Nothing to something must be possible

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

We STILL WAIT, PATIENTLY.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

lolometry

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:54 pmONCE AGAIN, WHEN WILL 'you', adult human beings, LEARN that BELIEVING or DISBELIEVING ANY thing is:

1. TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:54 pm2. ONLY NEEDED when one does NOT have ACTUAL PROOF.
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:54 pm3. CAUSES one to SEEK OUT CONFIRMATION for their BIASED VIEWS.
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:54 pm4. ONLY PREVENTS and STOPS one from SEEING and UNDERSTANDING what thee ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:54 pm5. CAUSES CONFLICTS and PREVENTS Truly OPEN and Honest, PEACEFUL, DISCUSSIONS.
lol
lol
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:54 pm6. DISTORTS being ABLE TO SEE and UNDERSTAND FULLY and CLEARLY.
lol
lol
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:58 pmWe STILL WAIT, PATIENTLY.
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

Thanks for HIGHLIGHTING my STATEMENTS and QUESTIONS and PRESENTING them in and EASIER TO READ format, "uwot".

'you' are REALLY getting MY POINTS ACROSS BETTER.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Indeed, in regard to physics and chemistry and geology and biology and and many other scientific disciplines, the precise relationship between words and worlds is astounding. Try getting astronauts on the moon or performing heart transplants or creating smart phones without it.

Instead, I focus more on the relationship between words and world in regard to things like morality and religion and the really, really big questions.

There we find any number of conflicting assumptions. And conflicting conclusions.

Right?

Only, sure, the objectivists among us refuse to accept that. They insist that how they think about these things is how all rational men and women are obligated to think about them in turn. Why? Because they provide us with arguments -- worlds of words -- up in the stratosphere of didactic intellectual exchanges in order to...to prove it.
bahman wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:14 pm I don't understand why you bring in the issue of morality and religion? These are off-topic.
On the contrary, some here insist that in order to understand the universe that we live in -- and even existence itself -- God is the explanation.

And, as I noted, my interest in cosmogony, religion and morality revolves first and foremost around what I construe to be the inherent dangers of objectivism...the "my way or the highway" mentality. This and what I see to be the inherent limitations of logic in regards to the existential relationship between words and worlds in a No God world.
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm Everything starts with a guess. A guess could be right or wrong. It is through systematic thinking that we can find the trueness of a guess. In the end, we will solve this big puzzle.
More rather than less educated guesses always work for me.

I just doubt that the puzzle that is existence itself will be solved in our lifetimes.

Then the part where you have managed to think yourself into believing that the existence of "I" transcends death itself or, instead, that's it's oblivion...then all the way back to "star stuff".
bahman wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:14 pm I think we can solve the puzzle.
And, again, I'm all for those here who attempt to.

And, if you do solve it, I'll see you on Nova.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Indeed, in regard to physics and chemistry and geology and biology and and many other scientific disciplines, the precise relationship between words and worlds is astounding. Try getting astronauts on the moon or performing heart transplants or creating smart phones without it.

Instead, I focus more on the relationship between words and world in regard to things like morality and religion and the really, really big questions.

There we find any number of conflicting assumptions. And conflicting conclusions.

Right?

Only, sure, the objectivists among us refuse to accept that. They insist that how they think about these things is how all rational men and women are obligated to think about them in turn. Why? Because they provide us with arguments -- worlds of words -- up in the stratosphere of didactic intellectual exchanges in order to...to prove it.
bahman wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:14 pm I don't understand why you bring in the issue of morality and religion? These are off-topic.
On the contrary, some here insist that in order to understand the universe that we live in -- and even existence itself -- God is the explanation.
AND, was what the God word was referring to, EXACTLY, EVER QUESTIONED?

Or, because some INSIST that the 'God' word could NEVER provide absolutely ANY sort of explanation, they then just DISPUTE and REFUTE that CLAIM WITHOUT absolutely ANY QUERIES being made AT ALL?
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm And, as I noted, my interest in cosmogony, religion and morality revolves first and foremost around what I construe to be the inherent dangers of objectivism...the "my way or the highway" mentality.
Which is EXACTLY what you are PORTRAYING here "iambiguous".
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm
This and what I see to be the inherent limitations of logic in regards to the existential relationship between words and worlds in a No God world.
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm Everything starts with a guess. A guess could be right or wrong. It is through systematic thinking that we can find the trueness of a guess. In the end, we will solve this big puzzle.
More rather than less educated guesses always work for me.

