Any point would be part of existence. We are eternally embedded within the image of existence.

Those are not the parameters of existence, that is not the nature of existence anyway. Existence, being just is. It is not inherently mapped or modeled. Those are contrivances resulting from our conscious interactions and sensory experiences. As conscious beings we create models of our environments for our purposes and for our survival. In other words by claiming you see or understand some definite form of existence you are really just projecting some contrivance extending from the model you have created.

'Existence' in a DEFINITE way, shape, and FORM IS eternal AND infinite. But, as you have just already IN-FORMED us you are NOT capable of being ABLE TO LOOK AT 'this', YET. And, because you BELIEVE that you NEVER could, then 'you' WILL NEVER be ABLE TO SEE 'this Fact'.

Besides, you’ve already agreed that existence is infinite:

And this is JUST BECAUSE the Universe IS 'infinite' AND 'eternal'. The Universe, contrary to some BELIEF is NOT 'circular in nature'.

By ascribing definite form to existence you are essentially limiting existence.

How do you reconcile that?

LOL
LOL
LOL

What is 'it', EXACTLY, that I have, LAUGHABLY, SUPPOSEDLY, 'limited' an INFINITE and ETERNAL 'Existence' TO, EXACTLY?

And, when 'you', personally, CLAIM that 'existence is finite', are 'you' 'essentially limiting existence'? Or, does this so-called and alleged 'essentially limiting existence' ONLY OCCUR when 'I' SAY and/or CLAIM some 'thing' ABOUT 'existence'?

Can there be 'existence' with just 'one thing', or can there only be 'existence' with ALL 'things'?

One thing is [part of] existence. The point is there is not just one thing.

So, what IS the OTHER 'thing', or ARE the OTHER 'things', apart FROM 'Existence', Itself?

Not all things are required for there to be existence

WHY NOT?

A part of existence is a part of existence.

All existence is all existence.

Either way it is existence.

When you SAY and CLAIM 'things' like, 'it is existence', do you think your are CLEARING 'things' up here?

No thing, nothingness, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

BUT this is, AGAIN, WHERE you KEEP CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self'.

You have yet to identify any contradiction.

This IS Correct.

[daniel j lavender]

AND so to does 'Existence', Itself. That is; if one wants to LOOK FROM a MUCH BIGGER perspective rather than FROM just a VERY SMALL or NARROWED one.

AND, if you have NOT YET WORK OUT the DEFINITE form of 'Existence', Itself, then that in NO WAY does NOT necessarily mean that 'Existence' IS FORMLESS.

That just MEANS you are YET to SEE, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND the DEFINITE FORM of 'Existence', Itself.

I’d like to know what you think this “definite form” of existence is.

'Existence' in a DEFINITE way, shape, and FORM IS eternal AND infinite. But, as you have just already IN-FORMED us you are NOT capable of being ABLE TO LOOK AT 'this', YET. And, because you BELIEVE that you NEVER could, then 'you' WILL NEVER be ABLE TO SEE 'this Fact'.

I’m certainly not refuting that existence is infinite and eternal. We agree there.

I am arguing that existence, generally speaking, is not of definite form or shape.

You’re claiming existence is some definite form, apparently “form” as in “shape”, as you acknowledge here, and claiming that “shape” is infinite and eternal. That does not make sense. That is erroneous application of the term.

As you illustrate here, “form” is often defined as “shape” or associated with “shape”. “Shape” isn’t really related with the term infinite or the term eternal. Shape concerns particulars, shape concerns figure as illustrated in the following dictionary entries:

shape (n.)
The characteristic surface configuration of a thing; an outline or contour
Spatial form, contour, or appearance
The body or outward appearance of a person or an animal
The contour of a person's body; the figure
A definite or distinctive form
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fifth Edition)
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/shape

As illustrated form concerns shape and shape concerns particulars. In other words form and shape concern limitation or limited aspects of existence. At least in common parlance and in the manner I use the terms.

Eternal, eternity is not shape. Infinite is not shape.

The point is you’re sloppily using terms. You’re not explicitly defining terms. You’re relating terms which aren’t really congruent. You’re using ambiguous, cliched language such as “in some way, shape or form” as basis for argumentation. With such an approach you could literally say any thing any way and claim you were saying whatever all along. It’s misleading and confusing. Your approach here is an example of that.

Existence is infinite and eternal. However that isn’t form or shape. That simply is the nature of existence. That simply is what existence is.

