How do we think?

[KLewchuk]

The first experience is simply the fruit, then the concept, then causation.

Yup.

What do you mean with and by the word 'causation'?

If we experience one thing following another, we cognitively identify it as "causation". That is a complicated topic, but that is the idea.

[bahman]

Yup.

What do you mean with and by the word 'causation'?

If we experience one thing following another, we cognitively identify it as "causation". That is a complicated topic, but that is the idea.

Yes. It is not complex though.

[Age]

I didn't say so.

I KNOW you did NOT. I also did NOT say you DID. And, that is WHY I am asking you to CLARIFY.

Ok.

There are people who believe so.

Do 'you', "bahman" BELIEVE that "creation out of nothing" is the beginning of Everything?

No. I think that it is logically impossible.

I have an argument against the act of creation.

What even IS "the act of creation", to 'you', which you say you "have an argument against"?

It is act of bringing something out of nothing.

I suggest that if you are going to say that you have an argument against some 'thing', then you PROVIDE what that 'thing' IS FIRST, BEFORE you provide and argument against 'it' or say that you have an argument against 'it'.

I have absolutely NO idea AT ALL what some, so called, "the act of creation" is to you.

I already defined it in the previous comment.

There was a beginning. I think that is true.

Okay, great. Now how could this "beginning", which you 'think' is true, even occur?

It doesn't occur. Everything starts from there.

What you start EXPLAINING 'that', then we WILL LOOK INTO if this could even be LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, let alone EMPIRICALLY POSSIBLE, okay?

It is not logically possible. I am not aware of any empirical proof.

That is; if you are up to being CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED.

Yes.

So, 'you', "bahman";

Think that Everything beginning from nothing is logically impossible. Is this correct?

Think that there was 'a beginning' is true. Is this correct?

Say that Everything starts from 'that beginning'. Is this correct?

Say that Everything starts from 'that beginning' is NOT logically possible. Is this correct?

If ANY of this is NOT correct, then you you correct them please?

I will await your responses before I proceed.

[Age]

There was a beginning. I think that is true.

WHY would 'you' even think this is true?

I am curious as to WHAT would even lead a human being to a conclusion like this?

There are two proofs for this.

IF there is just ONE 'proof', then WHY do you just 'think' it is true? If there is ONE 'proof', then 'it' is IRREFUTABLY True. And thus you would KNOW, for SURE, without ANY doubt, that 'it' is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True.

A) The physical argument (the second law of thermodynamics) and B) The metaphysical one (the logical one).

Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually.

What does 'close' system EVEN MEAN?

If by 'close' you mean 'closed', then what EVIDENCE or PROOF that this One and ONLY Universe is a 'closed' system. By definition, IF It is infinite and eternal, then it could be said to be NOT a 'closed' system AT ALL.

Have you ALREADY FORGOTTEN what you have said there is two proofs for? In case you HAVE, you said that there are TWO PROOFS that there was 'a beginning'.

This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system.

What proof is there that thee Universe is a 'close', or 'closed', system, anyway?

We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

LOL Again, you are joking RIGHT?

This is YOUR, so called, "argument" here.

There exists a second law of thermodynamics.
It is stated within that human being constructed second law of thermodynamics that entropy (disorder) increases in ANY 'closed' system, with heat death being the final state of those 'closed' systems.
Some human beings in the days of when this is being written PRESUME or BELIEVE that they are NOT in the final state of "some" 'closed' system.
THEREFORE, there WAS 'a beginning'.

That is NOT a, so called, "physical" argument, NOR proof, for "there was a beginning".

Proof of B: There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past.

Will you ELABORATE on this?

To me, the WHOLE last sentence is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY NONSENSICAL.

In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

This, to me, is EVEN MORE NONSENSICAL than the previous one, which is ACTUALLY a CONTRADICTIONS in terms, but it will SUFFICE, for now.