I just doubt that the puzzle that is existence itself will be solved in our lifetimes.

Then the part where you have managed to think yourself into believing that the existence of "I" transcends death itself or, instead, that's it's oblivion...then all the way back to "star stuff".
bahman wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:14 pm I think we can solve the puzzle.
And, again, I'm all for those here who attempt to.

And, if you do, I'll see you on Nova.
What is the ACTUAL 'puzzle' being referred to here?

ONLY WHEN 'you' people START specifically explaining what 'it' is that 'you' have NOT YET 'solved', ONLY THEN 'we' can SHOW 'you' HOW to solve 'it'.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by iambiguous »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:33 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Indeed, in regard to physics and chemistry and geology and biology and and many other scientific disciplines, the precise relationship between words and worlds is astounding. Try getting astronauts on the moon or performing heart transplants or creating smart phones without it.

Instead, I focus more on the relationship between words and world in regard to things like morality and religion and the really, really big questions.

There we find any number of conflicting assumptions. And conflicting conclusions.

Right?

Only, sure, the objectivists among us refuse to accept that. They insist that how they think about these things is how all rational men and women are obligated to think about them in turn. Why? Because they provide us with arguments -- worlds of words -- up in the stratosphere of didactic intellectual exchanges in order to...to prove it.
bahman wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:14 pm I don't understand why you bring in the issue of morality and religion? These are off-topic.
On the contrary, some here insist that in order to understand the universe that we live in -- and even existence itself -- God is the explanation.
AND, was what the God word was referring to, EXACTLY, EVER QUESTIONED?

Or, because some INSIST that the 'God' word could NEVER provide absolutely ANY sort of explanation, they then just DISPUTE and REFUTE that CLAIM WITHOUT absolutely ANY QUERIES being made AT ALL?
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm And, as I noted, my interest in cosmogony, religion and morality revolves first and foremost around what I construe to be the inherent dangers of objectivism...the "my way or the highway" mentality.
Which is EXACTLY what you are PORTRAYING here "iambiguous".
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm
This and what I see to be the inherent limitations of logic in regards to the existential relationship between words and worlds in a No God world.
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm Everything starts with a guess. A guess could be right or wrong. It is through systematic thinking that we can find the trueness of a guess. In the end, we will solve this big puzzle.
More rather than less educated guesses always work for me.

I just doubt that the puzzle that is existence itself will be solved in our lifetimes.

Then the part where you have managed to think yourself into believing that the existence of "I" transcends death itself or, instead, that's it's oblivion...then all the way back to "star stuff".
bahman wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:14 pm I think we can solve the puzzle.
And, again, I'm all for those here who attempt to.

And, if you do, I'll see you on Nova.
What is the ACTUAL 'puzzle' being referred to here?

ONLY WHEN 'you' people START specifically explaining what 'it' is that 'you' have NOT YET 'solved', ONLY THEN 'we' can SHOW 'you' HOW to solve 'it'.
His/her first post:
Age wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:26 am Of course someone would agree with you. You make sense.

The reason physicists can not comprehend is because they are just like religionists. They both, by definition, have a very narrow way of looking at things. They both twist the definitions of words into a terminology that best suits either ones already held very narrow world view.
Strictly out of curiosity, how did this "something" become the "something" we encounter from him/her now?

And [once again] I'm assuming we simply do not know [definitively] whether something came out of nothing at all or was always around.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:17 pm'you' are REALLY getting MY POINTS ACROSS BETTER.
lol
lol
lol
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by bahman »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:41 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:22 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:29 pm



On the other hand, what constitutes showing us something like that?

It's not like someone can create a YouTube video for something like this. Or provide us with a mathematical equation that all rational men and women are able to concur establishes whether existence did in fact come into existence out of nothing at all...or was always around. Or that it is possible for something to come from nothing. Or link their "world of words" logical conclusion to unequivocal physical, material, phenomenological evidence.