Suggesting definite form or shape of existence, which is infinite and eternal, only serves to diminish existence and its splendor.

And, when 'you', personally, CLAIM that 'existence is finite', are 'you' 'essentially limiting existence'? Or, does this so-called and alleged 'essentially limiting existence' ONLY OCCUR when 'I' SAY and/or CLAIM some 'thing' ABOUT 'existence'?

Where did I claim “existence is finite”?

Existence is infinite. Parts of existence, particular things are finite. Things are limited to limitedness.

However existence is infinite, existence is unlimited. This unlimitedness includes the limitedness of things.

You are ascribing definite form to existence. Doing so in and of itself is limitation of existence. Attempted limitation of existence as regardless your view existence is what it is.

Can there be 'existence' with just 'one thing', or can there only be 'existence' with ALL 'things'?

One thing is [part of] existence. The point is there is not just one thing.

So, what IS the OTHER 'thing', or ARE the OTHER 'things', apart FROM 'Existence', Itself?

There are various other things. All things are parts of existence.

WHY NOT?

A part of existence is a part of existence.

All existence is all existence.

Either way it is existence.

When you SAY and CLAIM 'things' like, 'it is existence', do you think your are CLEARING 'things' up here?

A part of existence is [a part of] existence.

All existence is [all] existence.

Part is existence, all is existence.

[Age]

I’d like to know what you think this “definite form” of existence is.

'Existence' in a DEFINITE way, shape, and FORM IS eternal AND infinite. But, as you have just already IN-FORMED us you are NOT capable of being ABLE TO LOOK AT 'this', YET. And, because you BELIEVE that you NEVER could, then 'you' WILL NEVER be ABLE TO SEE 'this Fact'.

I’m certainly not refuting that existence is infinite and eternal. We agree there.

I am arguing that existence, generally speaking, is not of definite form or shape.

you 'argue' FOR a few 'things' here. ALL of which you have CHOSEN TO BELIEVE are ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

You’re claiming existence is some definite form, apparently “form” as in “shape”, as you acknowledge here, and claiming that “shape” is infinite and eternal. That does not make sense. That is erroneous application of the term.

Okay.

Infinite and eternal is NOT a 'way', 'shape', NOR 'form', to "daniel j lavender".

The IMPORTANCE OF is 'zero', to me.

As you illustrate here, “form” is often defined as “shape” or associated with “shape”. “Shape” isn’t really related with the term infinite or the term eternal. Shape concerns particulars, shape concerns figure as illustrated in the following dictionary entries:

shape (n.)
The characteristic surface configuration of a thing; an outline or contour
Spatial form, contour, or appearance
The body or outward appearance of a person or an animal
The contour of a person's body; the figure
A definite or distinctive form
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fifth Edition)
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/shape

As illustrated form concerns shape and shape concerns particulars. In other words form and shape concern limitation or limited aspects of existence. At least in common parlance and in the manner I use the terms.

AND, the WAY you USE 'terms' is the ONLY WAY EVERY one "else" SHOULD LOOK AT and USE those 'terms' AS WELL, ALSO, right?

Eternal, eternity is not shape. Infinite is not shape.

Okay, and then this here MEANS 'what', EXACTLY?

The point is you’re sloppily using terms.

Okay. BUT you do NOT, right?

You’re not explicitly defining terms.

Okay. BUT you DO, right?

IN FACT you 'define' 'terms' SO 'explicitly' that, VERY COINCIDENTALLY, 'those terms' JUST HAPPEN TO FIT IN, PERFECTLY, WITH what you were ALREADY BELIEVING what the ABSOLUTE TRUTH OF 'things'. Which IS REALLY QUITE AMAZING. That is; IF one was to REALLY LOOK AT and DELVE INTO 'this' FULLY.

You’re relating terms which aren’t really congruent. You’re using ambiguous, cliched language such as “in some way, shape or form” as basis for argumentation.

BUT I NOT YET 'argued' FOR ANY 'thing'.

I have JUST SAID 'things' and made CLAIMS ALONE. REMEMBER it IS 'you' who is 'trying' SO DESPERATELY TO 'argue' for what you ASSUME and BELIEVE IS TRUE here.

With such an approach you could literally say any thing any way and claim you were saying whatever all along. It’s misleading and confusing. Your approach here is an example of that.

Okay. AND, you have NOT being doing 'this' "yourself" AT ALL, right?

