Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:08 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:12 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 9:33 pm
The conditional is true.
What IS the 'conditional', EXACTLY, which you now propose 'is true'?
This suffices to stop me from trying to say anything to you. You have a severe short-term memory problem and ask me stupid questions that make me require repeating myself. I clarified the title's meaning as the CONDITIONAL and the only one. To phrase the same reworded:
If (Something exists and has an origin), then (Absolutely Nothing is the origin).
So, just to make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR here, 'you', "scott mayers", CLAIM that (IF something exists and has an origin), then (Absolutely Nothing is the origin) AND that this is TRUE.
Now, to make this ABSOLUTELY MORE CLEAR, OBVIOUSLY something exists.
So, now we just have to WAIT for 'you' to PROVE that there was an 'origin' to Everything. Because, according to YOUR "LOGIC" here, IF there was an 'origin', to the sum of EVERY thing together as One Everything, then there was Absolutely Nothing as that 'origin'. Correct?
If yes, then, and by the way, by definition of the words, 'an origin of Everything' is a contradiction and oxymoron that can NOT be reconciled NOR corrected.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:08 pm
The
antecedent is (
Something exists and has an origin) and the
consequense is
(Absolutely Nothing is the origin).
From my perspective this would be the other way around, and what you are 'trying to' argue for anyway.
That is; To 'you', Absolutely Nothing is the, preexisting, origin, which, consequently, became Something/Everything.
Now that we are CLOSER to EXPOSING YOUR BELIEFS, FULLY and Truthfully, what EVIDENCE or PROOF are USING that Something from Nothing is EVEN POSSIBLE, let alone ACTUALLY HAPPENED?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:08 pm
The conditional is asserting that no source
cause is needed, like some God, nor some given set of elemental concepts, like electrons and protons, quarks, etc. , that act as quantized 'gods' for their lack of being further penetrable and fixed as 'special' without its own accountability to further 'stucture'.
BUT WHY bring the word 'God' or 'gods' into this subject?
Also, if 'you' are ASSERTING that NO cause is NEEDED for ANY 'thing', then do NOT be surprised that you will get some DISAGREEMENT and NONACCEPTANCE here.
Again, what PROOF do 'you' HAVE that some 'thing' could even come from Absolutely NO 'thing'?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:08 pm
The ultimate source of anything can be described using ONLY points, logical or literal points in space as the 'quantum' unit that stand for "nothings" (relative) but all point to a source concept, the Absolute Nothing. [Absolute Nothing is unique; the points representing it are 'relative' objects that lack a need to have 'substance' other than as a
symbol.
ALL I can SEE 'you' doing here is 'you' 'trying' absolutely ANY thing to back up AND support YOUR ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.
NOTHING 'you' just said here relates to what IS ACTUALLY True.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:08 pm
I can't waste my time with you without ANY flexibility on your part.
LOL WHY do 'I' have to be FLEXIBLE to 'that', which is NOT True?
For example, from my perspective, the ' ultimate source of anything can be described using thee ACTUAL 'thing' which has been and IS the source of ANY 'thing' ', SO, WHY would 'I' be FLEXIBLE to YOUR CLAIM, from your perspective, that the 'ultimate source of anything can be described using ONLY 'points'?
As I have POINTED OUT and SAID ALREADY; 'you' are just 'trying' to word things in a way, which fits in with and supports YOUR ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.
LOOK AT the two perspectives, in the example, I just gave and TELL US what is MORE TRUE.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:08 pm
I asked you not to LOAD me with questions nor LEAD me by them, but you continue to do so.
And, you EXPECT me to be FLEXIBLE to YOUR, OBVIOUSLY, FALSE and WRONG conclusions.
Also, MY QUESTIONS are in relation to YOUR CLAIMS, and IF answered Honestly and OPENLY, then those answers will either back up and support YOUR CLAIMS, or they will SHOW and REVEAL something else.