Now, even if what you wrote here was somewhat true, which, in its current state, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT, but even if (1) was 'plausible', then this in NO WAY infers NOR means that "there is a beginning" is true. The word 'plausible' EVEN MEANS that 'it' MAY or MAY NOT be true. Which, by definition, MEANS that 'it' is NOT necessarily true AT ALL.

Therefore, that is NOT a, so called, "metaphysical" (logical) argument NOR proof for "there was a beginning".

What you wrote here is what I have been SAYING ALL ALONG, and that is; 'you', adult human beings, will say, and 'try', just about absolutely to defend, back up, support, and "justify" your ALREADY HELD ONTO ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN, ONCE AGAIN.

What 'you', "bahman", wrote here is just MORE EVIDENCE and ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF for what I have been SAYING, and CLAIMING.

[Age]

Yup.

What do you mean with and by the word 'causation'?

If we experience one thing following another, we cognitively identify it as "causation". That is a complicated topic, but that is the idea.

But 'we' cannot NOT experience ANY thing other than one thing following another, correct?

'Causation' is just a word that describes the continual action of 'cause AND effect', correct?

Causation exists ALWAYS correct?

Also, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING complicated about this, is there?

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' came about following on from at least two things coming together prior, correct?

[Age]

What do you mean with and by the word 'causation'?

If we experience one thing following another, we cognitively identify it as "causation". That is a complicated topic, but that is the idea.

Yes. It is not complex though.

Agreed, WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

[KLewchuk]

If we experience one thing following another, we cognitively identify it as "causation". That is a complicated topic, but that is the idea.

Yes. It is not complex though.

Agreed, WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

Actually, it is very complex. There are concepts of dependent co-origination (e.g. just because something arises after something else doesn't mean it is "caused" by it. The cognitive science around how our minds create causation is also very interesting. Snap your fingers; the sensation of the snapping, the sound of the snap, and the vision of the snapping appear to occur at the same time... but they actually arrive in your brain at different times... and then your brain puts them together.

[bahman]

I KNOW you did NOT. I also did NOT say you DID. And, that is WHY I am asking you to CLARIFY.

Ok.

Do 'you', "bahman" BELIEVE that "creation out of nothing" is the beginning of Everything?

No. I think that it is logically impossible.

What even IS "the act of creation", to 'you', which you say you "have an argument against"?

It is act of bringing something out of nothing.

I suggest that if you are going to say that you have an argument against some 'thing', then you PROVIDE what that 'thing' IS FIRST, BEFORE you provide and argument against 'it' or say that you have an argument against 'it'.

I have absolutely NO idea AT ALL what some, so called, "the act of creation" is to you.

I already defined it in the previous comment.

Okay, great. Now how could this "beginning", which you 'think' is true, even occur?

It doesn't occur. Everything starts from there.

What you start EXPLAINING 'that', then we WILL LOOK INTO if this could even be LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, let alone EMPIRICALLY POSSIBLE, okay?

It is not logically possible. I am not aware of any empirical proof.

That is; if you are up to being CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED.

Yes.

So, 'you', "bahman";

Think that Everything beginning from nothing is logically impossible. Is this correct?

I am saying that the act of creation is impossible. There was however nothing but bare minds in the beginning.

Think that there was 'a beginning' is true. Is this correct?

Yes.

Say that Everything starts from 'that beginning'. Is this correct?

Yes, but minds.

Say that Everything starts from 'that beginning' is NOT logically possible. Is this correct?

No.

If ANY of this is NOT correct, then you you correct them please?

I answered your questions.

I will await your responses before I proceed.

Ok.

[bahman]

WHY would 'you' even think this is true?

I am curious as to WHAT would even lead a human being to a conclusion like this?

There are two proofs for this.

IF there is just ONE 'proof', then WHY do you just 'think' it is true? If there is ONE 'proof', then 'it' is IRREFUTABLY True. And thus you would KNOW, for SURE, without ANY doubt, that 'it' is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True.

Yes, I am sure of the truthness of my arguments.

A) The physical argument (the second law of thermodynamics) and B) The metaphysical one (the logical one).

Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually.

What does 'close' system EVEN MEAN?

