Our universe is contingent

[Sculptor]

Yes, we just guess until we find out that a system of thought is internally consistent.

And how do you guess?

It was trial and error in the beginning. Accumulated knowledge however can refine the guess, but it is never certain unless you are omniscient.

Yes choices are caused by you through you knoweldge and the circumstances at the time.
QED determinism is true

[Age]

That our universe is eternal and infinite.

But I have NEVER said that, and, by the way, I NEVER would say that.

I suggest that, from now on, you read the ACTUAL words that I say and write, and just use them ALONE.

That way you will NOT be SO Wrong regards your ASSUMPTION, as OFTEN as you are here.

So you don't think that the universe is infinite and eternal.

ONCE AGAIN we have ANOTHER completely AND utterly Wrong ASSUMPTION.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here even when I suggest that the people do NOT make absolutely ANY ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL and just read thee ACTUAL words that I write, they STILL go straight into ASSUMPTION 'mode', and STILL make the EXACT SAME mistakes and thus Wrong ASSUMPTIONS, ONCE MORE.

If not, it is finite and has a beginning.

Well I do NOT, so there rest here is MOOT.

No. The fact that the universe has a beginning has nothing to do with contingency.

What are you basing this so-called "fact" on, EXACTLY?

Contingency has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.

I said there is no God.

But, to you, there are 'minds' that create 'things' correct?

If this is correct, to you, and the Universe began, then what, EXACTLY, made the Universe begin?

Mind creates Qualia and not the whole universe.

Well 'what' or 'who', EXACTLY, created the WHOLE Universe?

OBVIOUSLY if the WHOLE Universe had a beginning some one or some thing HAD TO create It, correct?

I never said that there is a mind or minds who created the beginning.

But ALL them just simply create, correct?

They create Qualia but they are not God, the creator of beginning.

Is God the creator of so-called 'beginning" or not?

I just meant that I don't think that there is a creator of everything out of nothing. Whether this is true or not is the subject to another thread so it is off-topic.


Other attributes like changeless, omnipresent, all-loving, etc. This is however off-topic so please don't ask further questions.


Off-topic.


As I said mind does not have gender but the person has. This is however off-topic.


My fault.


There are many things that we discuss in this thread that are off-topic. Including this one.

This does not take away from the Fact that you have absolutely NO evidence AT ALL for your CLAIMS here, let alone have ANY ACTUAL PROOF. Nor, from just how much illogical nonsense you CLAIM here while 'trying' your hardest to back up and support those False, Wrong, and Incorrect CLAIMS of yours.

Besides this if you think discussing the Universe and how It exists and/or where It came from is "off topic" in a thread and topic about the 'Universe being contingent', then I think you will find that you are sadly very mistaken.

Off-topic.

As I just said, you are, SADLY, very mistaken.

[Age]

No, I didn't experience other universes but they could exist. The universe with a higher dimension which contains our universe or the universe which are causally independent of ours.

What does the word 'universe' actually mean or refer to, to you?

A collection of objects that are causally related.

Is there absolutely ANY object that is NOT causally related?

If yes, then 'what', EXACTLY?

Where is your proof that there are no other universes?

1. The size and dimension of this one and ONLY Universe.

What is the size and dimension of our universe?

Infinite.

Were you under some sort of ASSUMPTION or ILLUSION that It could be smaller or finite?

If yes, then 'what', EXACTLY, would lead you to such a PRESUMPTION as this?

2. EXACTLY what the word 'Universe' refers to.

What is the definition of the universe to you?

TOTALITY, Everything, or ALL-THERE-IS.

As I mentioned the universe is not eternal.

You NEVER mentioned that here. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, by your OWN words here.

We discussed it in another thread.

I discussed in another thread that if some galaxies are coming closer together, then where, EXACTLY, is the expansion taking place.

This is the subject of another thread so feel free to open another thread and discuss your idea there. Off-topic.

So, you discuss these things SOME times, and you even START these discussions SOME times but when we delve into them and SEE that they are ILLOGICAL you turn to the "off topic" remark, and ONLY when you think that is suits you.

Off-topic.

No, you need a proof. Why our physical universe is infinite?

WHY THEE Universe is infinite is because of WHAT EXACTLY the Universe is, fundamentally, made up of AND because of HOW THEE Universe, actually, works.

There IS thee PROOF.

That is not a proof.

Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of how even when thee ACTUAL evidence AND proof is provided to someone, then they will NOT accept thee ACTUAL PROOF when they BELIEVE otherwise.

Even what thee WHOLE Universe actually consists of and even how thee Universe ACTUALLY works, this, to some, is NOT enough proof, for them.

This we already discussed. When there are options in the system then there is a conflict of interest.

SO WHAT?

Cause AND effect IS CONTINUOUS, no matter how many 'conflicts of interests' occur.

No, that is incorrect. I discussed this in this thread.

