Existence Is Infinite

[daniel j lavender]

ONCE AGAIN, the Universe, Itself, and Life, Itself, are infinite AND eternal. This has ALREADY BEEN PROVED True, and therefore can NOT be refuted.

Where has this been proven true? How has this been proven true?

In 'causality', or 'cause and effect'. It is IMPOSSIBLE for ANY thing to come FROM NO thing, or FROM nothing. Even you keep TELLING 'us' that 'nothing', 'nothingness', or 'no thing' does NOT even exist. Therefore, there WAS and IS ALWAYS some thing PRIOR, or BEFORE, EVERY other thing. Therefore, the Universe, which is ALIVE, and thus 'Life', Itself, and which is EXISTING, MEANS that the Universe, Itself, like Life, Itself, and like Existence, Itself, are eternal.

For when one 'looks out', as far as one can SEE, it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be ANY ACTUAL 'boundary' or 'edge' at ANY 'distance' AT ALL. In fact if one was to imagine a line between the most other perceived planets, stars, or other objects, then what is obviously between and around those objects is 'space', itself. Which;

1. Obviously does NOT have ANY 'edge' NOR 'boundary' to 'i't (besides of course the particles or objects of 'matter', themselves. So, forever extending IS 'space', itself.

2. Because light diminishes over distance, even if one could see the perceived the out most stars, planets, or other objects, then that is NOT known to be the 'edge' NOR 'boundary' of the Universe, Itself. The Universe IS therefore infinite, AS WELL AS eternal.

And, because the 'Universe', Itself, is infinite, and ALIVE, and EXISTING, then so to is 'Life', Itself, AND 'Existence', Itself, ALSO infinite.

Now, if these are NOT 'proof', to you, then WHY NOT, EXACTLY?

You claimed life is infinite. How does that prove life is infinite?

The limited term “universe” does not.

Since when has the term 'Universe' EVER BEEN 'limited'. And, WHY do you SEE that term as BEING 'limited'.

Since the scientific community estimated the age of the universe to be approximately 13.8 billion years.

From this approximation one could argue the universe is indeed limited.

Existence encompasses the system known as our universe.

A soda can, like EVERY thing ELSE is ALIVE, and LIVING, and therefore IS 'life'. you human beings tend to ONLY 'look at' and 'see' things from a VERY NARROWED perspective and so do NOT 'see' things for what they REALLY ARE.

A soda can exhibits no vital signs or characteristics of a living organism.

And, what are the, EXACTLY, so-called and so-claimed 'vital signs or characteristics of what is called A 'living organism'?

Consumption, metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, reproduction, etcetera.

A soda can does not grow. A soda can does not respond to stimuli.

A soda can is not life. Life is not infinite.

POINT TO, with words, or LIST, WHERE, EXACTLY, there IS 'space' that is 'physical' AND WHERE there IS 'space' that is NOT 'physical'.

Physical space: an ocean. Immaterial space: outer space.

Now, just so you BECOME AWARE, some might SAY and CLAIM that so-called 'outer space' IS 'physical'.

As stated at the top of the previous page this is philosophy, not physics.

The physics community, science generally views the universe as a physical system.

Philosophy is broader, more expansive. Philosophy has more depth. Philosophy embraces the immaterial not just the material or the physical.

And, HOW FAR does one have to ACTUALLY TRAVEL TO REACH what you have called and labelled 'outer space', EXACTLY?

Just beyond Earth’s atmosphere.

An ocean contains considerable amounts of atoms and molecules as contrasted with the vacuum of outer space.

An ocean, or at least part of one, can be touched and is obviously tangible. An ocean provides material resistance as it’s densely arranged molecules and atoms.

The vacuum of outer space provides no resistance as it concerns minimal matter, minimal molecules and minimal atomic arrangements allowing material bodies motion.

Because of this the vacuum of outer space can be considered immaterial. However pure immaterial space would concern no atoms or molecules.

[Age]

Where has this been proven true? How has this been proven true?

In 'causality', or 'cause and effect'. It is IMPOSSIBLE for ANY thing to come FROM NO thing, or FROM nothing. Even you keep TELLING 'us' that 'nothing', 'nothingness', or 'no thing' does NOT even exist. Therefore, there WAS and IS ALWAYS some thing PRIOR, or BEFORE, EVERY other thing. Therefore, the Universe, which is ALIVE, and thus 'Life', Itself, and which is EXISTING, MEANS that the Universe, Itself, like Life, Itself, and like Existence, Itself, are eternal.

For when one 'looks out', as far as one can SEE, it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be ANY ACTUAL 'boundary' or 'edge' at ANY 'distance' AT ALL. In fact if one was to imagine a line between the most other perceived planets, stars, or other objects, then what is obviously between and around those objects is 'space', itself. Which;

1. Obviously does NOT have ANY 'edge' NOR 'boundary' to 'i't (besides of course the particles or objects of 'matter', themselves. So, forever extending IS 'space', itself.

2. Because light diminishes over distance, even if one could see the perceived the out most stars, planets, or other objects, then that is NOT known to be the 'edge' NOR 'boundary' of the Universe, Itself. The Universe IS therefore infinite, AS WELL AS eternal.

And, because the 'Universe', Itself, is infinite, and ALIVE, and EXISTING, then so to is 'Life', Itself, AND 'Existence', Itself, ALSO infinite.

Now, if these are NOT 'proof', to you, then WHY NOT, EXACTLY?

You claimed life is infinite. How does that prove life is infinite?

But 'that', in and of itself, does NOT prove that life is infinite. Why did you presume or believe that 'that' did prove life is infinite.

The limited term “universe” does not.

Since when has the term 'Universe' EVER BEEN 'limited'. And, WHY do you SEE that term as BEING 'limited'.

Since the scientific community estimated the age of the universe to be approximately 13.8 billion years.

So, all it takes is just a few people only to ESTIMATE some thing, and then from then on that 'estimated thing' CHANGES the MEANING and USAGE of A word.