If by 'close' you mean 'closed', then what EVIDENCE or PROOF that this One and ONLY Universe is a 'closed' system. By definition, IF It is infinite and eternal, then it could be said to be NOT a 'closed' system AT ALL.

Have you ALREADY FORGOTTEN what you have said there is two proofs for? In case you HAVE, you said that there are TWO PROOFS that there was 'a beginning'.

Closed means that it does not exchange heat by anything else. The whole is infinite. It is the whole so there is nothing left to interact with. Therefore, it is closed.

This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system.

What proof is there that thee Universe is a 'close', or 'closed', system, anyway?

The whole is infinite. It is the whole so there is nothing left to interact with. Therefore, it is closed.

We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

LOL Again, you are joking RIGHT?

This is YOUR, so called, "argument" here.

There exists a second law of thermodynamics.
It is stated within that human being constructed second law of thermodynamics that entropy (disorder) increases in ANY 'closed' system, with heat death being the final state of those 'closed' systems.
Some human beings in the days of when this is being written PRESUME or BELIEVE that they are NOT in the final state of "some" 'closed' system.
THEREFORE, there WAS 'a beginning'.

That is NOT a, so called, "physical" argument, NOR proof, for "there was a beginning".

I am not answering that because you laughed. So figure out.

Proof of B: There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past.

Will you ELABORATE on this?

To me, the WHOLE last sentence is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY NONSENSICAL.

You need to imagine it. I cannot do this for you.

In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

This, to me, is EVEN MORE NONSENSICAL than the previous one, which is ACTUALLY a CONTRADICTIONS in terms, but it will SUFFICE, for now.

Now, even if what you wrote here was somewhat true, which, in its current state, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT, but even if (1) was 'plausible', then this in NO WAY infers NOR means that "there is a beginning" is true. The word 'plausible' EVEN MEANS that 'it' MAY or MAY NOT be true. Which, by definition, MEANS that 'it' is NOT necessarily true AT ALL.

Therefore, that is NOT a, so called, "metaphysical" (logical) argument NOR proof for "there was a beginning".

What you wrote here is what I have been SAYING ALL ALONG, and that is; 'you', adult human beings, will say, and 'try', just about absolutely to defend, back up, support, and "justify" your ALREADY HELD ONTO ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN, ONCE AGAIN.

What 'you', "bahman", wrote here is just MORE EVIDENCE and ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF for what I have been SAYING, and CLAIMING.

Figure out. I am sorry but I can help you. You need to use your own imagination.

[bahman]

Yes. It is not complex though.

Agreed, WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

Actually, it is very complex. There are concepts of dependent co-origination (e.g. just because something arises after something else doesn't mean it is "caused" by it. The cognitive science around how our minds create causation is also very interesting. Snap your fingers; the sensation of the snapping, the sound of the snap, and the vision of the snapping appear to occur at the same time... but they actually arrive in your brain at different times... and then your brain puts them together.

I knew that.

[Age]

Yes. It is not complex though.

Agreed, WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

Actually, it is very complex.

What EXACTLY is the 'it' here, which you think or believe is "very complex"?

And, how EXACTLY is 'it' "very complex", to you?

There are concepts of dependent co-origination (e.g. just because something arises after something else doesn't mean it is "caused" by it.

VERY TRUE. For example; the sun sometimes arises after i wake up. But i certainly did NOT cause the sun to "arise". But NOTHING 'complex' yet nor so far.

The cognitive science around how our minds create causation is also very interesting.

What I find would be FAR MORE INTERESTING is if 'you', human beings, came together to learn and understand what the 'Mind' ACTUALLY IS, FIRST, BEFORE 'you' start talking about 'It' as though 'you' know what 'you' are talking about.

I suggest that 'you', human beings, who "study" or who "work in" 'cognitive science', say what 'Mind' ACTUALLY IS, BEFORE 'you' start wondering how the, so called, "your minds" work.

Also, what, EXACTLY, do you find 'very interesting' in how "your mind", supposedly and allegedly, creates causation?

