Infinity is real

[bahman]

What argument?

Also, was 'it' a sound and valid argument?

Please read OP here. Of course they are sound arguments.

But NOT 'valid', correct?

By the way, I have ALREADY EXPLAINED and SHOWN how those, so called, "arguments" do NOT work, AT ALL. But because of those BELIEFS, within that head, you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY BLINDED from SEEING this.

You haven't shown anything.

Talk about 'NOT reasoning'.

They are, allegedly and supposedly, a 'necessity' to 'what', EXACTLY?

Necessary to exist.

LOL

'you', "bahman", are an expert at 'circular reasoning'.

If the whole is boundless, or bounded, then this has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do whether some 'thing' exists as a real 'living thing' or not.

It has.

HOW EXACTLY?

IF the whole ios bounded then you could have alive things by chance. The chance becomes one if the whole is boundless.

[Age]

It is alright. You could stay in the state of denial.

SO, 'you' BELIEVE that you can tell me what thoughts are occurring here in this head, which I tell you they are NOT and so YOU ARE WRONG, but yet you want to then tell me that I am in a "state of denial". LOL

Who is in ACTUAL 'denial' here is OBVIOUS, NOW.

You.

That really is not really an argument. ALl there is could be finite. What is wrong with that?

LOL 'bounded' by 'what', EXACTLY?

AND, how far out does that 'boundary' expand? Or, what is on the other side of that boundary, and then how far out does 'that' expand for?

Also, do NOT forget that ALL of these, laughably called "boundaries", are still just a part of the WHOLE Everything.

SEE, no matter which way you want to LOOK AT this you will ALWAYS arrive at ALL-THERE-IS being INFINITE, as well as ETERNAL by the way.

Don't you see? You are arguing the same way I argue.

But I have NOT YET 'argued' for, NOR against, ANY 'thing'. So, I could NOT have possibly 'argued', "the same way you do. I had NO intention to 'argue' and in fact I do NOT 'need' to 'argue' ANY thing here.

I was just SHOWING and REVEALING thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', through a series of questions and points.

[Age]

Please read OP here. Of course they are sound arguments.

But NOT 'valid', correct?

By the way, I have ALREADY EXPLAINED and SHOWN how those, so called, "arguments" do NOT work, AT ALL. But because of those BELIEFS, within that head, you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY BLINDED from SEEING this.

You haven't shown anything.

But I have ALREADY SHOWN 'things'. But BECAUSE 'you' ARE COMPLETELY and UTTERLY BLINDED here 'you' can NOT SEE them.

LOL

'you', "bahman", are an expert at 'circular reasoning'.



HOW EXACTLY?

IF the whole ios bounded then you could have alive things by chance. The chance becomes one if the whole is boundless.

Is the english language your "first language", as it is known as?

[bahman]

SO, 'you' BELIEVE that you can tell me what thoughts are occurring here in this head, which I tell you they are NOT and so YOU ARE WRONG, but yet you want to then tell me that I am in a "state of denial". LOL

Who is in ACTUAL 'denial' here is OBVIOUS, NOW.

You.

LOL 'bounded' by 'what', EXACTLY?

AND, how far out does that 'boundary' expand? Or, what is on the other side of that boundary, and then how far out does 'that' expand for?

Also, do NOT forget that ALL of these, laughably called "boundaries", are still just a part of the WHOLE Everything.

SEE, no matter which way you want to LOOK AT this you will ALWAYS arrive at ALL-THERE-IS being INFINITE, as well as ETERNAL by the way.

Don't you see? You are arguing the same way I argue.

But I have NOT YET 'argued' for, NOR against, ANY 'thing'. So, I could NOT have possibly 'argued', "the same way you do. I had NO intention to 'argue' and in fact I do NOT 'need' to 'argue' ANY thing here.

You argued. It is just right there (bold part).

I was just SHOWING and REVEALING thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', through a series of questions and points.

So what is your argument again?

[Age]

You.


Don't you see? You are arguing the same way I argue.

But I have NOT YET 'argued' for, NOR against, ANY 'thing'. So, I could NOT have possibly 'argued', "the same way you do. I had NO intention to 'argue' and in fact I do NOT 'need' to 'argue' ANY thing here.

You argued. It is just right there (bold part).

I was just SHOWING and REVEALING thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', through a series of questions and points.

So what is your argument again?

But I have NO argument. You are the one who is 'trying to' argue for some 'thing'.

I am just sending a message here, through this forum, as well as just questioning and challenging those who make CLAIMS and have BELIEFS.

I ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS and have NO need to argue for ANY thing here in this forum.

[bahman]

But I have NOT YET 'argued' for, NOR against, ANY 'thing'. So, I could NOT have possibly 'argued', "the same way you do. I had NO intention to 'argue' and in fact I do NOT 'need' to 'argue' ANY thing here.

You argued. It is just right there (bold part).

I was just SHOWING and REVEALING thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', through a series of questions and points.

So what is your argument again?

But I have NO argument. You are the one who is 'trying to' argue for some 'thing'.

I am just sending a message here, through this forum, as well as just questioning and challenging those who make CLAIMS and have BELIEFS.

I ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS and have NO need to argue for ANY thing here in this forum.

If you don't have any argument then what you know to be is the actual truth of things are then what you have got is just your belief.

[Age]

You argued. It is just right there (bold part).


So what is your argument again?

But I have NO argument. You are the one who is 'trying to' argue for some 'thing'.

I am just sending a message here, through this forum, as well as just questioning and challenging those who make CLAIMS and have BELIEFS.

I ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS and have NO need to argue for ANY thing here in this forum.

If you don't have any argument then what you know to be is the actual truth of things are then what you have got is just your belief.

Thee Truth does NOT 'need' to be argued for. Thee ACTUAL Truth speaks for Itself. Thee ACTUAL Truth can be just VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY PROVEN to be True.

Also, I do NOT have ANY 'beliefs'.

Furthermore, and once again, is the english language your "first language", as some say?

[bahman]

But I have NO argument. You are the one who is 'trying to' argue for some 'thing'.

I am just sending a message here, through this forum, as well as just questioning and challenging those who make CLAIMS and have BELIEFS.

I ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS and have NO need to argue for ANY thing here in this forum.

If you don't have any argument then what you know to be is the actual truth of things are then what you have got is just your belief.

Thee Truth does NOT 'need' to be argued for. Thee ACTUAL Truth speaks for Itself. Thee ACTUAL Truth can be just VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY PROVEN to be True.

Also, I do NOT have ANY 'beliefs'.

Furthermore, and once again, is the english language your "first language", as some say?

No, you need an argument. And English is not my first language.

[Age]

If you don't have any argument then what you know to be is the actual truth of things are then what you have got is just your belief.

Thee Truth does NOT 'need' to be argued for. Thee ACTUAL Truth speaks for Itself. Thee ACTUAL Truth can be just VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY PROVEN to be True.

Also, I do NOT have ANY 'beliefs'.

Furthermore, and once again, is the english language your "first language", as some say?

No, you need an argument. And English is not my first language.

Why do I 'need' an argument?

What will, supposedly, happen to 'me'' if I do not have an argument?

[bahman]

Thee Truth does NOT 'need' to be argued for. Thee ACTUAL Truth speaks for Itself. Thee ACTUAL Truth can be just VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY PROVEN to be True.

Also, I do NOT have ANY 'beliefs'.

Furthermore, and once again, is the english language your "first language", as some say?

No, you need an argument. And English is not my first language.

Why do I 'need' an argument?

Otherwise, nobody believes you.

What will, supposedly, happen to 'me'' if I do not have an argument?

To you nothing. But you are responsible as an intelligent agent to think of an argument for what you think is true.

[Age]

No, you need an argument. And English is not my first language.

Why do I 'need' an argument?

Otherwise, nobody believes you.

But I do NOT want ANY one to 'believe' me. I am NOT here, in this forum, to be 'believed'.

In fact, I am SHOWING WHY 'believing' things is WHY 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is being written, are SO SLOW in discovering and learning more and anew.

'Believing' things is WHY 'you', human beings, do NOT listen to each other FULLY, and WHY 'you' just keep continually saying and expressing the EXACT SAME things over and over again. EXACTLY like 'you', "bahman", do here.

What will, supposedly, happen to 'me'' if I do not have an argument?

To you nothing.

THEREFORE, contrary to your BELIEF, I ACTUALLY do NOT 'need' an argument.

But you are responsible as an intelligent agent to think of an argument for what you think is true.

But I ALREADY have the 'arguments' NEEDED to back up and support what I think is true.

I am just seeking out those who are Truly OPEN, interested, and CURIOUS. In the meantime I am just learning how to OPEN those of 'you' who are CLOSED.

[bahman]

Why do I 'need' an argument?

Otherwise, nobody believes you.

But I do NOT want ANY one to 'believe' me. I am NOT here, in this forum, to be 'believed'.

