Our universe is contingent

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

If you speak of control, obviously animals' mind are not contingent upon humans' mind.

As I presented the syllogism above and following therefrom,

• 1. Reality as all-there-is cannot be independent of human minds.
  2. Animals' mind are part and parcel of reality.
  3. Therefore animals' mind cannot be independent [so are contingent] of human minds.

Show me what wrong with the above syllogism?

[Age]

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.

If the 'we' here does NOT control animals' bodies and minds, then who or what EXACTLY does control human animals' bodies and minds?

We just have control over our bodies.

If 'we' do NOT control animals' bodies, but 'we' have control over 'our' bodies, and the 'we' refers to 'you', human beings, then 'you', human beings, are NOT animals. So, if to you human beings are NOT animals, then what are 'you', human beings, then, EXACTLY?

So I disagree that animals' minds are contingent upon humans' minds. Mind, in general, is not contingent otherwise we are dealing with a regress.

A LOT of what you say and claim "bahman" regresses, into oblivion.

[bahman]

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?

Any mathematical model which is internally consistent could be considered to describe a reality.

[bahman]

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.

Could your parents decide to do not have you?

[bahman]

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.

If the 'we' here does NOT control animals' bodies and minds, then who or what EXACTLY does control human animals' bodies and minds?

The human mind only controls the human body.

We just have control over our bodies.

If 'we' do NOT control animals' bodies, but 'we' have control over 'our' bodies, and the 'we' refers to 'you', human beings, then 'you', human beings, are NOT animals. So, if to you human beings are NOT animals, then what are 'you', human beings, then, EXACTLY?

Don't you make the distinction between humans and animals?

So I disagree that animals' minds are contingent upon humans' minds. Mind, in general, is not contingent otherwise we are dealing with a regress.

A LOT of what you say and claim "bahman" regresses, into oblivion.

Ok, I am not going to discuss the regress with you since we have been through this many times.

[bahman]

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.

If you speak of control, obviously animals' mind are not contingent upon humans' mind.

As I presented the syllogism above and following therefrom,

• 1. Reality as all-there-is cannot be independent of human minds.
  2. Animals' mind are part and parcel of reality.
  3. Therefore animals' mind cannot be independent [so are contingent] of human minds.

Show me what wrong with the above syllogism?

I don't like P1. Prove me that it is correct.

[Sculptor]

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?

I said the universe was the necessary ground for all contingencies.
So your responses are completely off beam.
Why don't you read people's responses?

[bahman]

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?

I said the universe was the necessary ground for all contingencies.
So your responses are completely off beam.
Why don't you read people's responses?

So, what do you mean by "The universe was the necessary ground for all contingencies."? Do you mind elaborating?

[Sculptor]

What are all contingencies?


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.


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

I said the universe was the necessary ground for all contingencies.
So your responses are completely off beam.
Why don't you read people's responses?

So, what do you mean by "The universe was the necessary ground for all contingencies."? Do you mind elaborating?

Everything that happens in the universe is contingent upon the existence of the universe and other things in it. The universe as a whole cannot be contingent on anything because it is everything. and not contingent thing can exist if it doed not have a ground of existence. The universe is that necessary ground of existence.
Furthur to that. Since all things conform to cause and effect. All contingent actions are caused by antecedant conditions. This all stems from the existence and qualities of the universe. Consequently all contingent events rely on cause and effect and are so the necessary outcome of previous grounding conditions. COnclusion is that all things are necessary.
WOuld you like me to break it down more?

[Age]

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


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.

So, to you, God NEVER existed in ANY universe, before God created absolutely EVERY thing out of absolutely NO thing.

Okay. And, as I was saying and showing the ABSURD becomes MORE and MORE ABSURD and RIDICULOUS the further you 'try to' back up and support your previous claims.

Now, WHERE was God BEFORE It created absolutely EVERY thing or this Universe?

WHEN did God create this Universe? And,

WHAT is God, EXACTLY?

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.

I KNOW. But WHY is it 'you', "bahman", who keeps saying God created EVERY thing out of NO thing.

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

Any creator.

So, the one creating these words here is 'A God'.

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

I know what God is by definition.

What is 'God', to you, EXACTLY, by definition?

I have contact with supernatural beings but this is off topic.

So, WHY THEN did you bring this up and mention it here?

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.

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.