And, are you 'trying to' suggest here that 'causation' did NOT exist BEFORE 'you', human beings, came to exist?

Snap your fingers; the sensation of the snapping, the sound of the snap, and the vision of the snapping appear to occur at the same time... but they actually arrive in your brain at different times... and then your brain puts them together.

This does NOT sound "very interesting" at all to me. As this WAS just PLAIN OBVIOUS, previously, anyway.

Also, if the brain within that head puts those things together, so that, to 'you', they appear to occur at the same time, to 'you', then just remember the brain within this head does NOT do, and did NOT necessarily do, what the brain within that head does.

But 'I' do tend to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENT from 'you', human beings, NATURALLY anyway.

Also, the fact that absolutely EVERY thing registered within a human brain happened 'in the past', and at different moments', just PROVES that things occur NOT at the same, so called, "time", and thus your example was ALREADY CLEARLY KNOWN, well by 'me' anyway.

[Age]

So, 'you', "bahman";

Think that Everything beginning from nothing is logically impossible. Is this correct?

I am saying that the act of creation is impossible. There was however nothing but bare minds in the beginning.

What is the difference between a, so called, "bare mind", and let us say a "clothed mind"?

And, HOW and WHEN was this, supposed and alleged, "beginning"?

Think that there was 'a beginning' is true. Is this correct?

Yes.

Say that Everything starts from 'that beginning'. Is this correct?

Yes, but minds.

How many of these, so called, "minds" where there BEFORE some alleged "beginning"?

And, is that the EXACT same number existing at the moment 'you' are reading this sentence?

Also, what are these "minds" made up of and out of, EXACTLY?

Say that Everything starts from 'that beginning' is NOT logically possible. Is this correct?

No.

Why "No"?

Are you now saying that Everything starts from 'that beginning' is NOW logically possible?

Or, did you say, "No" because you say "minds" where existing before 'that beginning'? Or, did you say, "No", here because of some other reason?

[Age]

There are two proofs for this.

IF there is just ONE 'proof', then WHY do you just 'think' it is true? If there is ONE 'proof', then 'it' is IRREFUTABLY True. And thus you would KNOW, for SURE, without ANY doubt, that 'it' is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True.

Yes, I am sure of the truthness of my arguments.

LOL Yes we can CLEARLY SEE that you BELIEVE that "YOUR OWN arguments" are irrefutably TRUE. In fact you have ACTUALLY CLARIFIED this as being absolutely true, to you.

Unfortunately though, YOUR "arguments" are NOT ACTUAL 'proofs' AT ALL, as I have CLEARLY SHOWN below.

A) The physical argument (the second law of thermodynamics) and B) The metaphysical one (the logical one).

Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually.

What does 'close' system EVEN MEAN?

If by 'close' you mean 'closed', then what EVIDENCE or PROOF that this One and ONLY Universe is a 'closed' system. By definition, IF It is infinite and eternal, then it could be said to be NOT a 'closed' system AT ALL.

Have you ALREADY FORGOTTEN what you have said there is two proofs for? In case you HAVE, you said that there are TWO PROOFS that there was 'a beginning'.

Closed means that it does not exchange heat by anything else. The whole is infinite. It is the whole so there is nothing left to interact with. Therefore, it is closed.

Okay. So, WHY do you use the word 'close' INSTEAD?

Now, if this One and ONLY Universe is 'closed', then this does NOT mean that It will end AT ALL. This is because IF this Universe is infinite and eternal, then OBVIOUSLY It did NOT end and will NOT begin. This is OBVIOUSLY just PLAIN and SIMPLY irrefutably thee Truth of 'things'.

This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system.

What proof is there that thee Universe is a 'close', or 'closed', system, anyway?

The whole is infinite. It is the whole so there is nothing left to interact with. Therefore, it is closed.

Okay. This now fits in PERFECTLY with my view of things.

And, also appears to be in DIRECT COMPETITION, CONFLICT, and CONTRADICTION of your views and writings.

We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

LOL Again, you are joking RIGHT?

This is YOUR, so called, "argument" here.