Look, if you do NOT like being questioned and/or challenged in relation to YOUR CLAIMS, or you can NOT back up and support YOUR CLAIMS, BEFORE you make the CLAIMS, then I suggest you DO NOT MAKE THE CLAIM in the FIRST PLACE.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:08 pm
I see repetition and exponential expansion of the same 'questions' or complaints that are only more confusing and/or more complex to address.
Okay. But I am ABLE TO ask these questions because I ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth of these things ARE.
If you can't accept even a minimal significant argument, I doubt I can satisfy you no matter how hard I could try. If you have a proposed belief, open a thread with such a statement that one can possibly determine where you are coming from.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:08 pm
There is something 'hidden' about your beliefs that I cannot
care to determine at the moment.
And LOL no matter how many times I INFORM you and TELL you that I have NO beliefs AT ALL, 'you' STILL say things like this here. You CLAIMED earlier that; I have a "severe short-term memory problem". This could ACTUALLY be a True 'self'-representation of 'you' here.
Also, if you do NOT care to even try to UNDERSTAND thee "other", 'determine their views', then this EXPLAINS FULLY WHY you do NOT care about what "other's" say, and, you ONLY care about YOUR VIEWS, BELIEFS AND ASSUMPTIONS, being heard and that "others" ARE FLEXIBLE to 'you' and to YOUR VIEWS, BELIEFS, and ASSUMPTIONS.
LOOK, to me, YOUR VIEWS here are NOT WORTHY of BEING FLEXIBLE to. This is because YOUR VIEWS here are just PLAIN False AND Wrong.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:08 pm
I'd require a digression on that to determine your modus operandi, then, see how your perception differs from mine, then to find the contentious issues to challenge, agree to, or disprove,.... all then and only then to just to be permitted to present my own theses by contrast.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in the Universe, is STOPPING 'you' presenting your OWN 'theses'.
Also, if you are NOT YET ALREADY AWARE how your perception DIFFERS from mine, then this is CLEAR EVIDENCE that you Truly do NOT care to DETERMINE what another is ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING.
I ALREADY KNOW the 'contentious issues' to CHALLENGE, to AGREE TO and WITH, and to DISPROVE, as ALREADY EVIDENCED and PROVEN by what I have ALREADY said AND asked you.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:08 pm
If you have a question, that you claim you only do, then stick ONLY with one because with you, each one is 'pivotal'.
I do NOT claim that I ONLY have (a) question/s.
Also, how long am I meant to stick ONLY with ONE question, only?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:08 pm
Find the underlying 'pivotal' questions that I can answer to which if NOT answered cannot permit you passage.
What does the end part of this MEAN?
Do you want me to ASSUME what YOUR answer WOULD BE, IF you do NOT answer? Or, something else?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:08 pm
Why ask more questions of which even one is sufficient to prevent further discussion?
But NONE of MY QUESTIONS prevent further discussion. In fact MY QUESTIONS lead to 'you' UNCOVERING and FINDING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, ALSO. That is; If you were to answer MY QUESTIONS Honestly and OPENLY.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:08 pm
This is like how one need not answer every religious person's question they might demand needs adressing base on the credibility of their source scriptures.
This is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like this at all. I am NOT 'demanding' ABSOLUTELY ANY thing. I am ONLY posing CLARIFYING or CHALLENGING QUESTIONS to those who Truly are 'Truth seekers'. For the rest they will just carrying on wanting their OWN VIEWS, BELIEFS, and ASSUMPTIONS to 'be heard' and to 'be LISTENED TO'. As EVIDENCED and PROVEN above.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:08 pm
If the credibility of the book is at question (a pivotal question), how does one think that answering further questions about its contents matter other than to entertain?
What have 'religious scriptures' got ABSOLUTELY ANY thing at all to do with what I have been ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING.
Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of how one's OWN ASSUMPTIONS can all to QUICKLY and EASILY one so COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ASTRAY from thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
By the way, the amount of time and focus that you spend on OTHER ISSUES, which do NOT have ANY thing at all to do with what I am ACTUALLY talking about AND meaning, instead of just focusing on the ACTUAL QUESTION/S at hand ONLY, EXPLAINS WHY you feel that you are just wasting YOUR time here, with me.