From this approximation one could argue the universe is indeed limited.

But one would have to be a COMPLETE and UTTER IDIOT and FOOL to just ACCEPT what only a few people have ESTIMATED, ONLY, as then being what IS ACTUALLY True, and Right.

LOL BELIEVING that one COULD ACTUALLY ARGUE some thing, like you are 'TRYING TO', here, from just an APPROXIMATION, ONLY, is NOT SHOWING MUCH WISDOM AT ALL.

Existence encompasses the system known as our universe.

you KEEP CLAIMING 'this'. However, what ACTUAL PROOF do you HAVE that the Universe, Itself, IS A 'system' WITHIN Existence, Itself?

OBVIOUSLY an ESTIMATION by just a FEW people is NOT PROOF, itself.

Also, and by the way, if the Universe was NOT EXISTING, then HOW could there even be 'Existence', Itself?

A soda can exhibits no vital signs or characteristics of a living organism.

And, what are the, EXACTLY, so-called and so-claimed 'vital signs or characteristics of what is called A 'living organism'?

Consumption, metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, reproduction, etcetera.

So, EVERY thing that HAPPENS and OCCURS in A 'soda can'.

A soda can does not grow. A soda can does not respond to stimuli.

Obviously, you are, AGAIN, ONLY 'looking' FROM A VERY, VERY NARROWED perspective and field of view.

A soda can is not life. Life is not infinite.

If this is what you want to BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, then I am CERTAINLY NOT going to STOP you.

you CLAIMED that 'life is not infinite'.

Physical space: an ocean. Immaterial space: outer space.

Now, just so you BECOME AWARE, some might SAY and CLAIM that so-called 'outer space' IS 'physical'.

As stated at the top of the previous page this is philosophy, not physics.

The physics community, science generally views the universe as a physical system.

Philosophy is broader, more expansive. Philosophy has more depth. Philosophy embraces the immaterial not just the material or the physical.

LOL But you WANT TO USE 'physics' and the 'scientific community' WHEN you WANT TO CLAIM that the Universe is 'limited'.

And, HOW FAR does one have to ACTUALLY TRAVEL TO REACH what you have called and labelled 'outer space', EXACTLY?

Just beyond Earth’s atmosphere.

An ocean contains considerable amounts of atoms and molecules as contrasted with the vacuum of outer space.

Is there an ACTUAL 'vacuum of, so-called, outer space'?

Or, is this just what you WANT TO BELIEVE IS TRUE, ONLY?

An ocean, or at least part of one, can be touched and is obviously tangible. An ocean provides material resistance as it’s densely arranged molecules and atoms.

you are REALLY BEING VERY, VERY SLOW, here.

The vacuum of outer space provides no resistance as it concerns minimal matter, minimal molecules and minimal atomic arrangements allowing material bodies motion.[/quote]

LOL So 'now' the so-called 'vacuum of outer space', which you CLAIM is 'immaterial' ACTUALLY DOES consist of 'matter', and thus is 'now' so-called 'material space'.

Are you AWARE of just HOW OFTEN you CONTRADICT "yourself", here?

Because of this the vacuum of outer space can be considered immaterial.

So, the so-called 'outer space', which you just admitted ACTUALLY DOES contain molecules, and thus matter, you want to call and CLAIM is 'immaterial space', BECAUSE you are just 'TRYING' your HARDEST to FIND 'the words' to FIGHT and ARGUE FOR the BELIEF that you 'currently' HAVE and are 'currently' HOLDING ONTO, here.

However pure immaterial space would concern no atoms or molecules.

So, are you ABLE TO INFORM the readers, here, of WHERE, EXACTLY, this place of 'immaterial space' IS, EXACTLY?

[daniel j lavender]

The vacuum of outer space provides no resistance as it concerns minimal matter, minimal molecules and minimal atomic arrangements allowing material bodies motion.

LOL So 'now' the so-called 'vacuum of outer space', which you CLAIM is 'immaterial' ACTUALLY DOES consist of 'matter', and thus is 'now' so-called 'material space'.

The vacuum does not concern matter in the terrestrial sense. The vacuum concerns quantum fluctuations, radiation, virtual particles and sparingly atoms or molecules. While molecules are considered matter this is not the same as tangible, solid material.

Since dense atomic and molecular structures are absent the vacuum provides no material resistance allowing material bodies motion. Thus the vacuum of outer space is considered immaterial.

Compared with an ocean, which is obviously tangible and material, the vacuum of outer space is intangible and immaterial.

Because of this the vacuum of outer space can be considered immaterial.

So, the so-called 'outer space', which you just admitted ACTUALLY DOES contain molecules, and thus matter, you want to call and CLAIM is 'immaterial space', BECAUSE you are just 'TRYING' your HARDEST to FIND 'the words' to FIGHT and ARGUE FOR the BELIEF that you 'currently' HAVE and are 'currently' HOLDING ONTO, here.

Relative to an ocean or a mountain range the vacuum of outer space is immaterial. With the vacuum molecules and atoms are sporadic and dispersed to such a degree that solid, palpable material is not formed.

Molecules are molecules, not the space among them. With the vacuum molecules are so sparse it can be considered immaterial. For explicative purposes the example works.

However pure immaterial space would concern no atoms or molecules.

So, are you ABLE TO INFORM the readers, here, of WHERE, EXACTLY, this place of 'immaterial space' IS, EXACTLY?

Where matter isn’t.

[Age]

Where has this been proven true? How has this been proven true?

In 'causality', or 'cause and effect'. It is IMPOSSIBLE for ANY thing to come FROM NO thing, or FROM nothing. Even you keep TELLING 'us' that 'nothing', 'nothingness', or 'no thing' does NOT even exist. Therefore, there WAS and IS ALWAYS some thing PRIOR, or BEFORE, EVERY other thing. Therefore, the Universe, which is ALIVE, and thus 'Life', Itself, and which is EXISTING, MEANS that the Universe, Itself, like Life, Itself, and like Existence, Itself, are eternal.