Or not that I am aware of.
Something and nothing are two viable scenarios for existence. So we can have either. If something exists then it exists but it could not always have existed so we end up with nothing in the beginning. If nothing exists, we show that it must turn into something since something exists.
Well, here we are getting nowhere fast. We are capable of thinking thoughts like this about the fundamental nature of existence, sure. Just as we are capable of thinking up Gods to explain it.

But this is still not the same as demonstrating that what we believe "in our heads" about the universe/existence is in fact true. Simply by insisting that our assessment is "logical".

Back then to the points I note above about the seeming limitations of logic in regard to an ultimate understanding of existence or God or morality.
I already argued against the act of creation. So the existence of God is out of the question. Morality is a completely different topic.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by bahman »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Indeed, in regard to physics and chemistry and geology and biology and and many other scientific disciplines, the precise relationship between words and worlds is astounding. Try getting astronauts on the moon or performing heart transplants or creating smart phones without it.

Instead, I focus more on the relationship between words and world in regard to things like morality and religion and the really, really big questions.

There we find any number of conflicting assumptions. And conflicting conclusions.

Right?

Only, sure, the objectivists among us refuse to accept that. They insist that how they think about these things is how all rational men and women are obligated to think about them in turn. Why? Because they provide us with arguments -- worlds of words -- up in the stratosphere of didactic intellectual exchanges in order to...to prove it.
bahman wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:14 pm I don't understand why you bring in the issue of morality and religion? These are off-topic.
On the contrary, some here insist that in order to understand the universe that we live in -- and even existence itself -- God is the explanation.

And, as I noted, my interest in cosmogony, religion and morality revolves first and foremost around what I construe to be the inherent dangers of objectivism...the "my way or the highway" mentality. This and what I see to be the inherent limitations of logic in regards to the existential relationship between words and worlds in a No God world.
I already argued against the existence of God. Why are you afraid of the truth? I invite you to read my argument. I am open to helping you if you have difficulty understanding anything.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:07 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:33 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm


On the contrary, some here insist that in order to understand the universe that we live in -- and even existence itself -- God is the explanation.
AND, was what the God word was referring to, EXACTLY, EVER QUESTIONED?

Or, because some INSIST that the 'God' word could NEVER provide absolutely ANY sort of explanation, they then just DISPUTE and REFUTE that CLAIM WITHOUT absolutely ANY QUERIES being made AT ALL?
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm And, as I noted, my interest in cosmogony, religion and morality revolves first and foremost around what I construe to be the inherent dangers of objectivism...the "my way or the highway" mentality.
Which is EXACTLY what you are PORTRAYING here "iambiguous".
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm
This and what I see to be the inherent limitations of logic in regards to the existential relationship between words and worlds in a No God world.







And, again, I'm all for those here who attempt to.

And, if you do, I'll see you on Nova.
What is the ACTUAL 'puzzle' being referred to here?

ONLY WHEN 'you' people START specifically explaining what 'it' is that 'you' have NOT YET 'solved', ONLY THEN 'we' can SHOW 'you' HOW to solve 'it'.
His/her first post:
Age wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:26 am Of course someone would agree with you. You make sense.

The reason physicists can not comprehend is because they are just like religionists. They both, by definition, have a very narrow way of looking at things. They both twist the definitions of words into a terminology that best suits either ones already held very narrow world view.
Does your, "His/her first post:" comment refer to what the 'puzzle' IS, specifically? (You did respond directly after I posed a question and made a comment).

If yes, then the one who wrote the first post here, in this thread, BELIEVES there is NO 'puzzle' here as it BELIEVES that it has ALREADY 'solved' ANY issue here.

If, however, you are referring to what might be saying is my first post, then maybe if you left out my reply to "bahman" here, and left out the CLARIFYING question I posed to "bahman", then we could just concentrate on my words alone.

iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:07 pm Strictly out of curiosity, how did this "something" become the "something" we encounter from him/her now?

And [once again] I'm assuming we simply do not know [definitively] whether something came out of nothing at all or was always around.
1. I suggest NOT ASSUMING absolutely ANY thing, as ASSUMPTIONS interfere with how you then LOOK AT, and SEE 'things'.

