Our universe is contingent

[bahman]

No the Universe is the necessary ground for all contingencies.

That is just a claim and not a counterargument. What is your proof that the universe is necessary? There would be no contingency if the universe is necessary since the universe is contingent when one entity in the universe is contingent.

What I say is true by definition.

What are all contingencies?

You have not presented any kind of argument.

I have two reasons for the contingency of the universe: Your existence which is not necessary (your existence depends on your parents' decision) and laws of nature that could be different.

All you have presented is a false statement.

Let's see if we could agree on whether your existence is necessary or not. Do you believe in volition?

[bahman]

If it were a different universe, there would be no idiots asking such absurd questions.

The universe could indeed be different!

HOW, EXACTLY?

Also, WHEN, and IF, you EVER come to UNDERSTAND what the Universe is FUNDAMENTALLY made up of, and, HOW the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS, then you NOT be SEEING and SAYING what you are here now.

The laws of nature could be different. You could not exist.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Which part do you have a problem with so I can elaborate. I am eating meat so my cannibalism is quite well. No need to say that I give the same value to all living beings.

The whole bullshit phrase.

Do you mean this: "There would be no contingency if the universe is necessary since the universe is contingent when one entity in the universe is contingent."? If yes, I am saying that all things within the universe must be necessary if the universe itself is necessary.

What does that mean?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My argument is only about the contingency of the universe. I think the universe is the by-product of mind.

You stated
"This means that our universe could exist not".

What I am saying is, the universe does exist but only in relative [contingent] to the human conditions [human mind and self].

I think the mind exists in animals and other places too.

Based on the general definition of 'what is mind' yes we have animal-minds but they are not human-minds.
Whatever is 'animal mind' is always contingent upon the human-minds' in defining what is mind.

Point is there is no way one can extricate the human-mind and take it to be independent from whatever things are in reality.

1. Reality is all there is.
2.The human mind is intricately linked to all within all there is.
3. Therefore the human mind cannot be independent for whatever things are in reality.

It is true within some perspectives things are independent of the human mind and condition, e.g. the apple you see is 10 feet away, thus independent of you, but in the ultimate sense, the above syllogism prevails.

[Age]

If it were a different universe, there would be no idiots asking such absurd questions.

The universe could indeed be different!

There is only one human-contingent-universe but this is not in any absolute sense.
However there can be many human perspectives to what the universe is, i.e. different universes from different human perspectives.

BUT, there is OBVIOUSLY NOT 'different universes'. There are, however, 'different perspectives' of what thee One and ONLY Universe IS, EXACTLY.

You can even speculate what the universe to a bat or bacteria could be but ultimately there is only human-contingent-universe.[/quote

HOW do you KNOW there is ONLY One human-contingent-universe?

Are you speculating that there is absolutely NO other species, in the WHOLE of thee Universe, that is NOT able to speculate on NOR have a perspective of 'the Universe', Itself?

Note your claim itself, i.e.
"The universe could indeed be different!"
is a human-contingent-claim.
There is no way your [human contingent] claim can be absolutely independent.

Note your claim, itself. That is; "There is ONLY human-contingent-universe", which is, OBVIOUSLY, just a human-contingent-claim.

Which, just as OBVIOUS, is a VERY, VERY NARROWED and SHORT-SIGHTED perspective and view of things. It is also a GREAT EXAMPLE of the human-ego, which, literally, thinks and/or BELIEFS that the WHOLE Universe revolves around 'it' and 'its' view of things. As PROVED above here by the writings under the label "veritas aequitas" here in this forum.

[Age]

My argument is only about the contingency of the universe. I think the universe is the by-product of mind.

You stated
"This means that our universe could exist not".

What I am saying is, the universe does exist but only in relative [contingent] to the human conditions [human mind and self].

I think the mind exists in animals and other places too.

Like, 'what other places too'?

[Age]

The universe is the result of mind, natural and supernatural beings.

1. So, to you, the Universe, Itself, ONLY exists because of some pre-existing 'mind', correct?

The whole universe excluding minds, Qualia, is sustained by minds.

If this is correct, then could this 'mind' thing just be what so-called "christians" refer to as God, as it said that God created the Universe?

There is no God, God being the creator out of nothing.

In 'what' universe is it that "God is the creator out of nothing?

We have been through this. A God who create something from another thing could exist.

What is 'this', EXACTLY, which we have, SUPPOSEDLY, been through?

What is 'A God', which you are referring to here?

Also, WHY do you STILL NOT KNOW what 'God', IS, EXACTLY?

2. What are examples of 'supernatural beings, and, what are examples of 'natural beings'?

Natural minds like my mind and your mind with limited power and knowledge. Others are supernatural. They know all and have unlimited power.

So, to you there are MANY 'minds', which the WHOLE One Universe is sustained by, correct?

And, once again, what we have here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of this becoming MORE and MORE ABSURD and RIDICULOUS when 'trying to' back up and support its ALREADY made CLAIMS.

3. Are you saying, 'The universe' is the result of 'mind', AND OF, 'natural and supernatural beings', or, 'The universe', and, 'natural and supernatural beings' are the result of 'mind'?

I am saying that Qualia is sustained by minds.

You have also claimed that the WHOLE Universe, Itself, excluding 'minds', themselves, is sustained by 'minds'.

What, to you, is 'Qualia', EXACTLY?

[Age]

That is just a claim and not a counterargument. What is your proof that the universe is necessary? There would be no contingency if the universe is necessary since the universe is contingent when one entity in the universe is contingent.

What I say is true by definition.

What are all contingencies?

You have not presented any kind of argument.

