Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 12:44 amFirstly, you CLAIMED that 'come from' MEANT, 'create', which MEANS 'bring into existence / cause to exist'.
This time, you CLAIM that 'come from' MEANS, to originate from or derive from
Exhibit A:
Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 11:15 pmFirst off, EVERY thing IS, and WAS, 'created', from the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things.
Create: 'bring into existence / cause to exist'
Your initial claim before I entered the conversation said every thing was created.
Your words.
YES, 'created', from the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things.
Thus, the Universe, Itself, IS 'created', from the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things, namely; 'matter', AND, 'space'.
Now, and ALSO, are you AWARE of the significance of my use of single quotation marks around word/s?
Either way, MY ACTUAL WORDS, IN MY INITIAL CLAIM, here, BEFORE WAS, EVERY thing was created from the coming-together of at least two other things.
(And, for those who are Truly INTERESTED the ACTUAL Inaccuracy, in what I ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE, here, could have been CAUGHT OUT WITH just plain old simple, what I call, 'childhood logic'. That is; if one's whole PURPOSE was to just CATCH OUT another.)
But, AGAIN, even with your OWN definitions what I SAID and WROTE, STILL, STANDS.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
Exhibit B:
Age wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:45 pmLOL So, 'what' then did the 'Thing', which the 'Universe' word is REFERRING TO, come FROM, EXACTLY?
come from: to originate from or derive from
origin: the point at which something comes into existence
Your initial question to me upon showing your claim presupposed an origin within it's terms [which I disagreed with].
BUT, MY INITIAL QUESTION NEVER 'presupposed' ANY such thing.
AGAIN, what you, the reader, INFERS is NEVER necessarily what me, the writer, MEANT.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
Your question.
-
I denied all is created. Referencing your initial claim.
And, you are ABSOLUTELY FREE to DENY ANY thing is created.
So, if you REALLY WANT TO DENY ALL IS CREATED, then LIST THE 'things' that you WANT TO CLAIM ARE NOT CREATED.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
I denied all has origin. Referencing your initial question.
AGAIN, you are ABSOLUTELY FREE TO DENY ANY thing has an origin. AND, AGAIN, FEEL FREE TO LIST ANY or ALL OF 'those things'.
Also, and by the way, just because you DENY some thing NEVER EVER MEANS that your DENIAL ALIGNS WITH what IS ACTUALLY True and/or Right, in Life.
So, what are THE 'things', which you DENY were created AND have an origin.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
Your initial claim, and your initial question to me - are different.
In each case, you introduced terms which you want to avoid.
'you' can TELL 'me' what I WANT TO AVOID or DO NOT WANT AVOID, but DOING SO MAY WELL END UP BEING VERY FOOLISH, on YOUR PART.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
You say create was used 'loosely'.
You claim ignorance as to how 'come from' implies an origin.
LOOK you are, STILL, 'TRYING' your HARDEST TO FIGHT FOR 'your position' WITHOUT even YET FULLY KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING what I have even SAID, and MEANT, EXACTLY.
-
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
Perhaps if you type less, and read more -
you'll be able to keep track of what's been said.
You're
wrong.. again.
LOL 'This one' ACTUALLY thinks or even BELIEVES that LOL just SAYING and WRITING, 'you are wrong', IS ENOUGH.
And, JUST MAYBE you have NOT YET FULLY COMPREHENDED and UNDERSTOOD what HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SAID, and MEANT, here.
But, you WILL NEVER EVER even just CONSIDER this, let alone ACTUALLY QUESTION it.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
Age wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:45 pm
Considering that you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that the 'totality of existence' (the Universe) IS 'created' FROM the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things, [...]
You: "First off, EVERY thing IS, and WAS, 'created', from the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things."
Me: "The totality of existence (universe) is a thing, and does not adhere to your flawed thinking."
Does not adhere to = does not match criteria set.
In response, you declare I absolutely believe a position directly opposing what I immediately just stated.
Another time,
wrong.
Did you EVER STOP TO WONDER IF I LEFT OUT A WORD LIKE, 'NOT', for example?
Did you EVEN THINK TO SEEK OUT and OBTAIN ACTUALLY CLARITY, BEFORE you JUST WENT OFF ASSUMING some thing, AGAIN, while JUMPING TO ANOTHER False, AND Wrong, CONCLUSION, AGAIN?
