Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

[Age]

There is no reason to believe there is a first cause just because everything has a cause. There is no reason to believe that beginnings or ends exist in Actuality. Y'all are tilting at ancient windmills. No wind blows there.

There was a beginning sine otherwise you are dealing with a regress.

This, itself, IS circular or illogical reasoning, itself.

Until 'you' rid "your" 'self' of this type of distorted thinking you will NEVER SEE what thee Truth ACTUALLY IS.

Also, just because you can NOT 'handle' a 'regress', then this alone does NOT mean that there was 'a beginning'.

There was nothing in the beginning though:

This is YOUR ASSUMPTION, ONLY.

There are two options for the beginning (let's call it beginning), (1) There was nothing in the beginning, and (2) There was something in the beginning. We achieved the conclusion in the first case. In the second case, one can always ask what was on the point before the beginning. It was either something or nothing. In both case, we reach the conclusion that there was nothing in the very starting point.

This "conclusion", in both cases, is reached through illogical, unsound, and invalid reasoning.

[Age]

Y'all are literally arguing about nothing.

If anything can be argued, then it is, literally, not even worth arguing about.

[Age]

There is no reason to believe there is a first cause just because everything has a cause. There is no reason to believe that beginnings or ends exist in Actuality. Y'all are tilting at ancient windmills. No wind blows there.

There was a beginning sine otherwise you are dealing with a regress. There was nothing in the beginning though: There are two options for the beginning (let's call it beginning), (1) There was nothing in the beginning, and (2) There was something in the beginning. We achieved the conclusion in the first case. In the second case, one can always ask what was on the point before the beginning. It was either something or nothing. In both case, we reach the conclusion that there was nothing in the very starting point.

It is not a regress to say that certain words are stand-ins for that which is impossible for us to understand, such as any word that references infinity, such as nothing.

These words may be impossible for 'you' to understand, but these words are NOT impossible for 'me' to understand. These words are actually VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to understand. In fact understanding these words in relation to thee ACTUAL Truth of things makes understanding them even MORE SIMPLER and MORE EASIER.

You cannot provide an example of nothing, so what are you possibly even talking about?

An example of 'nothing' is done by just imagining NO 'thing'.

The word is acting as a stand-in for a concept which literally cannot even be talked about meaningfully.

But the word 'nothing', literally and actually, stands-in for the concept of 'no thing', which is actually talked about meaningful because to understand what the Universe actually IS and how the Universe actually works, then the concept of 'no thing' has to conceived, or imagined. This is because 'nothing' ACTUALLY EXISTS and is a part of thee Universe, Itself. In fact, the Universe could NOT exist, in ANY meaningful way at all, without the necessary 'nothing' part of It.

There is no plausible much less necessary way for there ever to be nothing.

Thee Truth IS the Universe could NOT exist, the way that It does exist, and only could exist, if there was NO part of 'nothing'.

Even so-called empty space is brimming with energy and things we have no notion of at our scale of reference.

If you have NO notion of 'that' what are NOT at "your" scale of reference (whatever scale that is?), then how do you KNOW that this part/scale of the Universe is brimming with 'things'?

The word "nothing" literally always refers to the lack of some specific things or categories of thing when used for practical purposes. Any other purposes are likewise meaningless.

YOUR "conclusion" here does NOT logically follow on from your premise here.

[Age]

Good to see you back by the way

I will no longer be posting on the forum as it is not actually necessary for me to do so any more

Was it 'necessary' previously to post on this forum?

I will however carry on trying to understand you as best as I can based upon what you post here

But you would NEVER 'understand' 'me', the 'me', the 'you', NOR thee 'I', the best as you could, based on what i post here.

I am NOT attempting to be 'understood' here, in this forum.

You would have to wait till I write somewhere else, and relate it back to what I post here, to best understand (the) 'ME'.

[Age]

What better than to recognize that "absolutely nothing" suffices as the particular identity to "no cause" then!

There's no such thing as no cause either. Just like nothing, there may be always a particular lack of cause; "I ordered that cheeseburger for no reason." isn't actually no cause at all.

