Free Ontologia Books

 translate to...



START reasoning of Hiçbir- things come out of nothing and cannot come out of nothing, so something-something must always-always- (or ever since). (Why should something exist? Why are there only "something"? Why are there only "one" "something"? and Why only "One" of "something"?) (What is one? What is one? What is a thing? ?) (Why since the past? and what does since the past mean? ) (Is the non-second-self- 'one' 'one' ' Nothing comes into existence from nothing and cannot come out of existence, so something-things (god within the scope of the first subject, the first matter, the first state within the scope of the first space-none in the context of the previous state and place, etc.) must always exist -before -something-from nothing. There is and cannot be destroyed, therefore something-something, something-something or many-things must always exist. Nothing comes out of nothing and cannot go out of existence, so something, something-somethings or many-things or all things (all everything/s) must always exist (as it is). If things can exist from the beginning, many things can exist from the beginning. If many or only one thing can exist from the beginning, why can't all things exist from the beginning? What does it mean from the beginning? Is there a head? (Is the existence of the head a hypothesis?) If one or more things can exist from the beginning, then all things (all everything/s) can exist from the beginning. If something has always existed (always existed), what kind of beginning will you talk about? (creation and becoming does not matter) If something/something always exists, there is no beginning. If something/something or many-things or all-everything is always there, there is no beginning. In fact, if nothing or even a single-thing exists from the beginning, there is actually no beginning-(doesn't matter?) Something must always exist then this existence of something is before the beginning, and then there is something before the beginning If there is something before the beginning, the beginning is contradictory. If there is something before the beginning, the beginning is not fixed, not the beginning Nothing comes into existence from nothing and cannot be destroyed, so even if there is a beginning, something must always -always- exist before the beginning. If something is before the beginning, there is no beginning, or the beginning of what is before the beginning is before the other beginning, if it has begun, the beginning itself is contradictory. If your beginning is self-contradictory, then nothing comes into existence out of nothing and cannot be destroyed, so even if there is a beginning, something must always exist before the beginning, before becoming. So beginning is not beginning and becoming is not becoming. If there is no beginning, nothing has come into being. It did not exist because it did not exist. If things must always exist, there cannot be first-things, this would mean that being (firsts) multiplied. For one thing, everything cannot be "always and everything" (thing) from nothing. nothing is nothing above its name, every name is everything above its name. that is, not "nothing-something" but "everything-something" comes into being from nothing and nothing, and it cannot be either non-existent or all. For one thing, nothing can be anything, can't exist, nothing can be from nothing to everything, always and always, and nothing at all, then everything was all. You have no derivation. If there were something out of nothing, it would also exist out of nothing. If nothing transforms into everything dialectically, this transformation is endless but illogical. It's true, isn't it? Everything cannot come from nothing, so everything was never absent and everything always exists POST 2 In existence; First Subject in the Previous First, First God in the Forehead, First Matter in the Forehead, First Nothing in the Previous First, First Unknown State in the Previous Head, First Motion and First Cause/Principle (Causality) in the Kinds of the First Burst (or First and Last Universe) in the Prior Initial in any first Previous first Newest Leading first State singularity and own Dair and subsequently originate developing Varlıklaş the analysis of errors and on the Misconceptions we say does not exist from nothing, nothing he said actually can not exist without no tümherşey So now existing all inclusive and we say no than we have had-existing can not and from nothing. So actually this sentence is obvious. Nothing (or everything) existed because (either) everything (or something) existed. Split the two propositions in a controlled way. (Before) There was something (Before) Everything was there. Test both of them .. (What is a? Is all what? Two is not a non. Without Multitude 'a' can not count are zero. Degrade or initial element of the multitude set one. But the unit or reduction correct term) (but not necessarily If we are to say that everything did not exist, we must say that there was "something" that would constitute everything. It is also contradictory, just like God . In a way that leaves no room for doubt. All things can only exist from all things or all things in kind. All things cannot come from nothing. In other words, if we say that everything must always and always exist, I think we solve the problem, but if we do not say that, and we add a nothing set, a god set, and a first start set; We say that everything did not exist, but something did not exist (there was) Question: What is existence? What is that something? Answer Religion: There was God. Reply Science: There was nothingness or the unknowable/unidentifiable precondition. And all things were not all-things before, and were in the form of things (no unknowns defined), and from things all-things came into being, we say, that there were things, and we can create things (all things), but then something (nothing or god) will still be eternal and eternal. Again, the concept of becoming will contradict with time, and the beginning of something is still contradictory, and we will accept that we did not originate from nothing and that something eternal came into being. Absolute acceptance of the existence of something eternal will lead us to acceptance of pre-eternity. This means no beginning. so the first move is a mistake. hypothesis. So we're going to put forward a movement or first move in eternity, which is nonsense. The first move in eternity is absurd. It is nonsense. The beginning is nonsense. If you call it eternal, it is eternal. Again, we will contradict the concept of beginning and the concept of time. So ever and let's take the first explosion. Like the god of god, we must seek the nothing of the nothing. The explosion of the explosion... the before. Did the formation/nucleus of the being wait and wait in an infinitely indefinite period? It is absurd to say that existence came into existence, this is a hypothesis. All we know is that we exist, that it exists. There is no evidence of none or nothing at all. The assumption of a human in Nothing is like God. In the beginning it is. Initial or other investigations should be treated as hypotheses. As a result; Initial hypotheses and analyzes based on time such as genesis and the beginning of time-beginning, or being/universe beginning and forming, or being the first and only universe, are decidedly contradictory. Being/being cannot be resolved through the existence of a single universe or the attempt to resolve its beginning. Even if the beginning of the universe is resolved, which, in our opinion, in another universe, another inborn reduction and analysis will be a mistake. These will not give us any clear clue about Being. The so-called beginning of the universe does not mean the beginning of being, and the beginning of being cannot be found analytically, it is inconsistent/contradictory. The universe is born in the universe, the being is born in being, it derives from itself (in its own kind) and cannot derive from anything else. Derivations are beginningless and cannot and have not started. Being in any genus has no first singular reduction of the genus not itself. It can't. It was not subsequently multiplexed. The right concept for the asset; it is eternal since/since eternity and uninitialized since eternity, it is between these two. Any other time frame is meaningless. The eternal, eternal and firstless, headless and beginningless being is always eternal. Time is wide always/always. The concept of before and after is limited, or the before and after has neither the end nor the beginning. None. POST 3 I Have Ideas of Nothingness Nothingness <--> None (The opposite of Exist is None) None <--> Always /Her (The opposites of Nothing are All or All in our language) We say existence cannot come out of nothing, cannot derive , we talk about thermodynamics. The same. Everything cannot come from nothing, must not be derived. Opposites or opposites are relative to each other or cannot be defined without defining one another. The concept of nothing is very simply in my opinion, there is the same moment that is connected with every and all, just as the concept of short cannot be constructed without mentioning the long, and the long is connected with the short, as well as the definition/definition view at the same time.