For when one 'looks out', as far as one can SEE, it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be ANY ACTUAL 'boundary' or 'edge' at ANY 'distance' AT ALL. In fact if one was to imagine a line between the most other perceived planets, stars, or other objects, then what is obviously between and around those objects is 'space', itself. Which;

1. Obviously does NOT have ANY 'edge' NOR 'boundary' to 'i't (besides of course the particles or objects of 'matter', themselves. So, forever extending IS 'space', itself.

2. Because light diminishes over distance, even if one could see the perceived the out most stars, planets, or other objects, then that is NOT known to be the 'edge' NOR 'boundary' of the Universe, Itself. The Universe IS therefore infinite, AS WELL AS eternal.

And, because the 'Universe', Itself, is infinite, and ALIVE, and EXISTING, then so to is 'Life', Itself, AND 'Existence', Itself, ALSO infinite.

Now, if these are NOT 'proof', to you, then WHY NOT, EXACTLY?

You claimed life is infinite. How does that prove life is infinite?

But 'that', in and of itself, does NOT prove that life is infinite. Why did you presume or believe that 'that' did prove life is infinite.

The limited term “universe” does not.

Since when has the term 'Universe' EVER BEEN 'limited'. And, WHY do you SEE that term as BEING 'limited'.

Since the scientific community estimated the age of the universe to be approximately 13.8 billion years.

So, all it takes is just a few people only to ESTIMATE some thing, and then from then on that 'estimated thing' CHANGES the MEANING and USAGE of A word.

From this approximation one could argue the universe is indeed limited.

But one would have to be a COMPLETE and UTTER IDIOT and FOOL to just ACCEPT what only a few people have ESTIMATED, ONLY, as then being what IS ACTUALLY True, and Right.

LOL BELIEVING that one COULD ACTUALLY ARGUE some thing, like you are 'TRYING TO', here, from just an APPROXIMATION, ONLY, is NOT SHOWING MUCH WISDOM AT ALL.

Existence encompasses the system known as our universe.

you KEEP CLAIMING 'this'. However, what ACTUAL PROOF do you HAVE that the Universe, Itself, IS A 'system' WITHIN Existence, Itself?

OBVIOUSLY an ESTIMATION by just a FEW people is NOT PROOF, itself.

Also, and by the way, if the Universe was NOT EXISTING, then HOW could there even be 'Existence', Itself?

A soda can exhibits no vital signs or characteristics of a living organism.

And, what are the, EXACTLY, so-called and so-claimed 'vital signs or characteristics of what is called A 'living organism'?

Consumption, metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, reproduction, etcetera.

So, EVERY thing that HAPPENS and OCCURS in A 'soda can'.

A soda can does not grow. A soda can does not respond to stimuli.

Obviously, you are, AGAIN, ONLY 'looking' FROM A VERY, VERY NARROWED perspective and field of view.

A soda can is not life. Life is not infinite.

If this is what you want to BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, then I am CERTAINLY NOT going to STOP you.

you CLAIMED that 'life is not infinite'.

Physical space: an ocean. Immaterial space: outer space.

Now, just so you BECOME AWARE, some might SAY and CLAIM that so-called 'outer space' IS 'physical'.

As stated at the top of the previous page this is philosophy, not physics.

The physics community, science generally views the universe as a physical system.

Philosophy is broader, more expansive. Philosophy has more depth. Philosophy embraces the immaterial not just the material or the physical.

LOL But you WANT TO USE 'physics' and the 'scientific community' WHEN you WANT TO CLAIM that the Universe is 'limited'.

And, HOW FAR does one have to ACTUALLY TRAVEL TO REACH what you have called and labelled 'outer space', EXACTLY?

Just beyond Earth’s atmosphere.

An ocean contains considerable amounts of atoms and molecules as contrasted with the vacuum of outer space.

Is there an ACTUAL 'vacuum of, so-called, outer space'?

Or, is this just what you WANT TO BELIEVE IS TRUE, ONLY?

An ocean, or at least part of one, can be touched and is obviously tangible. An ocean provides material resistance as it’s densely arranged molecules and atoms.

you are REALLY BEING VERY, VERY SLOW, here.

The vacuum of outer space provides no resistance as it concerns minimal matter, minimal molecules and minimal atomic arrangements allowing material bodies motion.

LOL So 'now' the so-called 'vacuum of outer space', which you CLAIM is 'immaterial' ACTUALLY DOES consist of 'matter', and thus is 'now' so-called 'material space'.

Are you AWARE of just HOW OFTEN you CONTRADICT "yourself", here?

Because of this the vacuum of outer space can be considered immaterial.

So, the so-called 'outer space', which you just admitted ACTUALLY DOES contain molecules, and thus matter, you want to call and CLAIM is 'immaterial space', BECAUSE you are just 'TRYING' your HARDEST to FIND 'the words' to FIGHT and ARGUE FOR the BELIEF that you 'currently' HAVE and are 'currently' HOLDING ONTO, here.

However pure immaterial space would concern no atoms or molecules.

So, are you ABLE TO INFORM the readers, here, of WHERE, EXACTLY, this place of 'immaterial space' IS, EXACTLY?

[Age]

The vacuum of outer space provides no resistance as it concerns minimal matter, minimal molecules and minimal atomic arrangements allowing material bodies motion.

LOL So 'now' the so-called 'vacuum of outer space', which you CLAIM is 'immaterial' ACTUALLY DOES consist of 'matter', and thus is 'now' so-called 'material space'.

The vacuum does not concern matter in the terrestrial sense. The vacuum concerns quantum fluctuations, radiation, virtual particles and sparingly atoms or molecules. While molecules are considered matter this is not the same as tangible, solid material.

Was it 'you' who informed 'us', previously, that so-called 'tangible, solid material' is made up of atoms, which themselves are made up of 'molecules'?