Note that you'd need some set theory background to understand this, but given even the fact that there are an infinite real numbers between any two numbers. [usually defined formally as a type of 'equality' or one-to-one and 'onto' relationship called the cardinality of the 'continuum'] This means that we have real reason to infer that where the universe can be infinite in both directions of time, these can still be 'bounded' by definitive ends. This is like saying that we can define any interval that is in between two definite fixed points but NOT include those points. As such, an 'origin' is possible.

Are you suggesting that an 'origin' to the Universe is possible?

If yes, then you have LOST me. What EVIDENCE do you have for this claim?

But if you were not suggesting that an 'origin' to the Universe is possible, then what were you suggesting when you made the claim, "As such, an 'origin' is possible?

That you cannot determine this from inside relates to 'limits'.

But 'this' [whatever 'this' is] CAN BE determined.

I argue this with respect to the appearance of a singular point in time, such as that which gives the appearance of the Universe to be 14 Billion years old. That is, I argue that the 14 Billion years is an illusion of perspective only. I also hold to a Steady State type model, not the Big Bang which differs mainly in that the Big Bang literally requires the singularity to be a real fixed zero in time, contrary to a lot of backtracking that has been proposed to save it. [politics is my suspect as it was with those proposing Steady State; it saves particular religious interpretation but messes up with the logic.]

But 'time', itself, is NOT a 'thing', which there could be an 'in'.

The word 'time' just references a behavior, which some human beings do.

I also assume no assumptions that LIMIT what could be possible.

So, what, to you, is NOT 'possible'?

This requires presuming Totality as that which contains all AND nothing.

But WHY 'presume' this?

The ACTUAL FACT IS Totality contains ALL, which obviously HAS TO include 'nothing', AS WELL.

This is just, which is just an IRREFUTABLE FACT.

Because this concept is relatively confusing and contradicting for any specific location in it, like our particular Universe, this lead us to conclude that Absolutely Everything (we can label, "Totality") is identical logically to Absolutely Nothing to be real for being included within it.

The reason WHY that concept YOU HAVE is relatively confusing and contradictory is because of the way you confusingly and contradictory conceive it.

So when I speak of 'origins', given this itself begs a beginning in time but ignores that time is itself a feature in it, each point in all spaces in all universes (or none) [ie, Totality], may be treated as the meaning of this "absolute nothing". Set theories call this the 'empty set'.

You cannot logically infer substance (a 'something' to our bias of existence) either, because you can tear each and everything down to its most atomic elements within space,

Like 'time', 'space' is NOT a thing itself, which there could be an 'in'.

The word 'space' just references a distance, between physical things.

Tearing each and every physical 'thing' down to their most atomic element is NOT done 'within space'. 'Space' is just the 'thing' in-between 'physical things', at the smallest sub-atomic level.

and you come to mere points that are themselves 'nothing'. Totality is an abstraction that 'manifests' the illusion of the physical rules but since these are all JUST 'laws of descriptive' comparisons OF points, everything is technically reduced to that which we refer to as 'nothing'.

This is NOT the case for 'me'.

Everything is NOT technically reduced to that which I refer to as 'nothing'.

What do 'you' refer to as 'nothing'?

Also, "nothing" times a continuum of all the points, is then both "something and nothing" simultaneously. IF we only had 'finite' real parts, then your belief in infinties begins to demonstrate new paradoxes. So "nothing" is more real than anything and more Necessary for anything to exist.

This, to me, seems to contradict what ACTUALLY IS. As what (actually) IS is NOT complex NOR hard to understand as what you say appears to be.

[Age]

Numbers are descriptive of relationships of quantity and quantity only exists to the extent we differentiate/measure things for reasons.

That is naive and prevents discovery of how nature actually works.

And how does 'nature', itself, actually work?

But tell me then, given what you think you know, what do you reduce physics to as elemental properties.

[Age]

That is naive and prevents discovery of how nature actually works.

But tell me then, given what you think you know, what do you reduce physics to as elemental properties.

No it's not, no it doesn't.

That's basically a physics question but if you want a metaphysical answer, deconstruction according to logic and purpose. The base of the ToE in physics is Delta (change over time), because all physical things, mass, matter, gravity, energy, causality, the speed of light, etc. can be understood in relation to it, and through it in relation to reach other. Change is the universal substrate of the universe.

My bad.....I thought we were discussing in a philosophy site under the subforum, metaphysics!..?