There exists a second law of thermodynamics.
It is stated within that human being constructed second law of thermodynamics that entropy (disorder) increases in ANY 'closed' system, with heat death being the final state of those 'closed' systems.
Some human beings in the days of when this is being written PRESUME or BELIEVE that they are NOT in the final state of "some" 'closed' system.
THEREFORE, there WAS 'a beginning'.

That is NOT a, so called, "physical" argument, NOR proof, for "there was a beginning".

I am not answering that because you laughed. So figure out.

WHERE is this PRESUMPTION that I am laughing coming from EXACTLY?

Also, this appears to be one of your typical responses of DEFLECTION when you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY STUCK.

Proof of B: There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past.

Will you ELABORATE on this?

To me, the WHOLE last sentence is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY NONSENSICAL.

You need to imagine it. I cannot do this for you.

Even with IMAGINATION it still REMAINS NONSENSICAL to me.

In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

This, to me, is EVEN MORE NONSENSICAL than the previous one, which is ACTUALLY a CONTRADICTIONS in terms, but it will SUFFICE, for now.

Now, even if what you wrote here was somewhat true, which, in its current state, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT, but even if (1) was 'plausible', then this in NO WAY infers NOR means that "there is a beginning" is true. The word 'plausible' EVEN MEANS that 'it' MAY or MAY NOT be true. Which, by definition, MEANS that 'it' is NOT necessarily true AT ALL.

Therefore, that is NOT a, so called, "metaphysical" (logical) argument NOR proof for "there was a beginning".

What you wrote here is what I have been SAYING ALL ALONG, and that is; 'you', adult human beings, will say, and 'try', just about absolutely to defend, back up, support, and "justify" your ALREADY HELD ONTO ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN, ONCE AGAIN.

What 'you', "bahman", wrote here is just MORE EVIDENCE and ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF for what I have been SAYING, and CLAIMING.

Figure out. I am sorry but I can help you. You need to use your own imagination.

But what is CLEARLY HAPPENING HERE is that 'you', "bahman", just BELIEVE that "there was a beginning", and so you are 'trying' just about absolutely ANY 'thing', which you HOPE and/or BELIEVE will support YOUR BELIEF.

What 'you' CLAIM are 'proofs' are SO FAR from 'proofs' that what 'you' write is ACTUALLY HELPING 'me' TREMENDOUSLY.

[bahman]

So, 'you', "bahman";

Think that Everything beginning from nothing is logically impossible. Is this correct?

I am saying that the act of creation is impossible. There was however nothing but bare minds in the beginning.

What is the difference between a, so called, "bare mind", and let us say a "clothed mind"?

The clothed mind has a body.

And, HOW and WHEN was this, supposed and alleged, "beginning"?

Big-Bang.

Think that there was 'a beginning' is true. Is this correct?

Yes.

Say that Everything starts from 'that beginning'. Is this correct?

Yes, but minds.

How many of these, so called, "minds" where there BEFORE some alleged "beginning"?

At least two. I don't know how large that number could possibly be. Possibly infinite.

And, is that the EXACT same number existing at the moment 'you' are reading this sentence?

Yes. The mind cannot be created or destroyed.

Also, what are these "minds" made up of and out of, EXACTLY?

The mind is an irreducible substance. It is not made of anything. It is the basic.

Say that Everything starts from 'that beginning' is NOT logically possible. Is this correct?

No.

Why "No"?

Are you now saying that Everything starts from 'that beginning' is NOW logically possible?

That is another question.

Or, did you say, "No" because you say "minds" where existing before 'that beginning'? Or, did you say, "No", here because of some other reason?

Minds exist at the beginning. There is no before beginning by definition.

[bahman]

IF there is just ONE 'proof', then WHY do you just 'think' it is true? If there is ONE 'proof', then 'it' is IRREFUTABLY True. And thus you would KNOW, for SURE, without ANY doubt, that 'it' is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True.

Yes, I am sure of the truthness of my arguments.