In fact, I am SHOWING WHY 'believing' things is WHY 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is being written, are SO SLOW in discovering and learning more and anew.

'Believing' things is WHY 'you', human beings, do NOT listen to each other FULLY, and WHY 'you' just keep continually saying and expressing the EXACT SAME things over and over again. EXACTLY like 'you', "bahman", do here.

What will, supposedly, happen to 'me'' if I do not have an argument?

To you nothing.

THEREFORE, contrary to your BELIEF, I ACTUALLY do NOT 'need' an argument.

But you are responsible as an intelligent agent to think of an argument for what you think is true.

But I ALREADY have the 'arguments' NEEDED to back up and support what I think is true.

I am just seeking out those who are Truly OPEN, interested, and CURIOUS. In the meantime I am just learning how to OPEN those of 'you' who are CLOSED.

Ahan. So what is your argument for the whole being boundless?

[Age]

Otherwise, nobody believes you.

But I do NOT want ANY one to 'believe' me. I am NOT here, in this forum, to be 'believed'.

In fact, I am SHOWING WHY 'believing' things is WHY 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is being written, are SO SLOW in discovering and learning more and anew.

'Believing' things is WHY 'you', human beings, do NOT listen to each other FULLY, and WHY 'you' just keep continually saying and expressing the EXACT SAME things over and over again. EXACTLY like 'you', "bahman", do here.

To you nothing.

THEREFORE, contrary to your BELIEF, I ACTUALLY do NOT 'need' an argument.

But you are responsible as an intelligent agent to think of an argument for what you think is true.

But I ALREADY have the 'arguments' NEEDED to back up and support what I think is true.

I am just seeking out those who are Truly OPEN, interested, and CURIOUS. In the meantime I am just learning how to OPEN those of 'you' who are CLOSED.

Ahan. So what is your argument for the whole being boundless?

No matter what 'edge', 'boundary', nor 'enclosure' 'you', human beings, 'try to' surround the WHOLE that 'edge', 'boundary', or 'enclosure' would HAVE TO BE infinite outwards or HAVE TO HAVE another side to it, which would HAVE TO BE infinite or if 'bounded' would AGAIN HAVE TO BE infinite outwards, or, HAVE TO HAVE another side to it. Ad infinitude.

[bahman]

But I do NOT want ANY one to 'believe' me. I am NOT here, in this forum, to be 'believed'.

In fact, I am SHOWING WHY 'believing' things is WHY 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is being written, are SO SLOW in discovering and learning more and anew.

'Believing' things is WHY 'you', human beings, do NOT listen to each other FULLY, and WHY 'you' just keep continually saying and expressing the EXACT SAME things over and over again. EXACTLY like 'you', "bahman", do here.



THEREFORE, contrary to your BELIEF, I ACTUALLY do NOT 'need' an argument.



But I ALREADY have the 'arguments' NEEDED to back up and support what I think is true.

I am just seeking out those who are Truly OPEN, interested, and CURIOUS. In the meantime I am just learning how to OPEN those of 'you' who are CLOSED.

Ahan. So what is your argument for the whole being boundless?

No matter what 'edge', 'boundary', nor 'enclosure' 'you', human beings, 'try to' surround the WHOLE that 'edge', 'boundary', or 'enclosure' would HAVE TO BE infinite outwards or HAVE TO HAVE another side to it, which would HAVE TO BE infinite or if 'bounded' would AGAIN HAVE TO BE infinite outwards, or, HAVE TO HAVE another side to it. Ad infinitude.

But my argument is exactly what you have written here. You agree with yours and disagree with mine.

[Age]

Ahan. So what is your argument for the whole being boundless?

No matter what 'edge', 'boundary', nor 'enclosure' 'you', human beings, 'try to' surround the WHOLE that 'edge', 'boundary', or 'enclosure' would HAVE TO BE infinite outwards or HAVE TO HAVE another side to it, which would HAVE TO BE infinite or if 'bounded' would AGAIN HAVE TO BE infinite outwards, or, HAVE TO HAVE another side to it. Ad infinitude.

But my argument is exactly what you have written here.

But your argument is NOT the EXACT SAME as what I have written here. This can be CLEARLY SEEN and so PROVEN true.

You agree with yours and disagree with mine.

I did NOT disagree with your conclusion that the Universe is infinite. The way you go about 'trying to' argue this is what I have been questioning and/or challenging.

I have also said the conclusion is irrefutably True anyway. The way you 'try to' argue for that conclusion is NOT sound and valid, as I have ALREADY pointed out and SHOWN.