Also, if 'you', and/or SOME "others", simply do NOT YET KNOW (definitively) whether 'something' (whatever that ACTUALLY MEANS) came out of nothing AT ALL or is just ALWAYS around, then there is NO ASSUMING NEEDED. EITHER you KNOW this or you do NOT. And, ONLY you KNOW, definitely.

Now, when you say, "something", are you referring to the Universe, Itself?

If yes, then the Universe is made up of some 'thing', which is usually referred to as 'matter', AND, no 'thing', which is the 'nothing', or the 'space', between and around 'matter'. So, the Universe (the 'something') is, literally, made up of some 'thing' AND no 'thing'.

If the Universe is the 'something' you mention here, and you are SERIOUSLY curious about how the Universe became the Universe 'you' encounter from his/her now, then you WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN what you are talking about and referring to here.

1. Asking, How did the 'something' become 'something'? implies there WAS A BEGINNING. Although VERY SUBTLE this is what is being IMPLIED by those words.

The 'something' [the Universe] NEVER 'became' 'something' [the Universe] as the 'something' [the Universe] was and is ALWAYS 'something' [the Universe].

Also, I have absolutely NO idea what you are meaning or referring to when you say the 'something' [the Universe], which 'you' encounter now, in the days when this is being written, came from him/her?

There appears to be a fair amount of ASSUMING going on here. Which would explain WHY you have NOT YET SEEN what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

2. If you are REALLY curious and would like to DISCUSS if 'we' can ACTUALLY determine (definitively) if the Universe BEGAN or NOT, then I am more than willing to proceed.

I suggest we FIRST come to an agreement and an acceptance of what 'the something' or 'the Universe' words means, or is referring to, EXACTLY.

THEN we could proceed from there.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:37 am1. I suggest NOT ASSUMING absolutely ANY thing, as ASSUMPTIONS interfere with how you then LOOK AT, and SEE 'things'.
lol
lol
lol
lol
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by iambiguous »

bahman wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:47 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:41 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:22 pm
Something and nothing are two viable scenarios for existence. So we can have either. If something exists then it exists but it could not always have existed so we end up with nothing in the beginning. If nothing exists, we show that it must turn into something since something exists.
Well, here we are getting nowhere fast. We are capable of thinking thoughts like this about the fundamental nature of existence, sure. Just as we are capable of thinking up Gods to explain it.

But this is still not the same as demonstrating that what we believe "in our heads" about the universe/existence is in fact true. Simply by insisting that our assessment is "logical".

Back then to the points I note above about the seeming limitations of logic in regard to an ultimate understanding of existence or God or morality.
I already argued against the act of creation. So the existence of God is out of the question. Morality is a completely different topic.
Right, in a "world of words" revolving around circular logic...deductions derived from insisting that only the manner in which you define the meaning of the words in the argument itself count, the "act of creation" bites the dust. And God too.

As for this part...
But this is still not the same as demonstrating that what you believe "in your head" about creation and God is in fact true. You simply insist that your assessment is "logical".
Well, let's just agree to disagree.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by iambiguous »

bahman wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:52 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Indeed, in regard to physics and chemistry and geology and biology and and many other scientific disciplines, the precise relationship between words and worlds is astounding. Try getting astronauts on the moon or performing heart transplants or creating smart phones without it.

Instead, I focus more on the relationship between words and world in regard to things like morality and religion and the really, really big questions.

There we find any number of conflicting assumptions. And conflicting conclusions.

Right?

Only, sure, the objectivists among us refuse to accept that. They insist that how they think about these things is how all rational men and women are obligated to think about them in turn. Why? Because they provide us with arguments -- worlds of words -- up in the stratosphere of didactic intellectual exchanges in order to...to prove it.
bahman wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:14 pm I don't understand why you bring in the issue of morality and religion? These are off-topic.
On the contrary, some here insist that in order to understand the universe that we live in -- and even existence itself -- God is the explanation.

