Translucense

[Darkneos]

I already proved your points wrong as well as show you don’t know what words mean or how they’re used. Not to mention this is clearly just nonsense at this point. It’s like badly mangled Buddhism.

25. In everything being different everything is the same by sharing the quality of 'standing apart' or rather 'distinctness'. In everything being the same everything is different as sameness requires multiplicity (i.e. a thing cannot be the same as itself without there first being multiple states which equate) and with this multiplicity comes distinctness due to differences in time and space, thus there is neither sameness nor difference.

This for example I already explained as wrong. There is difference. Things can share qualities but still be different. So long as one difference exists things are different no matter how many qualities they share. You think that because everything “shares the quantity of being different” that they’re the same, which is laughably wrong. Things sharing a quantity doesn’t make them the same. That said different isn’t really a quality of a thing but more a description of the relationship between things, so even by that metric you’re still wrong.

Also nothing is spontaneous, there is no such thing as spontaneity. It’s all the result of cause and effect even if you refuse to accept that. Randomness simply doesn’t exist.

That’s all, it’s too much work to prove all this wrong. Anyone can spew nonsense but debunking takes work.

I’d recommend psychiatric help at this point.

[Darkneos]

I’d also add the balance doesn’t allow all things to be possible, rather it prevents anything from happening.

It’s also worth repeating that there is no such thing as spontaneity. Everything has a cause, and emptiness doesn’t exist.

So…still wrong on all points.