No this is incorrect. I discussed this in another thread.

[Age]

The volition is caused by the mind, the mind being an irreducible substance.

Is 'volition' absolutely free and uninfluenced or is 'it' caused and created by some thing else?

We have two type of decisions, conditional and free. Free decision independent of anything but mind.

BUT, you claim that 'mind' is a substance, and as such is therefore only existing because of preexisting conditions or because of cause and effect. Therefore, this 'mind' thingy, which you talk about here can NOT be independent and free as you claim here.

If 'mind' is a substance, then it is part of 'cause and effect', and if 'volition' is caused by the 'irreducible substance mind' thingy, then 'volition' is actually just another part of 'cause and effect'.

No, the mind cannot be caused since otherwise you end up with regress.

Here we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of how and where one will 'try to' say just about absolutely ANY thing in order to 'try to' "justify" their already obtained and currently held BELIEFS.

Not at all. They are part of the reality. You might like to read this.

So, if they are part of the so-called 'reality', then they 'pop into existence' EXACTLY like EVERY thing else does.

Yes.

So, your point is PROVED MOOT here.

Not when choice matters. Otherwise, things are fully deterministic.

But ALL choices can only be based upon deterministic factors anyway, obviously.

That is not correct. The chain of causality is like when you walk on a road. It is only one way that you can proceed. Options is like when the road forks. So you have to decide which way to take. Once you decide then everything becomes deterministic until you reach other options.

You OBVIOUSLY STILL have absolutely NO IDEA NOR CLUE AT ALL about FREE WILL, DETERMINISM, what thee Universe ACTUALLY IS, and who and what thee Universe is ACTUALLY dependent upon or not.

[bahman]

My reinforced second P1 included P3 of the first syllogism.

Did you understand what I said?

If you don't understand my point, then I have not understood yours.
You'll have to clarify your point.

Aren't you using the conclusion of the second argument as the premise of the first argument?

[bahman]

And how do you guess?

It was trial and error in the beginning. Accumulated knowledge however can refine the guess, but it is never certain unless you are omniscient.

Yes choices are caused by you through you knoweldge and the circumstances at the time.
QED determinism is true

Yes, unless you reach a point that knowledge cannot help you for example. Moreover, here we are talking about accepting knowledge. Knowledge is not the only factor in life though. One for example wants to rob a bank in spite of knowing that it is illegal.

[bahman]

But I have NEVER said that, and, by the way, I NEVER would say that.

I suggest that, from now on, you read the ACTUAL words that I say and write, and just use them ALONE.

That way you will NOT be SO Wrong regards your ASSUMPTION, as OFTEN as you are here.

So you don't think that the universe is infinite and eternal.

ONCE AGAIN we have ANOTHER completely AND utterly Wrong ASSUMPTION.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here even when I suggest that the people do NOT make absolutely ANY ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL and just read thee ACTUAL words that I write, they STILL go straight into ASSUMPTION 'mode', and STILL make the EXACT SAME mistakes and thus Wrong ASSUMPTIONS, ONCE MORE.

Can you answer my question instead of evading it?

If not, it is finite and has a beginning.

Well I do NOT, so there rest here is MOOT.

Again you don't understand simple logic.

What are you basing this so-called "fact" on, EXACTLY?

Contingency has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.

But, to you, there are 'minds' that create 'things' correct?

If this is correct, to you, and the Universe began, then what, EXACTLY, made the Universe begin?

Mind creates Qualia and not the whole universe.

Well 'what' or 'who', EXACTLY, created the WHOLE Universe?

Minds sustain the universe constantly.

OBVIOUSLY if the WHOLE Universe had a beginning some one or some thing HAD TO create It, correct?

The universe has a beginning but it does not mean that someone created it.

But ALL them just simply create, correct?

They create Qualia but they are not God, the creator of beginning.

Is God the creator of so-called 'beginning" or not?

This we have already discussed this. There is no God as the creator of the beginning.

This does not take away from the Fact that you have absolutely NO evidence AT ALL for your CLAIMS here, let alone have ANY ACTUAL PROOF. Nor, from just how much illogical nonsense you CLAIM here while 'trying' your hardest to back up and support those False, Wrong, and Incorrect CLAIMS of yours.

Besides this if you think discussing the Universe and how It exists and/or where It came from is "off topic" in a thread and topic about the 'Universe being contingent', then I think you will find that you are sadly very mistaken.

Off-topic.

As I just said, you are, SADLY, very mistaken.

No.

[bahman]

What does the word 'universe' actually mean or refer to, to you?

A collection of objects that are causally related.

Is there absolutely ANY object that is NOT causally related?

If yes, then 'what', EXACTLY?

If there are objects that are not causally related then they belong to another universe.

1. The size and dimension of this one and ONLY Universe.

What is the size and dimension of our universe?

Infinite.