The greek 'delta' is just a symbol to represent change in anything. Your use of stating it is odd. As an extension for using Calculus for real physics, the derivative is the change (using the small letter delta) of anything with respect to the limit of change in time AS IT APPROACHES zero. This is because the INSTANTANEOUS rates used have NO time:

dx
dt,

where x is any physical measure with respect to the CHANGE in time as t becomes or equals 0!

IF the math that is being used as a tool for physics, it has to be understood as real or it lacks substance for proving anything regarding real measures.


I already tried discussing Zenos paradoxes that is more in line with discussing this on the metaphysical role that leads to physics here but no one seems to have the capacity to understand it here.

Just because "others" do not see things the way you do, this by itself does NOT mean that these "others" do not have the capacity to, so call, "understand" what you do.

To me, the, so called, "zeno's paradoxes" are NOT actual 'paradoxes' in the way that I use the word 'paradox'.

To me, those "zeno paradoxes" are NOT even 'paradoxes' in the way that "others" use the word 'paradox'.

"Zeno's paradoxes" are just written in a way, which tricks, or fools, SOME people into seeing and/or believing some thing, which is NOT even true, right, and correct.

I am not wasting time bothering to try when others have a fixed head on asserting with closure that there cannot be any possible argument that could convince them any differently about the reality of 'nothing'.

That there exists a 'nothing', and that this 'nothing' exists ALWAYS, are both IRREFUTABLE.

By the way, what is YOUR 'reality of' 'nothing'?

People seem to have a better faith in the possibility of an argument for the existence of gods here then the non-mythically-laden concept of 'nothing' (or, by extension, 'infinities')!??

Why do 'you' have such a narrowed view of "others" here?

[Age]

No it's not, no it doesn't.

That's basically a physics question but if you want a metaphysical answer, deconstruction according to logic and purpose. The base of the ToE in physics is Delta (change over time), because all physical things, mass, matter, gravity, energy, causality, the speed of light, etc. can be understood in relation to it, and through it in relation to reach other. Change is the universal substrate of the universe.

My bad.....I thought we were discussing in a philosophy site under the subforum, metaphysics!..?

The greek 'delta' is just a symbol to represent change in anything. Your use of stating it is odd. As an extension for using Calculus for real physics, the derivative is the change (using the small letter delta) of anything with respect to the limit of change in time AS IT APPROACHES zero. This is because the INSTANTANEOUS rates used have NO time:

dx
dt,

where x is any physical measure with respect to the CHANGE in time as t becomes or equals 0!

IF the math that is being used as a tool for physics, it has to be understood as real or it lacks substance for proving anything regarding real measures.


I already tried discussing Zenos paradoxes that is more in line with discussing this on the metaphysical role that leads to physics here but no one seems to have the capacity to understand it here. I am not wasting time bothering to try when others have a fixed head on asserting with closure that there cannot be any possible argument that could convince them any differently about the reality of 'nothing'. People seem to have a better faith in the possibility of an argument for the existence of gods here then the non-mythically-laden concept of 'nothing' (or, by extension, 'infinities')!??

Infinity, like perfection, is a direction, not s destination.

What do you mean by; Infinity, like perfection, is a 'direction'?

[Scott Mayers]

No it's not, no it doesn't.

That's basically a physics question but if you want a metaphysical answer, deconstruction according to logic and purpose. The base of the ToE in physics is Delta (change over time), because all physical things, mass, matter, gravity, energy, causality, the speed of light, etc. can be understood in relation to it, and through it in relation to reach other. Change is the universal substrate of the universe.

My bad.....I thought we were discussing in a philosophy site under the subforum, metaphysics!..?

The greek 'delta' is just a symbol to represent change in anything. Your use of stating it is odd. As an extension for using Calculus for real physics, the derivative is the change (using the small letter delta) of anything with respect to the limit of change in time AS IT APPROACHES zero. This is because the INSTANTANEOUS rates used have NO time:

dx
dt,

where x is any physical measure with respect to the CHANGE in time as t becomes or equals 0!

IF the math that is being used as a tool for physics, it has to be understood as real or it lacks substance for proving anything regarding real measures.