I have two reasons for the contingency of the universe: Your existence which is not necessary (your existence depends on your parents' decision) and laws of nature that could be different.

How, EXACTLY, could the laws of 'nature', itself, be, supposedly, different?

All you have presented is a false statement.

Let's see if we could agree on whether your existence is necessary or not. Do you believe in volition?

[Age]

The universe could indeed be different!

HOW, EXACTLY?

Also, WHEN, and IF, you EVER come to UNDERSTAND what the Universe is FUNDAMENTALLY made up of, and, HOW the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS, then you NOT be SEEING and SAYING what you are here now.

The laws of nature could be different. You could not exist.

This is what you just keep REPEATING. And, the reason WHY you keep REPEATING this is because you are STILL UNIFORMED about thee ACTUAL Nature of thee Universe, Itself, and, because you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE, wholeheartedly, that this is true.

The laws of nature can NOT be different, and this is because of what thee Universe is made up of and because of the way thee Universe works.

[Age]

You stated
"This means that our universe could exist not".

What I am saying is, the universe does exist but only in relative [contingent] to the human conditions [human mind and self].

I think the mind exists in animals and other places too.

Based on the general definition of 'what is mind' yes we have animal-minds but they are not human-minds.
Whatever is 'animal mind' is always contingent upon the human-minds' in defining what is mind.

To you,

What IS 'mind'?

What IS 'human-mind'? And,

What IS 'animal-mind'?

Your INABILITY to answer and clarify PROVES that 'you' have absolutely NO idea what 'mind' IS, ACTUALLY.

Point is there is no way one can extricate the human-mind and take it to be independent from whatever things are in reality.

ALREADY SHOWN is YOUR INABILITY to CLARIFY what this, so-called, "human-mind' IS, EXACTLY?

1. Reality is all there is.
2.The human mind is intricately linked to all within all there is.
3. Therefore the human mind cannot be independent for whatever things are in reality.

But just because some 'thing' comes into existence, at some point of some 'thing's' existence, does NOT mean that the latter 'thing's' existence is dependent upon the former 'thing's' existence. And, being intricately linked or not has absolutely NO bearing AT ALL on this.

It is true within some perspectives things are independent of the human mind and condition, e.g. the apple you see is 10 feet away, thus independent of you, but in the ultimate sense, the above syllogism prevails.

LOL

[bahman]

The whole bullshit phrase.

Do you mean this: "There would be no contingency if the universe is necessary since the universe is contingent when one entity in the universe is contingent."? If yes, I am saying that all things within the universe must be necessary if the universe itself is necessary.

What does that mean?

It means that the universe must exist and must only have this form.

[bahman]

You stated
"This means that our universe could exist not".

What I am saying is, the universe does exist but only in relative [contingent] to the human conditions [human mind and self].

I think the mind exists in animals and other places too.

Based on the general definition of 'what is mind' yes we have animal-minds but they are not human-minds.
Whatever is 'animal mind' is always contingent upon the human-minds' in defining what is mind.

Point is there is no way one can extricate the human-mind and take it to be independent from whatever things are in reality.

1. Reality is all there is.
2.The human mind is intricately linked to all within all there is.
3. Therefore the human mind cannot be independent for whatever things are in reality.

It is true within some perspectives things are independent of the human mind and condition, e.g. the apple you see is 10 feet away, thus independent of you, but in the ultimate sense, the above syllogism prevails.

We do not control animals' bodies and minds. We just have control over our bodies. So I disagree that animals' minds are contingent upon humans' minds. Mind, in general, is not contingent otherwise we are dealing with a regress.

[bahman]

You stated
"This means that our universe could exist not".

What I am saying is, the universe does exist but only in relative [contingent] to the human conditions [human mind and self].

I think the mind exists in animals and other places too.

Like, 'what other places too'?

Any objects.

[Age]

I think the mind exists in animals and other places too.

Like, 'what other places too'?

Any objects.

Are there ANY objects AT ALL, to you, that 'the mind' does NOT exist within?

[bahman]

1. So, to you, the Universe, Itself, ONLY exists because of some pre-existing 'mind', correct?

The whole universe excluding minds, Qualia, is sustained by minds.

If this is correct, then could this 'mind' thing just be what so-called "christians" refer to as God, as it said that God created the Universe?

There is no God, God being the creator out of nothing.

In 'what' universe is it that "God is the creator out of nothing?

God did not exist in any universe before creating everything out of nothing.

We have been through this. A God who create something from another thing could exist.

What is 'this', EXACTLY, which we have, SUPPOSEDLY, been through?

That the creation out of nothing is logically impossible.

What is 'A God', which you are referring to here?

Any creator.

Also, WHY do you STILL NOT KNOW what 'God', IS, EXACTLY?

I know what God is by definition. I have contact with supernatural beings but this is off topic.

2. What are examples of 'supernatural beings, and, what are examples of 'natural beings'?

Natural minds like my mind and your mind with limited power and knowledge. Others are supernatural. They know all and have unlimited power.

So, to you there are MANY 'minds', which the WHOLE One Universe is sustained by, correct?

Yes.

And, once again, what we have here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of this becoming MORE and MORE ABSURD and RIDICULOUS when 'trying to' back up and support its ALREADY made CLAIMS.

Whatever.

3. Are you saying, 'The universe' is the result of 'mind', AND OF, 'natural and supernatural beings', or, 'The universe', and, 'natural and supernatural beings' are the result of 'mind'?

I am saying that Qualia is sustained by minds.

You have also claimed that the WHOLE Universe, Itself, excluding 'minds', themselves, is sustained by 'minds'.

What, to you, is 'Qualia', EXACTLY?

Qualia is a substance that can be experienced and created by the mind.