Existence is infinite and eternal. However that isn’t form or shape. That simply is the nature of existence. That simply is what existence is.

Okay.

"daniel j lavender" SAYS that 'existence is infinite and eternal', and that 'simply' IS 'what existence is'.

Suggesting definite form or shape of existence, which is infinite and eternal, only serves to diminish existence and its splendor.

Okay, the WAY, FORM, or SHAPE of 'existence', itself, is NOT infinite and eternal, BECAUSE suggesting such a thing, somehow, DIMINISHES 'existence' AND 'its splendor'.

BUT, whatever "daniel j lavender' SAYS ABOUT 'existence' NEVER 'diminishes' 'existence', NOR 'its splendor'.

Just so EVERY one here is CLEAR ON 'this'.

And, when 'you', personally, CLAIM that 'existence is finite', are 'you' 'essentially limiting existence'? Or, does this so-called and alleged 'essentially limiting existence' ONLY OCCUR when 'I' SAY and/or CLAIM some 'thing' ABOUT 'existence'?

Where did I claim “existence is finite”?

Existence is infinite. Parts of existence, particular things are finite. Things are limited to limitedness.

However existence is infinite, existence is unlimited. This unlimitedness includes the limitedness of things.

You are ascribing definite form to existence. Doing so in and of itself is limitation of existence. Attempted limitation of existence as regardless your view existence is what it is.

Okay, 'existence', by ANY 'definite form', is NOT 'infinite'. Or, 'existence' is NOT, by ANY definite form, 'infinite'.

One thing is [part of] existence. The point is there is not just one thing.

So, what IS the OTHER 'thing', or ARE the OTHER 'things', apart FROM 'Existence', Itself?

There are various other things. All things are parts of existence.

And what are ALL of these 'things', which ARE 'parts of existence' made up, EXACTLY?

A part of existence is a part of existence.

All existence is all existence.

Either way it is existence.

When you SAY and CLAIM 'things' like, 'it is existence', do you think your are CLEARING 'things' up here?

A part of existence is [a part of] existence.

All existence is [all] existence.

ALSO, A part of "daneil j lavender" is [a part of] "daniel j lavender]. AND,

ALL "daniel j lavender" is [all] "daniel j lavender".

BUT, does SAYING and CLAIMING 'this' CLEAR 'things' UP ABOUT WHO and WHAT "daniel j lavender", EXACTLY?

Part is existence, all is existence.

Okay, 'this' IS MUCH CLEARER now, right?

[daniel j lavender]

AND, the WAY you USE 'terms' is the ONLY WAY EVERY one "else" SHOULD LOOK AT and USE those 'terms' AS WELL, ALSO, right?

You may disagree with how I have defined terms but at least it is known what I am talking about.

Terms are defined so ideas can be clearly conveyed.

You’re not explicitly defining terms.

Okay. BUT you DO, right?

Yes.

Suggesting definite form or shape of existence, which is infinite and eternal, only serves to diminish existence and its splendor.

Okay, the WAY, FORM, or SHAPE of 'existence', itself, is NOT infinite and eternal, BECAUSE suggesting such a thing, somehow, DIMINISHES 'existence' AND 'its splendor'.

Existence is infinite and eternal. Existence is not limited to any particular shape or any specific form.

Suggesting definite form or shape of existence serves to diminish existence. Suggesting definite form or shape implies limitation.

One should be cautious of using certain terms to convey such ideas. Misleading terms and term use can cause lots of confusion.

So, what IS the OTHER 'thing', or ARE the OTHER 'things', apart FROM 'Existence', Itself?

There are various other things. All things are parts of existence.

And what are ALL of these 'things', which ARE 'parts of existence' made up, EXACTLY?

It’s existence all the way down.

"daniel j lavender" SAYS that 'existence is infinite and eternal', and that 'simply' IS 'what existence is'.

Correct.

[Age]

AND, the WAY you USE 'terms' is the ONLY WAY EVERY one "else" SHOULD LOOK AT and USE those 'terms' AS WELL, ALSO, right?

You may disagree with how I have defined terms but at least it is known what I am talking about.

BUT you ARE CONTRADICTING "yourself" here, AND, defining 'terms' in a way that is NOT even logically POSSIBLE, let alone physically POSSIBLE.

Terms are defined so ideas can be clearly conveyed.[/quote]

But some of your ideas here are just ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, and IMPOSSIBLE, especially in the way you are defining YOUR 'terms' here. BUT while you keep BELIEVING that your ideas here are ABSOLUTELY TRUE and RIGHT you will NEVER come to SEE and LEARN this Fact.