I already tried discussing Zenos paradoxes that is more in line with discussing this on the metaphysical role that leads to physics here but no one seems to have the capacity to understand it here. I am not wasting time bothering to try when others have a fixed head on asserting with closure that there cannot be any possible argument that could convince them any differently about the reality of 'nothing'. People seem to have a better faith in the possibility of an argument for the existence of gods here then the non-mythically-laden concept of 'nothing' (or, by extension, 'infinities')!??

Infinity, like perfection, is a direction, not s destination.

I didn't notice you responded since you opted to plain text and the ONLY reason I noticed was to Age's last post (given I got notice of his/her own responses to me that I'm not goint to respond to for the explosiveness of responses that I can't even get agreement to on literally anything EVER.)

I too likely cannot get through to you or others without greater difficulty here. [...like that this site disables the capacity for ease of explanation beyond words. The 'attachments' I can add require more than the limits it provides for illustration support that likely is needed to POSSIBLY help communicate to others better on the metaphysical or physical issues.]

I'm thinking that I'm going to go to a science and logic type forum to discuss these or other philosophy sites that might be better equiped. I have already found discontent with them given I cannot find one that is both serious AND willing to let non-institutionalized contributions without ridicule and censorship. But some appear to have changed and I'm at least going to check them out or look deeper for other possible sites that may allow this with sincerity and respect.

I'm exhausted here and will unsubscribe to this thread. So there's no need to respond.

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=481986 time=1606539522 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=481924 time=1606515387 user_id=15238]]
Infinity, like perfection, is a direction, not s destination.
[/quote]

What do you mean by; Infinity, like perfection, is a 'direction'?
[/quote]

Any word that references ultimate actuality can only be a stand-in. Infinity means something much bigger than we can wrap our minds around. Perfection would require ultimate knowledge that cannot fit in our tiny brains, and so forth.

[surreptitious57]

I am NOT attempting to be understood here in this forum

You would have to wait till I write somewhere else and relate it back to what I post here to best understand the ME

You may very well not be attempting to be understood here in the forum but that does not mean I should not try to understand you based upon the words you post here . I see no point in not attempting to understand you even if that is your intention . The whole point of actually asking clarifying questions is to understand you better and you say that you are always happy to see them being asked even if they are not asked as often as you would like them to be

I do not know how long it will take you to write somewhere else but in the meantime all I have are the words you post here
And so though it is not YOUR intention to be understood it most certainly is MY intention to understand YOU as best as I can

[Age]

My bad.....I thought we were discussing in a philosophy site under the subforum, metaphysics!..?

The greek 'delta' is just a symbol to represent change in anything. Your use of stating it is odd. As an extension for using Calculus for real physics, the derivative is the change (using the small letter delta) of anything with respect to the limit of change in time AS IT APPROACHES zero. This is because the INSTANTANEOUS rates used have NO time:

dx
dt,

where x is any physical measure with respect to the CHANGE in time as t becomes or equals 0!

IF the math that is being used as a tool for physics, it has to be understood as real or it lacks substance for proving anything regarding real measures.


I already tried discussing Zenos paradoxes that is more in line with discussing this on the metaphysical role that leads to physics here but no one seems to have the capacity to understand it here. I am not wasting time bothering to try when others have a fixed head on asserting with closure that there cannot be any possible argument that could convince them any differently about the reality of 'nothing'. People seem to have a better faith in the possibility of an argument for the existence of gods here then the non-mythically-laden concept of 'nothing' (or, by extension, 'infinities')!??

Infinity, like perfection, is a direction, not s destination.

I didn't notice you responded since you opted to plain text and the ONLY reason I noticed was to Age's last post (given I got notice of his/her own responses to me that I'm not goint to respond to for the explosiveness of responses that I can't even get agreement to on literally anything EVER.)

This sounds way 'to extreme' and "over the top", or 'very explosive'.

Have you REALLY not yet recognized and noticed the things that we DO actually agree on?

I too likely cannot get through to you or others without greater difficulty here.

What EXACTLY is 'it', in just plain and simple words, which you are finding so much difficulty in 'getting through' to "others"?

[...like that this site disables the capacity for ease of explanation beyond words. The 'attachments' I can add require more than the limits it provides for illustration support that likely is needed to POSSIBLY help communicate to others better on the metaphysical or physical issues.]