Since dense atomic and molecular structures are absent the vacuum provides no material resistance allowing material bodies motion. Thus the vacuum of outer space is considered immaterial.

Although the so-called 'vacuum of outer space' is, here, considered 'immaterial', or what you call 'immaterial space', the 'vacuum of outer space', STILL, consists of matter, molecules and atoms, just what you call 'minimal', correct?

Compared with an ocean, which is obviously tangible and material, the vacuum of outer space is intangible and immaterial.

Some people also say and claim that 'an ocean' is made up of water, whereas they would NOT say and claim that 'space', itself, is made of water.

Some people also say that 'an ocean' is NOT 'space' and say that 'space' is NOT 'an ocean'.

Because of this the vacuum of outer space can be considered immaterial.

So, the so-called 'outer space', which you just admitted ACTUALLY DOES contain molecules, and thus matter, you want to call and CLAIM is 'immaterial space', BECAUSE you are just 'TRYING' your HARDEST to FIND 'the words' to FIGHT and ARGUE FOR the BELIEF that you 'currently' HAVE and are 'currently' HOLDING ONTO, here.

Relative to an ocean or a mountain range the vacuum of outer space is immaterial.

Relative to a rock air could be perceived as 'immaterial', also.

So, what you are, REALLY, saying and CLAIMING, here, IS that what you refer to and call 'outer space', although containing matter, you, still, want to call 'it' 'immaterial space'.

With the vacuum molecules and atoms are sporadic and dispersed to such a degree that solid, palpable material is not formed.

HOW do you KNOW 'this' FOR SURE?

Have you STUDIED 'the vacuum'?

Molecules are molecules, not the space among them.

Just like 'the space' between and around 'molecules' is NOT the 'molecules' among 'space', itself.

With the vacuum molecules are so sparse it can be considered immaterial. For explicative purposes the example works.

With air molecules they are sparse, so it can be considered immaterial, AS WELL.

However pure immaterial space would concern no atoms or molecules.

So, are you ABLE TO INFORM the readers, here, of WHERE, EXACTLY, this place of 'immaterial space' IS, EXACTLY?

Where matter isn’t.

But, and just TO CLARIFY, there IS 'matter' in what you call the 'vacuum of outer space', right?

[daniel j lavender]

LOL So 'now' the so-called 'vacuum of outer space', which you CLAIM is 'immaterial' ACTUALLY DOES consist of 'matter', and thus is 'now' so-called 'material space'.

The vacuum does not concern matter in the terrestrial sense. The vacuum concerns quantum fluctuations, radiation, virtual particles and sparingly atoms or molecules. While molecules are considered matter this is not the same as tangible, solid material.

Was it 'you' who informed 'us', previously, that so-called 'tangible, solid material' is made up of atoms, which themselves are made up of 'molecules'?

No. Molecules are comprised of atoms.

Compared with an ocean, which is obviously tangible and material, the vacuum of outer space is intangible and immaterial.

Some people also say and claim that 'an ocean' is made up of water, whereas they would NOT say and claim that 'space', itself, is made of water.

Some people also say that 'an ocean' is NOT 'space' and say that 'space' is NOT 'an ocean'.

Hence the terms physical space and immaterial space.

Since dense atomic and molecular structures are absent the vacuum provides no material resistance allowing material bodies motion. Thus the vacuum of outer space is considered immaterial.

Although the so-called 'vacuum of outer space' is, here, considered 'immaterial', or what you call 'immaterial space', the 'vacuum of outer space', STILL, consists of matter, molecules and atoms, just what you call 'minimal', correct?

…But, and just TO CLARIFY, there IS 'matter' in what you call the 'vacuum of outer space', right?

Again, the vacuum of outer space does not involve matter in the terrestrial sense.

Atoms and molecules constitute matter. However if there are insufficient amounts of atoms and molecules there isn’t matter. That is the case with the vacuum of outer space.

[Age]

The vacuum does not concern matter in the terrestrial sense. The vacuum concerns quantum fluctuations, radiation, virtual particles and sparingly atoms or molecules. While molecules are considered matter this is not the same as tangible, solid material.

Was it 'you' who informed 'us', previously, that so-called 'tangible, solid material' is made up of atoms, which themselves are made up of 'molecules'?

No. Molecules are comprised of atoms.

Okay, if you say so. Now, what are 'atoms' comprised of, EXACTLY?

Compared with an ocean, which is obviously tangible and material, the vacuum of outer space is intangible and immaterial.

Some people also say and claim that 'an ocean' is made up of water, whereas they would NOT say and claim that 'space', itself, is made of water.

Some people also say that 'an ocean' is NOT 'space' and say that 'space' is NOT 'an ocean'.

Hence the terms physical space and immaterial space.

Terms you SAY and USE, but WHEN you were QUESTIONED OVER those terms, of yours, you also CLAIMED that 'immaterial space' is actually composed of 'material', itself. Just less dense than, say, 'water'.

Since dense atomic and molecular structures are absent the vacuum provides no material resistance allowing material bodies motion. Thus the vacuum of outer space is considered immaterial.

Although the so-called 'vacuum of outer space' is, here, considered 'immaterial', or what you call 'immaterial space', the 'vacuum of outer space', STILL, consists of matter, molecules and atoms, just what you call 'minimal', correct?

…But, and just TO CLARIFY, there IS 'matter' in what you call the 'vacuum of outer space', right?

Again, the vacuum of outer space does not involve matter in the terrestrial sense.

OBVIOUSLY, and OF COURSE, HOWEVER you are ACTUALLY SAYING and STATING that what you CALLED 'vacuum of outer space', STILL, CONSISTS OF 'matter', itself, ANYWAY.

So, what you have been ESSENTIALLY SAYING and MEANING, here, is 'your term', 'immaterial space' consists of ACTUAL 'material'.

Atoms and molecules constitute matter. However if there are insufficient amounts of atoms and molecules there isn’t matter. That is the case with the vacuum of outer space.