You’re not explicitly defining terms.

Okay. BUT you DO, right?

Yes.

And, the WAY you DEFINE YOUR 'terms' here MAKES what you ALREADY BELIEVE IS TRUE even MORE TRUE, and MORE RIGHT, right?

Suggesting definite form or shape of existence, which is infinite and eternal, only serves to diminish existence and its splendor.

Okay, the WAY, FORM, or SHAPE of 'existence', itself, is NOT infinite and eternal, BECAUSE suggesting such a thing, somehow, DIMINISHES 'existence' AND 'its splendor'.

Existence is infinite and eternal. Existence is not limited to any particular shape or any specific form.

Suggesting definite form or shape of existence serves to diminish existence. Suggesting definite form or shape implies limitation.

One should be cautious of using certain terms to convey such ideas. Misleading terms and term use can cause lots of confusion.

you are PROVING 'this' true here.

There are various other things. All things are parts of existence.

And what are ALL of these 'things', which ARE 'parts of existence' made up, EXACTLY?

It’s existence all the way down.

you have OBVIOUSLY MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed and ASKED here. Or, you are just 'trying to' DEFLECT, ONCE AGAIN.

"daniel j lavender" SAYS that 'existence is infinite and eternal', and that 'simply' IS 'what existence is'.

Correct.

Okay.

Is there ANY 'thing' ELSE that you want to SAY here?

[daniel j lavender]

AND, the WAY you USE 'terms' is the ONLY WAY EVERY one "else" SHOULD LOOK AT and USE those 'terms' AS WELL, ALSO, right?

You may disagree with how I have defined terms but at least it is known what I am talking about.

BUT you ARE CONTRADICTING "yourself" here, AND, defining 'terms' in a way that is NOT even logically POSSIBLE, let alone physically POSSIBLE.

But some of your ideas here are just ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, and IMPOSSIBLE, especially in the way you are defining YOUR 'terms' here. BUT while you keep BELIEVING that your ideas here are ABSOLUTELY TRUE and RIGHT you will NEVER come to SEE and LEARN this Fact.

You’re providing commentary not argumentation.

You’re not identifying or addressing any issue. You’re just claiming there is contradiction or issue.

How is it illogical? How is it nonsensical? How is it impossible? How is it contradictory? You fail to demonstrate how this is the case.

And, the WAY you DEFINE YOUR 'terms' here MAKES what you ALREADY BELIEVE IS TRUE even MORE TRUE, and MORE RIGHT, right?

It makes conveying the ideas easier.

And what are ALL of these 'things', which ARE 'parts of existence' made up, EXACTLY?

It’s existence all the way down.

you have OBVIOUSLY MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed and ASKED here. Or, you are just 'trying to' DEFLECT, ONCE AGAIN.

Not at all.

Whatever those things are made up of would be existence, would be parts of existence. Existence all the way down.

[Age]

You may disagree with how I have defined terms but at least it is known what I am talking about.

BUT you ARE CONTRADICTING "yourself" here, AND, defining 'terms' in a way that is NOT even logically POSSIBLE, let alone physically POSSIBLE.

But some of your ideas here are just ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, and IMPOSSIBLE, especially in the way you are defining YOUR 'terms' here. BUT while you keep BELIEVING that your ideas here are ABSOLUTELY TRUE and RIGHT you will NEVER come to SEE and LEARN this Fact.

You’re providing commentary not argumentation.

I KNOW.

I do NOT even bother 'arguing' with 'those' who HAVE and HOLD BELIEFS. I have found that there is absolutely NO use in doing so.

You’re not identifying or addressing any issue. You’re just claiming there is contradiction or issue.

YES, and the CONTRADICTION is VERY OBVIOUS. Well to some of 'us' anyway.

How is it illogical? How is it nonsensical? How is it impossible? How is it contradictory?

What does the 'it' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

You fail to demonstrate how this is the case.

YES, this is BECAUSE I have NOT even 'tried to', let alone even 'begun' to, DEMONSTRATE.

And, the WAY you DEFINE YOUR 'terms' here MAKES what you ALREADY BELIEVE IS TRUE even MORE TRUE, and MORE RIGHT, right?

It makes conveying the ideas easier.