I'm thinking that I'm going to go to a science and logic type forum to discuss these or other philosophy sites that might be better equiped. I have already found discontent with them given I cannot find one that is both serious AND willing to let non-institutionalized contributions without ridicule and censorship. But some appear to have changed and I'm at least going to check them out or look deeper for other possible sites that may allow this with sincerity and respect.

I'm exhausted here and will unsubscribe to this thread. So there's no need to respond.

Okay.

[Age]

]
Infinity, like perfection, is a direction, not s destination.

What do you mean by; Infinity, like perfection, is a 'direction'?

Any word that references ultimate actuality can only be a stand-in.

"Can only be a stand-in" for 'what', EXACTLY?

Can you SEE the predicament here?

1. There are actually only two words that reference 'ultimate actuality' and those two words should be very recognizable by now.
2. The whole point of EACH and EVERY word is to just reference, 'things'. Therefore, words, themselves, are just a 'stand-in'.
3. The words 'ultimate actuality' are just 'stand-ins', referencing some 'thing'.

But as long as ALL in a discussion agree upon and accept what the 'stand-in' words are ACTUALLY referencing, then that is all that Truly matters.

So, it does NOT matter one iota if "Any word that references ultimate actuality can only be a stand-in". As long as agreement and acceptance is reached, then all is well, and good.

Infinity means something much bigger than we can wrap our minds around.

LOL

This is a typical response from one who LOOKS AT and SEES things from the brain only.

SEE, if one LOOKS FROM thee Mind, which is ALWAYS Truly OPEN, then that one does NOT form these VERY LIMITED views.

Understanding 'infinity', itself, FULLY is an EXTREMELY VERY SIMPLE and EASY process.

And, considering that 'you' were ACTUALLY created within, and ACTUALLY exist within, thee one and only infinite Universe you can only NOT SEE thee ACTUAL Truth only because 'you' are just limiting thy 'self'.

This will become far better understood when how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY work becomes more widely taught, and known.

Perfection would require ultimate knowledge that cannot fit in our tiny brains, and so forth.
[/quote]

This is a PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY to NOT solely use those individual tiny little brains, within those human bodies.

There exists a Truly OPEN Mind, which is the very Thing that has been allowing 'you', human beings, to be able to obtain and ascertain MORE and MORE knowledge ALL OF THE TIME. I suggest using this Thing far more and far more often, and using far less those tiny human brains when LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things'.

ALL of this will become BLATANTLY OBVIOUS and CRYSTAL CLEAR, as well, when, and if, 'you' ever discover and/or learn just how thee Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORKS also.

May I suggest that LOOKING AT 'things' collectively, instead of individually, helps tremendously in LEARNING and SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' ACTUALLY IS.

By the way, if you BELIEVE those last two little sentences you wrote are true, right, and correct, then you can not and you will NOT proceed any further past those claims.

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=482173 time=1606607683 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482075 time=1606576122 user_id=15238]
[quote=Age post_id=481986 time=1606539522 user_id=16237]


What do you mean by; Infinity, like perfection, is a 'direction'?
[/quote]

Any word that references ultimate actuality can only be a stand-in. [/quote]

"Can only be a stand-in" for 'what', EXACTLY?

Can you SEE the predicament here?

1. There are actually only two words that reference 'ultimate actuality' and those two words should be very recognizable by now.
2. The whole point of EACH and EVERY word is to just reference, 'things'. Therefore, words, themselves, are just a 'stand-in'.
3. The words 'ultimate actuality' are just 'stand-ins', referencing some 'thing'.

But as long as ALL in a discussion agree upon and accept what the 'stand-in' words are ACTUALLY referencing, then that is all that Truly matters.

So, it does NOT matter one iota if "Any word that references ultimate actuality can only be a stand-in". As long as agreement and acceptance is reached, then all is well, and good.

[quote=Advocate post_id=482075 time=1606576122 user_id=15238]
Infinity means something much bigger than we can wrap our minds around. [/quote]

LOL

This is a typical response from one who LOOKS AT and SEES things from the brain only.

SEE, if one LOOKS FROM thee Mind, which is ALWAYS Truly OPEN, then that one does NOT form these VERY LIMITED views.