See, if you HAD, then you would 'now' BE REALIZING that I MAY WELL have NOT been DECLARING 'the position' that you ABSOLUTELY BELIEVING I DID.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
Being wrong so frequently indicates a low regard for truth -
Seeing as you are OBVIOUSLY TOO AFRAID and TOO SCARED TO PRESENT your ACTUAL 'positon/s', here, and you just CONTINUALLY CLAIM that, 'you are wrong' WITHOUT ANY thing ELSE other than your OWN ASSUMPTIONS, CONCLUSIONS, and BELIEFS, ONLY, you are NOT in ANY REAL POSITION TO MAKE SUCH CLAIMS as this one, here.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
not great for a philosophy forum.
Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 12:44 am
The 'Thing', known as the Universe, or Everything, Totality, or ALL-THERE-IS, ALSO ONLY exists BECAUSE OF 'two things' 'coming-together', or CO-EXISTING. [...]
The Universe, Itself, is One Thing, which consists of two things, namely; 'matter', AND, 'space'. The One Thing came FROM the two things.
Existence is the foundation for any thing to be.
SO WHAT?
I have NOT SAID nor CLAIMED OTHERWISE.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
If any thing is, then existence is.
AGAIN, NOTHING TO DO WITH MY ACTUAL CLAIM/S, here.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
If existence was not, then no thing could ever be.
So, you are more or less JUST AGREEING WITH me, ANYWAY.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
Existence does not require any other thing, or combination of things to be.
SO, TO you anyway, 'Existence', Itself, CAN BE, even WITHOUT ANY thing AT ALL.
Which MEANS, 'you are wrong'.
And, ACCORDING TO 'your way' of DOING 'things', 'this' IS ALL I NEED TO SAY, and CLAIM, here.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
Existence is what allows things to be - it is the per-requisite for all things.
If so, then what IS 'Existence', Itself, EXACTLY?
HOW DID 'Existence', Itself, COME-TO-BE, EXACTLY?
you have NOT JUST A VERY NARROWED VIEW, and PERSPECTIVE, OF some things, you ALSO HAVE A COMPLETELY CLOSED PERSPECTIVE, AS WELL.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
Some hypothetical examples to broaden your narrow perspective:
It is possible that existence has the capacity to create space/matter from it's absence -
LOL So, "ben js" BELIEVES that it IS POSSIBLE FOR A 'thing', which exists IN CONCEPT, ONLY, and ONLY IN human being's CONCEPTS, to have HAD the CAPACITY to CREATE the very things, which OBVIOUSLY EXISTED BEFORE human beings, and NOT JUST 'this capacity' but ALSO 'this capacity' EVEN WHEN 'Existence', Itself, did NOT even EXIST.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
that before the big bang, there was no space or matter.
LOL
LOL
LOL
Here 'we' have ANOTHER one who BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that the Universe BEGAN AT or WITH A so-called 'big bang' and that there WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL BEFORE 'that moment'.
Which just SHOWS and PROVES HOW CLOSED some people REALLY COULD BE, and WERE.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
If so, existence would still be - even before space/matter existed.
LOL
LOL
LOL
So, what 'this ones' is DOING, here, is, REALLY, just USING the word and label, 'Existence', when others would just USE the word and label, 'God, instead.
However, it does NOT, and did NOT, matter ONE IOTA what word NOR label that USE/D, they ALL FELL INTO the EXACT SAME OLD TRAP.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
It is possible that only awareness exists,
with space and matter being false constructs.
In this case, existence would still be.
Maybe so. But, you are just talking ABOUT
what IS POSSIBLE, ONLY, and NOT ABOUT
what IS.
Also, if 'awareness', ALONE, ONLY exists, then WHY would 'awareness', itself, be MAKING UP False ASSUMPTIONS and False constructs?
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
There is much we do not know about existence.
There may well be MUCH that 'you', "ben js", do not know ABOUT 'Existence', itself, but do NOT FORGET that 'I' am NOT necessarily in 'your' 'we', here.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
We're still learning of the laws that govern space & energy,
that exist beyond them.
'you' REALLY DO HAVE SO MUCH MORE TO LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, here.
And, DO NOT FORGET that 'I' am NOT 'you', NOR necessarily WITHIN 'your' 'we', here, AT ALL.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 12:44 amThe TOTALITY OF Existence, [the Universe], Itself, is NOT just One FIXED and/nor UNCHANGING Thing.