Does the idea and Fact that, 'existence is eternal and infinite', which is just 'what IS' anyway, really NEED 'conveying', to begin with?

It’s existence all the way down.

you have OBVIOUSLY MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed and ASKED here. Or, you are just 'trying to' DEFLECT, ONCE AGAIN.

Not at all.

'What' IS 'not at all' here?

Whatever those things are made up of would be existence, would be parts of existence. Existence all the way down.

Are you SAYING here that you do NOT YET KNOW, for sure, what 'those things' are made up of, EXACTLY?

[daniel j lavender]

Does the idea and Fact that, 'existence is eternal and infinite', which is just 'what IS' anyway, really NEED 'conveying', to begin with?

Not really.

Existence is what it is whether acknowledged or not.

How is it illogical? How is it nonsensical? How is it impossible? How is it contradictory? You fail to demonstrate how this is the case.

YES, this is BECAUSE I have NOT even 'tried to', let alone even 'begun' to, DEMONSTRATE.

There is no need to reveal your dubious contention as your hesitance does it for you.

Whatever those things are made up of would be existence, would be parts of existence. Existence all the way down.

Are you SAYING here that you do NOT YET KNOW, for sure, what 'those things' are made up of, EXACTLY?

I’m saying you specified no particular things to identify constituent parts. But whatever the things may be, if they had constituent parts or pieces those parts or pieces would be existence too.

[Age]

Does the idea and Fact that, 'existence is eternal and infinite', which is just 'what IS' anyway, really NEED 'conveying', to begin with?

Not really.

Existence is what it is whether acknowledged or not.

Okay. I AGREE by the way.

How is it illogical? How is it nonsensical? How is it impossible? How is it contradictory? You fail to demonstrate how this is the case.

YES, this is BECAUSE I have NOT even 'tried to', let alone even 'begun' to, DEMONSTRATE.

There is no need to reveal your dubious argument as your hesitance does it for you.

Wow, you do NOT just ASSUME 'things' here you ACTUALLY ALSO BELIEVE you KNOW the 'things' that have NOT even been PRESENTED, nor SHOWN.

So, what we have here now is that because you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that I have been, SUPPOSEDLY, 'hesitant', in PRESENTING ANY argument, which I may, or may NOT have, then 'this' MEANS, absolutely, to you, that ANY 'argument' I have IS 'dubious'.

'your' INSIGHTFUL KNOWLEDGE here is Truly AMAZING "daniel j lavender".

Whatever those things are made up of would be existence, would be parts of existence. Existence all the way down.

Are you SAYING here that you do NOT YET KNOW, for sure, what 'those things' are made up of, EXACTLY?

I’m saying you specified no particular things to identify constituent parts.

Was I MEANT TO?

But whatever the things may be, if they had constituent parts or pieces those parts or pieces would be existence too.

Okay, I think 'this' is, fairly well, VERY OBVIOUS.

While, ALSO, REVEALING that if you ACTUALLY KNEW what ALL 'things' were constitutionally made up of, EXACTLY, then you would ALSO ALREADY KNOW WHERE, and WHEN, 'you' HAVE BEEN CONTRADICTING "your" 'self' here, "daniel j lavender".

[daniel j lavender]

YES, this is BECAUSE I have NOT even 'tried to', let alone even 'begun' to, DEMONSTRATE.

There is no need to reveal your dubious contention as your hesitance does it for you.

Wow, you do NOT just ASSUME 'things' here you ACTUALLY ALSO BELIEVE you KNOW the 'things' that have NOT even been PRESENTED, nor SHOWN.

So, what we have here now is that because you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that I have been, SUPPOSEDLY, 'hesitant', in PRESENTING ANY argument, which I may, or may NOT have, then 'this' MEANS, absolutely, to you, that ANY 'argument' I have IS 'dubious'.

'your' INSIGHTFUL KNOWLEDGE here is Truly AMAZING "daniel j lavender".

Then present your contention and remove all doubt. Advance the conversation rather than compile commentary.

Are you SAYING here that you do NOT YET KNOW, for sure, what 'those things' are made up of, EXACTLY?

I’m saying you specified no particular things to identify constituent parts.

Was I MEANT TO?

For specific parts to be identified that would be necessary.

But whatever the things may be, if they had constituent parts or pieces those parts or pieces would be existence too.

Okay, I think 'this' is, fairly well, VERY OBVIOUS.