Understanding 'infinity', itself, FULLY is an EXTREMELY VERY SIMPLE and EASY process.

And, considering that 'you' were ACTUALLY created within, and ACTUALLY exist within, thee one and only infinite Universe you can only NOT SEE thee ACTUAL Truth only because 'you' are just limiting thy 'self'.

This will become far better understood when how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY work becomes more widely taught, and known.

Perfection would require ultimate knowledge that cannot fit in our tiny brains, and so forth.
[/quote]

This is a PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY to NOT solely use those individual tiny little brains, within those human bodies.

There exists a Truly OPEN Mind, which is the very Thing that has been allowing 'you', human beings, to be able to obtain and ascertain MORE and MORE knowledge ALL OF THE TIME. I suggest using this Thing far more and far more often, and using far less those tiny human brains when LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things'.

ALL of this will become BLATANTLY OBVIOUS and CRYSTAL CLEAR, as well, when, and if, 'you' ever discover and/or learn just how thee Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORKS also.

May I suggest that LOOKING AT 'things' collectively, instead of individually, helps tremendously in LEARNING and SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' [i]ACTUALLY IS[/i].

By the way, if you BELIEVE those last two little sentences you wrote are true, right, and correct, then you can not and you will NOT proceed any further past those claims.
[/quote]

All words are a stand-in. Some words are Only a stand-in, because there's nothing verifiable about them in an empirical sense.

[Age]

Any word that references ultimate actuality can only be a stand-in.

"Can only be a stand-in" for 'what', EXACTLY?

Can you SEE the predicament here?

1. There are actually only two words that reference 'ultimate actuality' and those two words should be very recognizable by now.
2. The whole point of EACH and EVERY word is to just reference, 'things'. Therefore, words, themselves, are just a 'stand-in'.
3. The words 'ultimate actuality' are just 'stand-ins', referencing some 'thing'.

But as long as ALL in a discussion agree upon and accept what the 'stand-in' words are ACTUALLY referencing, then that is all that Truly matters.

So, it does NOT matter one iota if "Any word that references ultimate actuality can only be a stand-in". As long as agreement and acceptance is reached, then all is well, and good.

Infinity means something much bigger than we can wrap our minds around.

LOL

This is a typical response from one who LOOKS AT and SEES things from the brain only.

SEE, if one LOOKS FROM thee Mind, which is ALWAYS Truly OPEN, then that one does NOT form these VERY LIMITED views.

Understanding 'infinity', itself, FULLY is an EXTREMELY VERY SIMPLE and EASY process.

And, considering that 'you' were ACTUALLY created within, and ACTUALLY exist within, thee one and only infinite Universe you can only NOT SEE thee ACTUAL Truth only because 'you' are just limiting thy 'self'.

This will become far better understood when how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY work becomes more widely taught, and known.

Perfection would require ultimate knowledge that cannot fit in our tiny brains, and so forth.

This is a PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY to NOT solely use those individual tiny little brains, within those human bodies.

There exists a Truly OPEN Mind, which is the very Thing that has been allowing 'you', human beings, to be able to obtain and ascertain MORE and MORE knowledge ALL OF THE TIME. I suggest using this Thing far more and far more often, and using far less those tiny human brains when LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things'.

ALL of this will become BLATANTLY OBVIOUS and CRYSTAL CLEAR, as well, when, and if, 'you' ever discover and/or learn just how thee Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORKS also.

May I suggest that LOOKING AT 'things' collectively, instead of individually, helps tremendously in LEARNING and SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' ACTUALLY IS.

By the way, if you BELIEVE those last two little sentences you wrote are true, right, and correct, then you can not and you will NOT proceed any further past those claims.

All words are a stand-in. Some words are Only a stand-in, because there's nothing verifiable about them in an empirical sense.
[/quote]

Will you provide any examples of words that you think or believe there is nothing verifiable about them in any empirical sense?

Until you bring those words into a discussion, so that we can LOOK AT them and discuss them OPENLY, then what you say and allege here is just a claim of YOURS ONLY, which you may or may not believe is true. Do you BELIEVE your claim here is true?

Until you can PROVE your claim irrefutably true, then it just stands as an individual claim, which may or may not be true.