AND. LOL, that is THE CASE at the 'sub-atomic level' of things AS WELL as within the structure of a 'table' ALSO.

ONCE MORE, the Universe, Itself, is, FUNDAMENTALLY, made up of two things. They are 'matter' AND 'space'.

The 'matter' word, here, obviously referring to 'material substance', while the 'space' word is just referring to the distance between and around 'matter', itself. The visible part of the Universe, that is; 'matter', being ALLOWED TO MOVE FREELY because of the invisible part of the Universe, which is; 'space'.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HARD NOR COMPLEX TO COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND, here.

BOTH 'matter' AND 'space' have CO-EXISTED ALWAYS, and WILL FOREVER. And, because BOTH 'matter' AND 'space' exist together 'NOW' this means, IRREFUTABLY, that they have BOTH CO-EXIST ALWAYS. Which ALSO MEANS, IRREFUTABLY, the Life, Itself, and the Universe, Itself, ARE 'eternal' AS WELL AS 'infinite'.

Now, although the Universe, Itself, COULD exist either as:

'Infinitely compressed matter' with ABSOLUTELY NO 'space' within, NOR external to 'it', OR
An 'infiniteness of NO matter'.

But, as the Universe does NOT NOW exist in either of those forms this MEANS the Universe could NEVER have been one in one of those ways, which therefore MEANS that the Universe has ALWAYS consisted of BOTH 'matter' AND 'space', and thus has been ETERNALLY.

The Universe, although being able to EXIST in either form of 'ALL matter' OR 'ALL space'. ALL 'life', itself, NEEDS BOTH 'matter' AND 'space'. And, when there is 'matter' AND 'space' there IS 'Life', Itself. The two TOGETHER Create 'Life', which is WHY the Universe, Itself, IS ALIVE, and LIVING. Now, because both 'matter' AND 'space' have ALWAYS EXISTED, then so too has 'Life', itself, ALWAYS EXISTED.

And, it is the Fact that the LIVING Universe is INFINITE in size, and has ALWAYS EXISTED, the reason WHY 'Existence', Itself, IS 'infinite' AND 'eternal', AS WELL.

[daniel j lavender]

Some people also say and claim that 'an ocean' is made up of water, whereas they would NOT say and claim that 'space', itself, is made of water.

Some people also say that 'an ocean' is NOT 'space' and say that 'space' is NOT 'an ocean'.

Hence the terms physical space and immaterial space.

Terms you SAY and USE, but WHEN you were QUESTIONED OVER those terms, of yours, you also CLAIMED that 'immaterial space' is actually composed of 'material', itself. Just less dense than, say, 'water'.

Although the so-called 'vacuum of outer space' is, here, considered 'immaterial', or what you call 'immaterial space', the 'vacuum of outer space', STILL, consists of matter, molecules and atoms, just what you call 'minimal', correct?

…But, and just TO CLARIFY, there IS 'matter' in what you call the 'vacuum of outer space', right?

Again, the vacuum of outer space does not involve matter in the terrestrial sense.

OBVIOUSLY, and OF COURSE, HOWEVER you are ACTUALLY SAYING and STATING that what you CALLED 'vacuum of outer space', STILL, CONSISTS OF 'matter', itself, ANYWAY.

So, what you have been ESSENTIALLY SAYING and MEANING, here, is 'your term', 'immaterial space' consists of ACTUAL 'material'.

The vacuum, as stated, is not material. There are insufficient atomic and molecular structures to form matter. There are only sparse atoms and molecules scattered around, too few to form even a gas.

The vacuum of outer space is predominantly comprised of quantum fluctuations, virtual particles and radiation.

Quantum fluctuations are not matter.

Virtual particles are not matter.

Radiation is not matter.

Those comprise the vacuum thus the vacuum is considered immaterial space.

There are so few molecules in the vacuum they are negligible.

Atoms and molecules constitute matter. However if there are insufficient amounts of atoms and molecules there isn’t matter. That is the case with the vacuum of outer space.

AND. LOL, that is THE CASE at the 'sub-atomic level' of things AS WELL as within the structure of a 'table' ALSO.

Fair point.

As stated, immaterial space permeates existence:

Immaterial space, or immaterial expanse, permeates existence. Immateriality, not nothingness, is the contrast of materiality. Immaterial space has no matter or resistance allowing material bodies movement.

[Age]

Hence the terms physical space and immaterial space.

Terms you SAY and USE, but WHEN you were QUESTIONED OVER those terms, of yours, you also CLAIMED that 'immaterial space' is actually composed of 'material', itself. Just less dense than, say, 'water'.

Again, the vacuum of outer space does not involve matter in the terrestrial sense.

OBVIOUSLY, and OF COURSE, HOWEVER you are ACTUALLY SAYING and STATING that what you CALLED 'vacuum of outer space', STILL, CONSISTS OF 'matter', itself, ANYWAY.

So, what you have been ESSENTIALLY SAYING and MEANING, here, is 'your term', 'immaterial space' consists of ACTUAL 'material'.

The vacuum, as stated, is not material.

Yet it was you who said some thing like, it is made up of minimal material.

There are insufficient atomic and molecular structures to form matter.

Now 'we' are getting somewhere, and 'we' hope that 'you' will continue moving, here. So, what do you think or believe 'atomic and molecular structures' are made up of, or consist of, EXACTLY?

There are only sparse atoms and molecules scattered around, too few to form even a gas.

Okay, GREAT. Hopefully you are 'now' STARTING TO SEE things MORE CLEARLY, here.

The vacuum of outer space is predominantly comprised of quantum fluctuations, virtual particles and radiation.

And, what are these three things, here, made up of, out of, or consist of, EXACTLY?

Quantum fluctuations are not matter.

Virtual particles are not matter.

Radiation is not matter.

Great, so if these three things are NOT made up, made out of, nor consist of 'matter', itself, then 'what', EXACTLY are these three things made up of, made out of, or consist of, FULLY?