While, ALSO, REVEALING that if you ACTUALLY KNEW what ALL 'things' were constitutionally made up of, EXACTLY, then you would ALSO ALREADY KNOW WHERE, and WHEN, 'you' HAVE BEEN CONTRADICTING "your" 'self' here, "daniel j lavender".

All things are all things. They are not “made up of”. They would already be all things.

In other words there’s no more things than all things. I never implied otherwise.

In context I said all other things, along with that one thing, are parts of existence. All things are parts of existence:

One thing is [part of] existence. The point is there is not just one thing.

So, what IS the OTHER 'thing', or ARE the OTHER 'things', apart FROM 'Existence', Itself?

There are various other things. All things are parts of existence.

There are various other things. All things are parts of existence.

And what are ALL of these 'things', which ARE 'parts of existence' made up, EXACTLY?

It’s existence all the way down.

All things are parts of existence. All constituent parts of things are parts of existence.

The statement is valid: It’s existence all the way down.

It’s emphasizing the premise that all there is is existence. Things are parts of existence, the constituent parts of things are parts of existence. There is no point in which nothing, nothingness or nonexistence is reached.

[Wizard22]

It's difficult to argue against what I also believe in:
Existence is infinite, without beginning or end.

Creationism is false.
Genesis is false.
Abrahamism is false.
Judaism/Christianity/Islam are all false.
Existence is timeless, NO BEGINNINGS.

Matter cannot be created;
Matter cannot be destroyed.
Isaac Newton was right.

[Age]

There is no need to reveal your dubious contention as your hesitance does it for you.

Wow, you do NOT just ASSUME 'things' here you ACTUALLY ALSO BELIEVE you KNOW the 'things' that have NOT even been PRESENTED, nor SHOWN.

So, what we have here now is that because you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that I have been, SUPPOSEDLY, 'hesitant', in PRESENTING ANY argument, which I may, or may NOT have, then 'this' MEANS, absolutely, to you, that ANY 'argument' I have IS 'dubious'.

'your' INSIGHTFUL KNOWLEDGE here is Truly AMAZING "daniel j lavender".

Then present your contention and remove all doubt.

I have TOLD you BEFORE.

If you TELL me what TO DO, then I WILL NOT necessarily DO 'it'.

Advance the conversation rather than compile commentary.

But there IS NOTHING to 'advance' here. I have ALREADY ASKED you if that what you are SAYING and CLAIMING here IS true and right, and you have ALREADY CONFIRMED and CLARIFIED that 'it' IS and is NOT CONTRADICTORY. So, HOW would it be POSSIBLE to ADVANCE what is ALREADY true and right and NON CONTRADICTORY?

I’m saying you specified no particular things to identify constituent parts.

Was I MEANT TO?

For specific parts to be identified that would be necessary.

Well NO one ASKED me to IDENTIFY ANY 'thing'.

'I', however, DID ASK 'you' if 'you' KNEW 'what are ALL of these 'things', which ARE 'parts of existence' made up, EXACTLY?'

So, FOR the 'specific parts', which you brought up and into THIS DISCUSSION, to be, necessarily, IDENTIFIED then 'that' would be UP TO 'you', would it not?

But whatever the things may be, if they had constituent parts or pieces those parts or pieces would be existence too.

Okay, I think 'this' is, fairly well, VERY OBVIOUS.

While, ALSO, REVEALING that if you ACTUALLY KNEW what ALL 'things' were constitutionally made up of, EXACTLY, then you would ALSO ALREADY KNOW WHERE, and WHEN, 'you' HAVE BEEN CONTRADICTING "your" 'self' here, "daniel j lavender".

All things are all things. They are not “made up of”. They would already be all things.

In other words there’s no more things than all things. I never implied otherwise.

Is 'this' WHAT you think I have been talking ABOUT?

In context I said all other things, along with that one thing, are parts of existence. All things are parts of existence:

So, what IS the OTHER 'thing', or ARE the OTHER 'things', apart FROM 'Existence', Itself?

There are various other things. All things are parts of existence.

And what are ALL of these 'things', which ARE 'parts of existence' made up, EXACTLY?

It’s existence all the way down.

All things are parts of existence. All constituent parts of things are parts of existence.

The statement is valid: It’s existence all the way down.

So, if 'it' IS valid, then there is NOTHING MORE to ADVANCE here, right?

It’s emphasizing the premise that all there is is existence. Things are parts of existence, the constituent parts of things are parts of existence. There is no point in which nothing, nothingness or nonexistence is reached.