And, as I noted, my interest in cosmogony, religion and morality revolves first and foremost around what I construe to be the inherent dangers of objectivism...the "my way or the highway" mentality. This and what I see to be the inherent limitations of logic in regards to the existential relationship between words and worlds in a No God world.
I already argued against the existence of God. Why are you afraid of the truth? I invite you to read my argument. I am open to helping you if you have difficulty understanding anything.
You really are just the other side of the Immanuel Can coin here, aren't you?

Of course: the "argument" becomes everything. And just as empirically, materially, phenomenologically, IC's argument never actually brings us into contact with the Christian God, your argument never actually brings us into contact empirically, materially, phenomenologically with existence itself. You think it into existence "in your head".
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by iambiguous »

Age wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:37 am
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:07 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:33 pm

AND, was what the God word was referring to, EXACTLY, EVER QUESTIONED?

Or, because some INSIST that the 'God' word could NEVER provide absolutely ANY sort of explanation, they then just DISPUTE and REFUTE that CLAIM WITHOUT absolutely ANY QUERIES being made AT ALL?


Which is EXACTLY what you are PORTRAYING here "iambiguous".



What is the ACTUAL 'puzzle' being referred to here?

ONLY WHEN 'you' people START specifically explaining what 'it' is that 'you' have NOT YET 'solved', ONLY THEN 'we' can SHOW 'you' HOW to solve 'it'.
His/her first post:
Age wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:26 am Of course someone would agree with you. You make sense.

The reason physicists can not comprehend is because they are just like religionists. They both, by definition, have a very narrow way of looking at things. They both twist the definitions of words into a terminology that best suits either ones already held very narrow world view.
Does your, "His/her first post:" comment refer to what the 'puzzle' IS, specifically? (You did respond directly after I posed a question and made a comment).

If yes, then the one who wrote the first post here, in this thread, BELIEVES there is NO 'puzzle' here as it BELIEVES that it has ALREADY 'solved' ANY issue here.

If, however, you are referring to what might be saying is my first post, then maybe if you left out my reply to "bahman" here, and left out the CLARIFYING question I posed to "bahman", then we could just concentrate on my words alone.

iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:07 pm Strictly out of curiosity, how did this "something" become the "something" we encounter from him/her now?

And [once again] I'm assuming we simply do not know [definitively] whether something came out of nothing at all or was always around.
1. I suggest NOT ASSUMING absolutely ANY thing, as ASSUMPTIONS interfere with how you then LOOK AT, and SEE 'things'.

Also, if 'you', and/or SOME "others", simply do NOT YET KNOW (definitively) whether 'something' (whatever that ACTUALLY MEANS) came out of nothing AT ALL or is just ALWAYS around, then there is NO ASSUMING NEEDED. EITHER you KNOW this or you do NOT. And, ONLY you KNOW, definitely.

Now, when you say, "something", are you referring to the Universe, Itself?

If yes, then the Universe is made up of some 'thing', which is usually referred to as 'matter', AND, no 'thing', which is the 'nothing', or the 'space', between and around 'matter'. So, the Universe (the 'something') is, literally, made up of some 'thing' AND no 'thing'.

If the Universe is the 'something' you mention here, and you are SERIOUSLY curious about how the Universe became the Universe 'you' encounter from his/her now, then you WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN what you are talking about and referring to here.

1. Asking, How did the 'something' become 'something'? implies there WAS A BEGINNING. Although VERY SUBTLE this is what is being IMPLIED by those words.

The 'something' [the Universe] NEVER 'became' 'something' [the Universe] as the 'something' [the Universe] was and is ALWAYS 'something' [the Universe].

Also, I have absolutely NO idea what you are meaning or referring to when you say the 'something' [the Universe], which 'you' encounter now, in the days when this is being written, came from him/her?

There appears to be a fair amount of ASSUMING going on here. Which would explain WHY you have NOT YET SEEN what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

2. If you are REALLY curious and would like to DISCUSS if 'we' can ACTUALLY determine (definitively) if the Universe BEGAN or NOT, then I am more than willing to proceed.

I suggest we FIRST come to an agreement and an acceptance of what 'the something' or 'the Universe' words means, or is referring to, EXACTLY.

THEN we could proceed from there.


Okay, I'll just assume it's a "condition" -- beyond his or her control -- and leave it at that.
Post Reply