Those comprise the vacuum thus the vacuum is considered immaterial space.

What 'we' can VERY CLEARLY SEE, here, is ANOTHER PRIME example of one 'TRYING TO' FIND and TWIST or USE 'words' in some particular way, in the HOPE that 'those words' presented in 'some way' will some how back up and support what one, ALREADY, BELIEVES is true, and is 'TRYING TO' CLAIM as being true.

There are so few molecules in the vacuum they are negligible.

So, TO "daniel j lavender" anyway, quantum fluctuations, virtual particles, and radiation, themselves, are comprised of A 'vacuum', and then, SUDDENLY, this then MEANS, 'therefore 'the vacuum', which quantum fluctuations, virtual particles, and radiation, themselves, are comprised of, is considered the laughably so-called 'immaterial space'. Which, OBVIOUSLY ALSO MEANS that those 'three, ACTUAL, things' are ACTUALLY 'immaterial space', AS WELL.

HOWEVER, and TO "daniel j lavender", ALSO, 'the vacuum', which 'three ACTUAL things' are comprised of, is ACTUALLY made up of 'molecules', themselves. (but because there are so few molecules, in the vacuum, they are then, supposedly, negligible.

Which makes me wonder if 'this one' can YET SEE ANY of its CONTRADICTIONS, INCONSISTENCIES, and the ABSURDITIES, here, AT ALL.

Atoms and molecules constitute matter. However if there are insufficient amounts of atoms and molecules there isn’t matter. That is the case with the vacuum of outer space.

AND. LOL, that is THE CASE at the 'sub-atomic level' of things AS WELL as within the structure of a 'table' ALSO.

Fair point.

As stated, immaterial space permeates existence:

Immaterial space, or immaterial expanse, permeates existence.

That there IS 'space' AND 'matter' CO-EXISTING, INFINITELY in size, TOGETHER, HAS BEEN OBVIOUS, well TO me anyway.

And, if you look above in this thread, and throughout this forum, this is what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING, ALREADY.

Immateriality, not nothingness, is the contrast of materiality.

JUST LIKE 'nothing' is the contrast of 'something'. JUST LIKE 'no thing' is the contrast of 'some thing'. JUST LIKE 'nothingness' is the contrast of 'somethingness'. BUT, SO WHAT?

There is NOT ONLY 'nothingness'. But, just AS OBVIOUS is that there are areas, places, or 'spaces' of apparently 'nothingness' BETWEEN and AROUND areas and places of 'objects' of 'matter', or of 'somethingness', as some might say.

The word 'nothing' is just USED, for example, like when one is measuring 'the distance' between 'one object', of 'matter', to 'another object', of 'matter'. But, OBVIOUSLY, there ACTUALLY is NOT 'nothing' AT ALL. There is just 'relatively nothing', INSTEAD.

And, just like there is NOT, ONLY, 'nothingness', there is 'apparently nothing', there IS ALSO 'spaces' of what is called 'nothing' between and around 'matter', itself.

I AM UNSURE as to what 'it' is, EXACTLY, that you are finding HARD or COMPLEX to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND, here.

Immaterial space has no matter or resistance allowing material bodies movement.

YET, here you are, CLAIMING that 'immaterial space' IS, for example, 'The vacuum of outer space', which you CLAIM is predominantly comprised of quantum fluctuations, virtual particles and radiation, which you THEN CLAIM are NOT 'matter', BUT, THEN CLAIM those 'three things' are made up of, consist of, or are comprised of 'the vacuum', which, to you, IS 'immaterial space'. Which you THEN CLAIM that there are SO FEW 'molecules', in 'the vacuum', that they, THEN SUDDENLY BECOME NEGLIGIBLE, (for the OBVIOUS REASON that if they WERE NOT, then what you are 'TRYING TO' CLAIM, here, would just ALL FALL APART).

you ALSO CLAIM that 'matter', itself, is made up of, made out of, consists of, or is comprised of 'atoms and molecules', BUT, if there are so-called and so-claimed an 'insufficient amount' of atoms and molecules, then there is NO 'matter'. So,

What is an 'insufficient amount', EXACTLY?

And,

What are 'atoms' AND 'molecules' made up of, made out of, consist of, or are comprised of, EXACTLY?

[daniel j lavender]

Those comprise the vacuum thus the vacuum is considered immaterial space.

What 'we' can VERY CLEARLY SEE, here, is ANOTHER PRIME example of one 'TRYING TO' FIND and TWIST or USE 'words' in some particular way, in the HOPE that 'those words' presented in 'some way' will some how back up and support what one, ALREADY, BELIEVES is true, and is 'TRYING TO' CLAIM as being true.

Not at all.

The primary components of the vacuum concern quantum fluctuations, virtual particles and radiation which involve energy and mathematical constructs. Those things are not matter. Thus immaterial. Thus the vacuum is considered immaterial space. “Immaterial” means not matter as defined:

Immaterial (adjective)
2 : not consisting of matter
(Immaterial. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaterial)

The vacuum of outer space is considered an example of immaterial space. Especially in contrast with an ocean or a mountain range as conveyed earlier.

For purposes of explication the example works.

Pure immaterial space would concern no atoms, no molecules, no radiation, etcetera.

Immateriality, not nothingness, is the contrast of materiality.

JUST LIKE 'nothing' is the contrast of 'something'. JUST LIKE 'no thing' is the contrast of 'some thing'. JUST LIKE 'nothingness' is the contrast of 'somethingness'. BUT, SO WHAT?

There is NOT ONLY 'nothingness'. But, just AS OBVIOUS is that there are areas, places, or 'spaces' of apparently 'nothingness' BETWEEN and AROUND areas and places of 'objects' of 'matter', or of 'somethingness', as some might say.

The word 'nothing' is just USED, for example, like when one is measuring 'the distance' between 'one object', of 'matter', to 'another object', of 'matter'. But, OBVIOUSLY, there ACTUALLY is NOT 'nothing' AT ALL. There is just 'relatively nothing', INSTEAD.