This is likely a core component of our disagreement.
I believe in Eternalism or the B-Theory of time.
And, here, is the IRREFUTABLE PROOF of just HOW CLOSED you REALLY ARE, here.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
For your education:
Eternalism:
1. Under standard eternalism, temporal locations are somewhat akin to spatial locations.
[...] When someone says that they stand ‘here’, it is clear that the term ‘here’ refers to their position.
‘Back’ and ‘front’ exist as well. Eternalists stress that ‘now’ is indexical in a similar way.
[...] Events are classified as past, present, or future from some perspective.
'This' is ONE CLOSED view AND perspective.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
-
2. Some forms of eternalism give time a similar ontology to that of space, as a dimension, with different times being as real as different places,
and future events are "already there" in the same sense other places are already there, and that there is no objective flow of time. [...]
It is sometimes referred to as the “block time” or “block universe” theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional “block”.
Talk ABOUT over complicating what IS ESSENTIALLY and ACTUALLY EXTREMELY SIMPLE.
Also, if you, REALLY, WANT TO CONTINUE with 'models' and/or 'theories', then so be it.
But, 'this' EXPLAINS WHY people, like 'this one', are SO, SO FAR BEHIND.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
-
3.
Let us distinguish between two senses of “x exists now”.
In one sense, which we can call the temporal location sense, this expression is synonymous with “x is present”.
The non-presentist will admit that, in the temporal location sense of “x exists now”, it is true that no non-present objects exist now.
But in the other sense of “x exists now”, which we can call the ontological sense, to say that “x exists now” is just to say that x is now in the domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers.
Using the ontological sense of “exists”, we can talk about something existing in a perfectly general sense, without presupposing anything about its temporal location.
Okay. BUT WHY even 'TRY TO' COMPLICATE what is NOT?
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
B-Theory of Time:
B-theorists think all change can be described in before-after terms.
LOL "theorists".
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
They typically portray spacetime as a spread-out manifold with events occurring at different locations in the manifold (often assuming a substantivalist picture).
Living in a world of change means living in a world with variation in this manifold.
To say that a certain autumn leaf changed color is just to say that the leaf is green in an earlier location of the manifold and red in a later location.
The locations, in these cases, are specific times in the manifold.
You are wrong.
The totality of existence (Universe) is a Thing, and does not adhere to your flawed thinking.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 12:44 am
if 'we' were to USE your OWN DEFINITIONS
I'm using standard definitions from dictionaries / encyclopedias.
Each were copied verbatim from the source.
GREAT. That MAKES what I SAID and CLAIMED even MORE accurate AND correct.
What I SAID and CLAIMED FITTED IN, PERFECTLY, with those, 'now', so-called 'standard definitions from dictionaries / encyclopedias.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
They are not my own, but in the absence of an alternate definition,
I'll take for granted people are using terms in accord with their standard usage.
If you'd like me to direct you to the definition source of any word,
all you need to do is ask.
NO NEED TO.
AS SHOWN and PROVED ABOVE MY CLAIMS FITTED IN, PERFECTLY, ANY WAY.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
===
===
Go ahead and sting that strawman, Age.
I plan for this to be my last response to you within in this thread.
Here, 'we' have ANOTHER example of one who JUST RUNS AWAY, when they are NOT ABLE TO back up and support 'their CLAIMS', and/or can ACTUALLY NOT COUNTER NOR REFUTE what I have SAID, and CLAIMED, here.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
I've said what I wanted, and seen enough to my satisfaction.
YES, you HAVE EXPRESSED your BELIEFS, and, ONLY, SEEN, and HEARD, what you WANTED TO SEE, and HEAR, to SATISFY your 'CONFIRMATION BIASES'.
Ben JS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:50 pm
It was a pleasure - til next time.
you HAVE PROVED ALL ON your LONESOME just HOW WRONG you HAVE BEEN, here, AND HOW the Universe, Itself, AND what I HAVE SAID and CLAIMED, here, does NOT adhere TO 'your' OBVIOUSLY FLAWED and FAULTY thinking, here.
you have SHOWN your REAL 'self', that is one who just MAKES False CLAIMS, and then just LEAVES WHEN you are CHALLENGED, and QUESTIONED.