AGAIN, if 'this' is what you ASSUME and BELIEVE IS TRUE, then 'this', to you, MUST BE TRUE, right?

[Age]

It's difficult to argue against what I also believe in:
Existence is infinite, without beginning or end.

LOL To A "BELIEVER", it IS IMPOSSIBLE, let alone just DIFFICULT, to argue AGAINST what is being BELIEVED, well to 'that one' anyway. BUT, for "others" to argue AGAINST what "another" BELIEVES is Truly VERY SIMPLE and EASY, and so NOT DIFFICULT AT ALL.

But OBVIOUSLY, if NONE of 'these ones' is PROVIDING a Truly 'sound AND valid argument', then what 'arguments' that are being PRESENTED are NOT worthy of even being REPEATED.

Creationism is false.

WHY, to you, is the word 'Creationism' false? Are you NOT AWARE that 'things' ARE CREATED? Or, are you referring to in relation to 'Existence', Itself, that it was NOT CREATED?

By the way, the word 'Creationism', in regards to the 'infinite and eternal Universe' IS True, and IRREFUTABLY True?

Genesis is false.

BUT there IS A BEGINNING, which is ALSO IRREFUTABLY True.

Abrahamism is false.
Judaism/Christianity/Islam are all false.
Existence is timeless, NO BEGINNINGS.

BUT there are LOTS OF 'beginnings'. Just like there are LOTS OF 'things'. Each one of 'those things', besides 'things' like the Universe, Life, and Existence, had A 'beginning'. Although, and appearing contradictory and controversially, the words 'in the beginning' play a MAJOR ROLE in the LEARNING and WISDOM of what IS being DISCUSSED here.

Matter cannot be created;
Matter cannot be destroyed.
Isaac Newton was right.

That person may well have been 'right', in regards to those two very short sentences only. BUT, there is FAR MORE to be LEARNED, UNDERSTOOD, and ADVANCED UPON here. ALL OF which is READY TO BE REVEALED and SHARED TO 'those' who ARE Truly INTERESTED IN LEARNING, and BECOMING WISER.

[daniel j lavender]

I have ALREADY ASKED you if that what you are SAYING and CLAIMING here IS true and right, and you have ALREADY CONFIRMED and CLARIFIED that 'it' IS and is NOT CONTRADICTORY.

Correct.

You’ve also conceded it to be true:

'Existence'…IS eternal AND infinite…'Fact'.

…the idea and Fact that, 'existence is eternal and infinite'

…and right or not contradictory:

Is the "contradiction" that you are concerned with that "existence" and "infinite" are (perhaps) contradictory terms?

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

Okay, I think 'this' is, fairly well, VERY OBVIOUS.

While, ALSO, REVEALING that if you ACTUALLY KNEW what ALL 'things' were constitutionally made up of, EXACTLY, then you would ALSO ALREADY KNOW WHERE, and WHEN, 'you' HAVE BEEN CONTRADICTING "your" 'self' here, "daniel j lavender".

All things are all things. They are not “made up of”. They would already be all things.

In other words there’s no more things than all things. I never implied otherwise.

Is 'this' WHAT you think I have been talking ABOUT?

No, I was simply identifying the fallacy in your particular statement there.

This is the supposed contradiction you have been referring to throughout this discussion:

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.

…which has been thoroughly refuted.

As you admit here, you were attempting to have me state “immaterial expanse consists of nothing” which would apparently reveal nothing exists. However I did not make such a statement. Immaterial expanse does not consist of nothing. Immaterial expanse is not nothing. Immaterial expanse is immaterial expanse.

If one concedes existence is infinite, as you have, then one, by extension, essentially concedes nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Something and nothing do not coexist. Something and nothing cannot coexist.

Immateriality is not nothing or nonexistence.

Immaterial expanse is a thing, not no thing.

Nothing, the term, the concept, is a thing, not no thing.

Every thing is some thing. All that is is existence. Nothing, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

[Age]

I have ALREADY ASKED you if that what you are SAYING and CLAIMING here IS true and right, and you have ALREADY CONFIRMED and CLARIFIED that 'it' IS and is NOT CONTRADICTORY.

Correct.

You’ve also conceded it to be true:

'Existence'…IS eternal AND infinite…'Fact'.

…the idea and Fact that, 'existence is eternal and infinite'

…and right or not contradictory:

WHY are you ASSUMING that 'that' is what I was REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

If I have ALREADY AGREED WITH 'that', then WHY would I even suggest that 'that' is contradictory, let alone SAY that 'that' is contradictory?