LOL Yes we can CLEARLY SEE that you BELIEVE that "YOUR OWN arguments" are irrefutably TRUE. In fact you have ACTUALLY CLARIFIED this as being absolutely true, to you.

Unfortunately though, YOUR "arguments" are NOT ACTUAL 'proofs' AT ALL, as I have CLEARLY SHOWN below.

What does 'close' system EVEN MEAN?

If by 'close' you mean 'closed', then what EVIDENCE or PROOF that this One and ONLY Universe is a 'closed' system. By definition, IF It is infinite and eternal, then it could be said to be NOT a 'closed' system AT ALL.

Have you ALREADY FORGOTTEN what you have said there is two proofs for? In case you HAVE, you said that there are TWO PROOFS that there was 'a beginning'.

Closed means that it does not exchange heat by anything else. The whole is infinite. It is the whole so there is nothing left to interact with. Therefore, it is closed.

Okay. So, WHY do you use the word 'close' INSTEAD?

Now, if this One and ONLY Universe is 'closed', then this does NOT mean that It will end AT ALL. This is because IF this Universe is infinite and eternal, then OBVIOUSLY It did NOT end and will NOT begin. This is OBVIOUSLY just PLAIN and SIMPLY irrefutably thee Truth of 'things'.

What proof is there that thee Universe is a 'close', or 'closed', system, anyway?

The whole is infinite. It is the whole so there is nothing left to interact with. Therefore, it is closed.

Okay. This now fits in PERFECTLY with my view of things.

And, also appears to be in DIRECT COMPETITION, CONFLICT, and CONTRADICTION of your views and writings.

LOL Again, you are joking RIGHT?

This is YOUR, so called, "argument" here.

There exists a second law of thermodynamics.
It is stated within that human being constructed second law of thermodynamics that entropy (disorder) increases in ANY 'closed' system, with heat death being the final state of those 'closed' systems.
Some human beings in the days of when this is being written PRESUME or BELIEVE that they are NOT in the final state of "some" 'closed' system.
THEREFORE, there WAS 'a beginning'.

That is NOT a, so called, "physical" argument, NOR proof, for "there was a beginning".

I am not answering that because you laughed. So figure out.

WHERE is this PRESUMPTION that I am laughing coming from EXACTLY?

Also, this appears to be one of your typical responses of DEFLECTION when you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY STUCK.

Will you ELABORATE on this?

To me, the WHOLE last sentence is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY NONSENSICAL.

You need to imagine it. I cannot do this for you.

Even with IMAGINATION it still REMAINS NONSENSICAL to me.

This, to me, is EVEN MORE NONSENSICAL than the previous one, which is ACTUALLY a CONTRADICTIONS in terms, but it will SUFFICE, for now.

Now, even if what you wrote here was somewhat true, which, in its current state, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT, but even if (1) was 'plausible', then this in NO WAY infers NOR means that "there is a beginning" is true. The word 'plausible' EVEN MEANS that 'it' MAY or MAY NOT be true. Which, by definition, MEANS that 'it' is NOT necessarily true AT ALL.

Therefore, that is NOT a, so called, "metaphysical" (logical) argument NOR proof for "there was a beginning".

What you wrote here is what I have been SAYING ALL ALONG, and that is; 'you', adult human beings, will say, and 'try', just about absolutely to defend, back up, support, and "justify" your ALREADY HELD ONTO ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN, ONCE AGAIN.

What 'you', "bahman", wrote here is just MORE EVIDENCE and ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF for what I have been SAYING, and CLAIMING.

Figure out. I am sorry but I can help you. You need to use your own imagination.

But what is CLEARLY HAPPENING HERE is that 'you', "bahman", just BELIEVE that "there was a beginning", and so you are 'trying' just about absolutely ANY 'thing', which you HOPE and/or BELIEVE will support YOUR BELIEF.

What 'you' CLAIM are 'proofs' are SO FAR from 'proofs' that what 'you' write is ACTUALLY HELPING 'me' TREMENDOUSLY.

I think I answered all your questions properly. You have a huge amount of work to do to figure out things.