Besides your "arguing" being illogical, unsound, invalid, and unreasonable here it is also VERY, VERY DEFECTIVE with your 'circular reasoning'.

[Age]

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.

If you speak of control, obviously animals' mind are not contingent upon humans' mind.

As I presented the syllogism above and following therefrom,

• 1. Reality as all-there-is cannot be independent of human minds.
  2. Animals' mind are part and parcel of reality.
  3. Therefore animals' mind cannot be independent [so are contingent] of human minds.

Show me what wrong with the above syllogism?

1. There is NO such ACTUAL thing as a so-called "human mind".

2. Reality, or ALL-THERE-IS, at ANY given moment exists, NO matter if human beings exist or not.

3. Non human animals, exactly like the human animal, also do NOT have "minds".

4. When animals, including humans, exist, then they are 'part and parcel' of Reality, ALL-THERE-IS, Itself.

5. Your 3 is moot as there is NO such thing as animal NOR human "minds".

[bahman]

I said the universe was the necessary ground for all contingencies.
So your responses are completely off beam.
Why don't you read people's responses?

So, what do you mean by "The universe was the necessary ground for all contingencies."? Do you mind elaborating?

Everything that happens in the universe is contingent upon the existence of the universe and other things in it. The universe as a whole cannot be contingent on anything because it is everything. and not contingent thing can exist if it doed not have a ground of existence. The universe is that necessary ground of existence.

There are two objections here: 1) I am talking about our universe rather than everything and 2) You need to prove that everything which is constituted of all possible things exists (for example a Sculptor who believe in the contingency of the universe somewhere in everything:mrgreen:).

Furthur to that. Since all things conform to cause and effect. All contingent actions are caused by antecedant conditions. This all stems from the existence and qualities of the universe. Consequently all contingent events rely on cause and effect and are so the necessary outcome of previous grounding conditions. COnclusion is that all things are necessary.

I don't think that all things always conform to cause and effect. For example, a system cannot evolve based on cause and effect when there is a conflict of interests in a system. I have a thread on this topic in here.

WOuld you like me to break it down more?

Oh, no. Thanks. That was long enough.

[Age]

What are all contingencies?


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?

Any mathematical model which is internally consistent could be considered to describe a reality.

Besides your CLAIM here being NOT necessarily True AT ALL, this response of yours here does NOT even attempt to answer thee ACTUAL question that I posed to you.

[Age]

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.

Could your parents decide to do not have you?

YES. But this is only because of your Wrong ASSUMPTION of what you are asking here.

[Age]

We do not control animals' bodies and minds.

If the 'we' here does NOT control animals' bodies and minds, then who or what EXACTLY does control human animals' bodies and minds?

The human mind only controls the human body.

But there is NO so-called "human mind". And, until you come to REALIZE this Fact, you will continue on saying the Truly ABSURD and RIDICULOUS things that you do here.

By the way, who or what do you want to now say controls the so-called "human mind"?

We just have control over our bodies.

If 'we' do NOT control animals' bodies, but 'we' have control over 'our' bodies, and the 'we' refers to 'you', human beings, then 'you', human beings, are NOT animals. So, if to you human beings are NOT animals, then what are 'you', human beings, then, EXACTLY?

Don't you make the distinction between humans and animals?

YES. The human animal is VERY, VERY DIFFERENT from ALL of the other animals.

WHY do you say these COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC REMARKS, which I OBVIOUSLY NEVER even IMPLIED, let alone said?

Is part of the REASON to 'try to' DETRACT from the ILLOGICAL, ABSURD, and RIDICULOUS CLAIM you made here about how 'we' do NOT control animal bodies?

You OBVIOUSLY FORGOT the Fact that the human body IS an 'animal body'. So, if as you BELIEVE and CLAIM, that you do NOT control animal bodies, then you OBVIOUSLY also do NOT control the human body.

Like a GREAT DEAL of your "arguments" you end up saying the MOST ABSURD and RIDICULOUS things when I QUESTION and CHALLENGE you.

So I disagree that animals' minds are contingent upon humans' minds. Mind, in general, is not contingent otherwise we are dealing with a regress.

A LOT of what you say and claim "bahman" regresses, into oblivion.

Ok, I am not going to discuss the regress with you since we have been through this many times.

AND, BECAUSE you can NOT even substantiate YOUR CLAIMS here.