And, just like there is NOT, ONLY, 'nothingness', there is 'apparently nothing', there IS ALSO 'spaces' of what is called 'nothing' between and around 'matter', itself.

I AM UNSURE as to what 'it' is, EXACTLY, that you are finding HARD or COMPLEX to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND, here.

None of that is nothing.

Immateriality is shown to coexist with materiality through the provided examples.

That which has properties or qualities is a thing, and immaterial space has been shown to have properties or qualities and real world presence.

Space is not nothing. Quantum fluctuations are not nothing. Radiation is not nothing. Referring to such as nothing is a prime example of sloppy language as conveyed here: viewtopic.php?p=742705#p742705

You claim others distort terms however you attempt to apply terms when they obviously do not apply.

[Age]

Those comprise the vacuum thus the vacuum is considered immaterial space.

What 'we' can VERY CLEARLY SEE, here, is ANOTHER PRIME example of one 'TRYING TO' FIND and TWIST or USE 'words' in some particular way, in the HOPE that 'those words' presented in 'some way' will some how back up and support what one, ALREADY, BELIEVES is true, and is 'TRYING TO' CLAIM as being true.

Not at all..

Why do you say and claim, 'Not at all'?

Are you now 'trying to' tell others what they are seeing, and/or what they are not seeing?

The primary components of the vacuum concern quantum fluctuations, virtual particles and radiation which involve energy and mathematical constructs.

But absolutely NO matter NOR material, right?

Those things are not matter. Thus immaterial. Thus the vacuum is considered immaterial space. “Immaterial” means not matter as defined:

Immaterial (adjective)
2 : not consisting of matter
(Immaterial. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaterial)

The vacuum of outer space is considered an example of immaterial space. Especially in contrast with an ocean or a mountain range as conveyed earlier.

For purposes of explication the example works.

Pure immaterial space would concern no atoms, no molecules, no radiation, etcetera.

Immateriality, not nothingness, is the contrast of materiality.

JUST LIKE 'nothing' is the contrast of 'something'. JUST LIKE 'no thing' is the contrast of 'some thing'. JUST LIKE 'nothingness' is the contrast of 'somethingness'. BUT, SO WHAT?

There is NOT ONLY 'nothingness'. But, just AS OBVIOUS is that there are areas, places, or 'spaces' of apparently 'nothingness' BETWEEN and AROUND areas and places of 'objects' of 'matter', or of 'somethingness', as some might say.

The word 'nothing' is just USED, for example, like when one is measuring 'the distance' between 'one object', of 'matter', to 'another object', of 'matter'. But, OBVIOUSLY, there ACTUALLY is NOT 'nothing' AT ALL. There is just 'relatively nothing', INSTEAD.

And, just like there is NOT, ONLY, 'nothingness', there is 'apparently nothing', there IS ALSO 'spaces' of what is called 'nothing' between and around 'matter', itself.

I AM UNSURE as to what 'it' is, EXACTLY, that you are finding HARD or COMPLEX to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND, here.

None of that is nothing.

Immateriality is shown to coexist with materiality through the provided examples.

That which has properties or qualities is a thing, and immaterial space has been shown to have properties or qualities and real world presence.

Space is not nothing. Quantum fluctuations are not nothing. Radiation is not nothing. Referring to such as nothing is a prime example of sloppy language as conveyed here: viewtopic.php?p=742705#p742705

You claim others distort terms however you attempt to apply terms when they obviously do not apply.

LOL

I have NEVER EVER even suggested that ANY of them is nothing, let alone SAID or WROTE that.

WHY are you finding things so hard and so complex to FOLLOW, here?

And, if you REALLY, STILL, can NOT SEE WHERE you have been CONTRADICTING "yourself" above, here, then okay.

[daniel j lavender]

What 'we' can VERY CLEARLY SEE, here, is ANOTHER PRIME example of one 'TRYING TO' FIND and TWIST or USE 'words' in some particular way, in the HOPE that 'those words' presented in 'some way' will some how back up and support what one, ALREADY, BELIEVES is true, and is 'TRYING TO' CLAIM as being true.

Not at all..

Why do you say and claim, 'Not at all'?

Are you now 'trying to' tell others what they are seeing, and/or what they are not seeing?

Apparently that was your intent as evident by your comment.

Those things are not matter. Thus immaterial. Thus the vacuum is considered immaterial space. “Immaterial” means not matter as defined:

Immaterial (adjective)
2 : not consisting of matter
(Immaterial. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaterial)

The vacuum of outer space is considered an example of immaterial space. Especially in contrast with an ocean or a mountain range as conveyed earlier.

For purposes of explication the example works.

Pure immaterial space would concern no atoms, no molecules, no radiation, etcetera.

JUST LIKE 'nothing' is the contrast of 'something'. JUST LIKE 'no thing' is the contrast of 'some thing'. JUST LIKE 'nothingness' is the contrast of 'somethingness'. BUT, SO WHAT?

There is NOT ONLY 'nothingness'. But, just AS OBVIOUS is that there are areas, places, or 'spaces' of apparently 'nothingness' BETWEEN and AROUND areas and places of 'objects' of 'matter', or of 'somethingness', as some might say.

The word 'nothing' is just USED, for example, like when one is measuring 'the distance' between 'one object', of 'matter', to 'another object', of 'matter'. But, OBVIOUSLY, there ACTUALLY is NOT 'nothing' AT ALL. There is just 'relatively nothing', INSTEAD.

And, just like there is NOT, ONLY, 'nothingness', there is 'apparently nothing', there IS ALSO 'spaces' of what is called 'nothing' between and around 'matter', itself.

I AM UNSURE as to what 'it' is, EXACTLY, that you are finding HARD or COMPLEX to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND, here.

None of that is nothing.

Immateriality is shown to coexist with materiality through the provided examples.