Is the "contradiction" that you are concerned with that "existence" and "infinite" are (perhaps) contradictory terms?

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

All things are all things. They are not “made up of”. They would already be all things.

In other words there’s no more things than all things. I never implied otherwise.

Is 'this' WHAT you think I have been talking ABOUT?

No, I was simply identifying the fallacy in your particular statement there.

WHERE is the SUPPOSED 'fallacy' in my particular statement here?

AND, WHEN did you SUPPOSEDLY identify ANY such purported 'fallacy'?

This is the supposed contradiction you have been referring to throughout this discussion:

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.

…which has been thoroughly refuted.

LOL
LOL
LOL

By WHO, HOW, and with WHAT, EXACTLY?

As you admit here, you were attempting to have me state “immaterial expanse consists of nothing” which would apparently reveal nothing exists.

Well you have YET to INFORM the 'readers' here 'what' 'immaterial expanse', CONSISTS OF, CONSTITUTIONALLY MADE UP OF, is COMPOSED OF, or IS 'what', (in relation to ANY other 'terms' or 'words' that you would like to ADD IN here).

And, this IS BECAUSE 'immaterial expanse' does NOT CONSIST OF absolutely ANY 'thing', OBVIOUSLY.

BUT, if you want to KEEP CLAIMING that 'this' is false, wrong, or incorrect, then, PLEASE, by ALL MEANS SHOW and PROVE otherwise.

However I did not make such a statement. Immaterial expanse does not consist of nothing. Immaterial expanse is not nothing. Immaterial expanse is immaterial expanse.

SO, if 'immaterial expanse' does NOT consist of 'nothing', THEN what ARE the ACTUAL 'things', which MAKE 'immaterial expanse' what 'immaterial expanse' IS, EXACTLY?

If one concedes existence is infinite, as you have, then one, by extension, essentially concedes nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of WHEN one IS BELIEVING some 'thing' IS TRUE, then they are completely and utterly INCAPABLE of FINDING, RECOGNIZING, and SEEING what 'it' IS, which they are BLIND and DEAF TO, and WHERE, WHEN, and WHY they are ACTUALLY completely and utterly BLIND and DEAF here.

1. I do NOT 'essentially' 'have to' 'concede' what you SO DESPERATELY WANT me to 'concede' here. What you are ESSENTIALLY SAYING here, is like people in past days did, for example, I BELIEVE that the sun goes around the earth, you concede that you can see the sun going around the earth, so you, by extension, then have to essentially concede that the sun actually does go around the earth.

2. I do NOT 'essentially' 'have to' 'concede' BOTH NOR EITHER BELIEFS.

3. I do NOT 'concede' NEITHER BELIEFS BECAUSE they are BOTH False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect, in their OWN WAYS.

BUT BECAUSE you BELIEVE otherwise, that is; you BELIEVE your BELIEF here is ABSOLUTELY true, right, accurate AND correct, you are NOT ABLE TO SEE, LEARN, and UNDERSTAND what the ACTUAL Truth IS here. Just like the people in past days were NOT ABLE TO SEE, LEARN, and UNDERSTAND that, ACTUALLY, it is the earth revolves around the sun BECAUSE they TOO were ALSO BLINDED and DEAFENED by their OWN currently HELD ONTO BELIEFS.

Something and nothing do not coexist. Something and nothing cannot coexist.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'This' is what you KEEP TELLING 'us'. Just like some people KEPT TELLING 'us' that the sun DOES revolve around the earth, AND, it can NOT be the other way around.

Immateriality is not nothing or nonexistence.

BUT, 'you' can NOT tell 'us' what 'immateriality' IS, EXACTLY, HOW 'it' EXISTS, NOR 'what' IS EXISTING, EXACTLY, right?

Immaterial expanse is a thing, not no thing.

Nothing, the term, the concept, is a thing, not no thing.

The areas, or expanses, of 'nothing' which DOES, and HAS TO EXIST, for the Universe TO EXIST in the way that It DOES, infinitely AND eternally, IS ALSO A 'thing'. Although you STILL, currently, BELIEVE otherwise.

Every thing is some thing. All that is is existence. Nothing, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

LOL

Can you REALLY STILL NOT YET SEE your VERY OWN CONTRADICTION here, ONCE AGAIN?