Our universe is contingent

[bahman]

It is your ideology of Philosophical Realism where you assumed there must be a mind-independent universe out there.
So the moment you invoke 'this universe' it become something contingent against the absolute universe.
So the problem is a matter of your assumption that there must be some pre-existing universe that is independent of the human conditions. This pre-existing universe is based on the bottom-up approach.

However, if you take the top-down approach as relied upon human observations and inferences, then there is only the inferred universe which is contingent.
What is needed is to ensure this empirical inference is as credible as possible, that is why we have to rely on a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] of which the scientific FSK is the most credible.

But being human, as with the majority of humans which are programmed by default with Philosophical Realism, you cannot just accept any inferred conclusions. This is a psychological issue that lead to other major problems for humanity, e.g. extending to theism and manifesting all the evils from theistic beliefs.

I believe it is most optimal to cognize the only universe and reality we have is a contingent one, i.e. contingent to human conditions and there is no other nor absolute reality out there. This is the most realistic we humans can access to.

Thus the majority must recognize they have a psychological issue re insisting upon an absolutely absolute independent reality and they need to resolve this psychological issue within themselves.

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.

[bahman]

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

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.

I don't agree that my claim that is a fact could be relative to human existence.

[bahman]

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

The universe could indeed be different!

It is that kind of baseless superstitious assertion that makes all philosophy useless.

Really?

What is, is, and could not possibly be anything else. If it were something else, it would not be at all. The universe is.

So the universe wouldn't exist if you did not exist?

[Sculptor]

The question is why this universe rather than any other universe? This means that our universe is only one possibility among many other possible universes. This means that our universe could exist not. Therefore, our universe is contingent.

No the Universe is the necessary ground for all contingencies.

[bahman]

The question is why this universe rather than any other universe? This means that our universe is only one possibility among many other possible universes. This means that our universe could exist not. Therefore, our universe is contingent.

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.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The question is why this universe rather than any other universe? This means that our universe is only one possibility among many other possible universes. This means that our universe could exist not. Therefore, our universe is contingent.

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 the hell is that supposed to mean? And how's the cannibalism going for you?

[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 the hell is that supposed to mean? And how's the cannibalism going for you?

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.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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 the hell is that supposed to mean? And how's the cannibalism going for you?

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.

[Age]

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

But you also claim that the 'mind' is owned by 'you', human beings. Which, OBVIOUSLY, is VERY CONTRADICTORY, well to me anyway, considering that 'you', human beings, came into existence AFTER other things were ALREADY existing, and it is those other PRIOR things, together, that is generally known as and referred to as the Universe, Itself. So, how, EXACTLY, could the Universe, Itself, be a so-called "by-product" of some thing that came about AFTER the "by-product" was ALREADY existing?

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?

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?

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

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'?

[Age]

You don't even know the difference between possible, actual and necessary.

Okay. If this is what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is true, then this HAS TO BE true, to you. But this is of NO real concern in regards to the CLARIFYING QUESTION I posed to you. Which was; In 'what' definition of 'contingent' are you using here, EXACTLY?

See, if you NEVER provide us with the definitions of the 'things' that you talk about, then we, obviously, will NEVER EVEN KNOW the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between the 'things' that you talk about, from YOUR perspective.

A contingent entity is something that it could exist or exist not.

But EVERY 'entity', OBVIOUSLY, does exist, in some form or another. So, this would MEAN that EVERY entity IS a 'contingent entity', well that is from your perspective of things here, correct?

[Sculptor]

The question is why this universe rather than any other universe? This means that our universe is only one possibility among many other possible universes. This means that our universe could exist not. Therefore, our universe is contingent.

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.
You have not presented any kind of argument.
All you have presented is a false statement.

[Age]

The question is why this universe rather than any other universe?

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.

[Age]

It is your ideology of Philosophical Realism where you assumed there must be a mind-independent universe out there.
So the moment you invoke 'this universe' it become something contingent against the absolute universe.
So the problem is a matter of your assumption that there must be some pre-existing universe that is independent of the human conditions. This pre-existing universe is based on the bottom-up approach.

However, if you take the top-down approach as relied upon human observations and inferences, then there is only the inferred universe which is contingent.
What is needed is to ensure this empirical inference is as credible as possible, that is why we have to rely on a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] of which the scientific FSK is the most credible.

But being human, as with the majority of humans which are programmed by default with Philosophical Realism, you cannot just accept any inferred conclusions. This is a psychological issue that lead to other major problems for humanity, e.g. extending to theism and manifesting all the evils from theistic beliefs.

I believe it is most optimal to cognize the only universe and reality we have is a contingent one, i.e. contingent to human conditions and there is no other nor absolute reality out there. This is the most realistic we humans can access to.

Thus the majority must recognize they have a psychological issue re insisting upon an absolutely absolute independent reality and they need to resolve this psychological issue within themselves.

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].

OF COURSE the Universe exists, relative to human thought and perspective. But, just as OBVIOUS is the Fact that the Universe does NOT exist 'only', relative to human thought and perspective. To think, ASSUME, or BELIEVE otherwise is TOTALLY ABSURD.

[bahman]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? And how's the cannibalism going for you?

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.

[bahman]

But you also claim that the 'mind' is owned by 'you', human beings. Which, OBVIOUSLY, is VERY CONTRADICTORY, well to me anyway, considering that 'you', human beings, came into existence AFTER other things were ALREADY existing, and it is those other PRIOR things, together, that is generally known as and referred to as the Universe, Itself. So, how, EXACTLY, could the Universe, Itself, be a so-called "by-product" of some thing that came about AFTER the "by-product" was ALREADY existing?

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

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.

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.