That which has properties or qualities is a thing, and immaterial space has been shown to have properties or qualities and real world presence.

Space is not nothing. Quantum fluctuations are not nothing. Radiation is not nothing. Referring to such as nothing is a prime example of sloppy language as conveyed here: viewtopic.php?p=742705#p742705

You claim others distort terms however you attempt to apply terms when they obviously do not apply.

LOL

I have NEVER EVER even suggested that ANY of them is nothing, let alone SAID or WROTE that.

WHY are you finding things so hard and so complex to FOLLOW, here?

You concede none of it is actually nothing yet refer to it as nothing anyway.

It’s an example of sloppy language as stated.

And, if you REALLY, STILL, can NOT SEE WHERE you have been CONTRADICTING "yourself" above, here, then okay.

Identify the contradiction.

Was it 'you' who informed 'us', previously, that so-called 'tangible, solid material' is made up of atoms, which themselves are made up of 'molecules'?

No. Molecules are comprised of atoms.

Okay, if you say so. Now, what are 'atoms' comprised of, EXACTLY?

This has been discussed. For a crash course on physics use a search engine.

The point is nothing, or nonexistence, is never reached.

As expressed:

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.

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.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not at all..

Why do you say and claim, 'Not at all'?

Are you now 'trying to' tell others what they are seeing, and/or what they are not seeing?

Apparently that was your intent as evident by your comment.

Those things are not matter. Thus immaterial. Thus the vacuum is considered immaterial space. “Immaterial” means not matter as defined:

Immaterial (adjective)
2 : not consisting of matter
(Immaterial. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaterial)

The vacuum of outer space is considered an example of immaterial space. Especially in contrast with an ocean or a mountain range as conveyed earlier.

For purposes of explication the example works.

Pure immaterial space would concern no atoms, no molecules, no radiation, etcetera.




None of that is nothing.

Immateriality is shown to coexist with materiality through the provided examples.

That which has properties or qualities is a thing, and immaterial space has been shown to have properties or qualities and real world presence.

Space is not nothing. Quantum fluctuations are not nothing. Radiation is not nothing. Referring to such as nothing is a prime example of sloppy language as conveyed here: viewtopic.php?p=742705#p742705

You claim others distort terms however you attempt to apply terms when they obviously do not apply.

LOL

I have NEVER EVER even suggested that ANY of them is nothing, let alone SAID or WROTE that.

WHY are you finding things so hard and so complex to FOLLOW, here?

You concede none of it is actually nothing yet refer to it as nothing anyway.

It’s an example of sloppy language as stated.

And, if you REALLY, STILL, can NOT SEE WHERE you have been CONTRADICTING "yourself" above, here, then okay.

Identify the contradiction.

No. Molecules are comprised of atoms.

Okay, if you say so. Now, what are 'atoms' comprised of, EXACTLY?

This has been discussed. For a crash course on physics use a search engine.

The point is nothing, or nonexistence, is never reached.

As expressed:

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

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.

Absence occurs all the time, that is why distinct things exist...there is an absence of another thing there. Absence/nothingness/non-existence all exist.

[daniel j lavender]

Absence occurs all the time,

Except in the case of presence. Which presence is observably prevalent.

that is why distinct things exist...

Distinct things are distinct things because of their distinct properties or qualities. All properties or qualities, whether of one thing or another thing, are present in some capacity in order to acknowledge such distinction.

there is an absence of another thing there.

By this very statement you are implicitly acknowledging another thing thus indicating no actual absence of another thing.

You are attempting to limit existence to only one thing or only one location then using that as excuse to introduce nothingness. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to only one thing or only one location thus there is no excuse for introducing nothingness.

Absence/nothingness/non-existence all exist.

Absence and nothingness are not the same. This has already been discussed:

Absence and nothingness are not the same. Absence is a circumstance or condition and can be observed. Bob’s absence from class Tuesday was acknowledged or observed by students, for example. Still only things occupied the room, students, desks, air, etcetera. All people and items referenced, Bob, class, the students, etcetera, are things, are existence. Nothingness, nonexistence is not and cannot be to be observed or referenced.

[Eodnhoj7]

Absence occurs all the time,

Except in the case of presence. Which presence is observably prevalent.

that is why distinct things exist...

Distinct things are distinct things because of their distinct properties or qualities. All properties or qualities, whether of one thing or another thing, are present in some capacity in order to acknowledge such distinction.

there is an absence of another thing there.

By this very statement you are implicitly acknowledging another thing thus indicating no actual absence of another thing.

You are attempting to limit existence to only one thing or only one location then using that as excuse to introduce nothingness. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to only one thing or only one location thus there is no excuse for introducing nothingness.

Absence/nothingness/non-existence all exist.

Absence and nothingness are not the same. This has already been discussed:

Absence and nothingness are not the same. Absence is a circumstance or condition and can be observed. Bob’s absence from class Tuesday was acknowledged or observed by students, for example. Still only things occupied the room, students, desks, air, etcetera. All people and items referenced, Bob, class, the students, etcetera, are things, are existence. Nothingness, nonexistence is not and cannot be to be observed or referenced.

The presence of x means an absence of something else for if something else where present than x could not be there an hence absent. Given the infinite number of things there is a corresponding, if not exponential, number of absences of other things.

In simple terms the presence of a tree in a specific time and space is the absence of a car in that specific time and space.

A thing is distinct by standing apart from another thing, this standing apart of the distinct things means the other things are absent in said thing, hence the "standing apart" as seperation, or absence.

An absence is a lack of a thing, a lack of a thing is a relative no-thing or a relative nothing. For example a tree is an absence of the thing known as car, there is a relative no-thing as there is no thing as the car being there.

As an absence is a distinction it is existing, under these terms nothingness exists and you end in paradox.

Or in even simpler terms everything you use the word "nothing" you are making the distinction of "absence of being". Nothingness is a distinction and exists because of this. You are arguing against the very distinction you need to argue against, your argument against nothing is because of and related to nothing.