Were you under some sort of ASSUMPTION or ILLUSION that It could be smaller or finite?

If yes, then 'what', EXACTLY, would lead you to such a PRESUMPTION as this?

2. EXACTLY what the word 'Universe' refers to.

What is the definition of the universe to you?

TOTALITY, Everything, or ALL-THERE-IS.

That is the point that we have different opinions about the definition of our universe.

You NEVER mentioned that here. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, by your OWN words here.

We discussed it in another thread.

I discussed in another thread that if some galaxies are coming closer together, then where, EXACTLY, is the expansion taking place.

So, you discuss these things SOME times, and you even START these discussions SOME times but when we delve into them and SEE that they are ILLOGICAL you turn to the "off topic" remark, and ONLY when you think that is suits you.

Off-topic.

WHY THEE Universe is infinite is because of WHAT EXACTLY the Universe is, fundamentally, made up of AND because of HOW THEE Universe, actually, works.

There IS thee PROOF.

That is not a proof.

Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of how even when thee ACTUAL evidence AND proof is provided to someone, then they will NOT accept thee ACTUAL PROOF when they BELIEVE otherwise.

Even what thee WHOLE Universe actually consists of and even how thee Universe ACTUALLY works, this, to some, is NOT enough proof, for them.

Feel free to believe that that is a proof.

[bahman]

Is 'volition' absolutely free and uninfluenced or is 'it' caused and created by some thing else?

We have two type of decisions, conditional and free. Free decision independent of anything but mind.

BUT, you claim that 'mind' is a substance, and as such is therefore only existing because of preexisting conditions or because of cause and effect. Therefore, this 'mind' thingy, which you talk about here can NOT be independent and free as you claim here.

No, mind is a substance that cannot be caused. It is the uncaused cause.

If 'mind' is a substance, then it is part of 'cause and effect', and if 'volition' is caused by the 'irreducible substance mind' thingy, then 'volition' is actually just another part of 'cause and effect'.

No, the mind cannot be caused since otherwise you end up with regress.

Here we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of how and where one will 'try to' say just about absolutely ANY thing in order to 'try to' "justify" their already obtained and currently held BELIEFS.

I am done with you.

So, if they are part of the so-called 'reality', then they 'pop into existence' EXACTLY like EVERY thing else does.

Yes.

So, your point is PROVED MOOT here.

But ALL choices can only be based upon deterministic factors anyway, obviously.

That is not correct. The chain of causality is like when you walk on a road. It is only one way that you can proceed. Options is like when the road forks. So you have to decide which way to take. Once you decide then everything becomes deterministic until you reach other options.

You OBVIOUSLY STILL have absolutely NO IDEA NOR CLUE AT ALL about FREE WILL, DETERMINISM, what thee Universe ACTUALLY IS, and who and what thee Universe is ACTUALLY dependent upon or not.

You have no idea what I am talking about.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Did you understand what I said?

If you don't understand my point, then I have not understood yours.
You'll have to clarify your point.

Aren't you using the conclusion of the second argument as the premise of the first argument?

Note,

First Argument
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.

2nd Argument
1. Reality as all-there-is cannot be independent of human minds. [P3 1st argument]
2. Animals' mind are part and parcel of reality.
3. Therefore animals' mind cannot be independent [so are contingent] of human minds.

My first argument is fully incorporated in P1 of the 2nd Argument.

[bahman]

If you don't understand my point, then I have not understood yours.
You'll have to clarify your point.

Aren't you using the conclusion of the second argument as the premise of the first argument?

Note,

First Argument
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.

2nd Argument
1. Reality as all-there-is cannot be independent of human minds. [P3 1st argument]
2. Animals' mind are part and parcel of reality.
3. Therefore animals' mind cannot be independent [so are contingent] of human minds.

My first argument is fully incorporated in P1 of the 2nd Argument.

P3 in the first argument is different from P1 in the second argument.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Aren't you using the conclusion of the second argument as the premise of the first argument?

Note,

First Argument
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 [as all-there-is].

2nd Argument
1. Reality as all-there-is cannot be independent of human minds. [P3 1st argument]
1a. The human mind cannot be independent for whatever things are in reality [as all-there-is]
2. Animals' mind are part and parcel of reality.
3. Therefore animals' mind cannot be independent [so are contingent] of human minds.

My first argument is fully incorporated in P1 of the 2nd Argument.

P3 in the first argument is different from P1 in the second argument.

Note my bolded above which is implied.
I have also included the same premise 3 of 1st argument as 1a in the second.

So P3 in the first argument is the same as P1 in the second argument.

[Age]

So you don't think that the universe is infinite and eternal.

ONCE AGAIN we have ANOTHER completely AND utterly Wrong ASSUMPTION.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here even when I suggest that the people do NOT make absolutely ANY ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL and just read thee ACTUAL words that I write, they STILL go straight into ASSUMPTION 'mode', and STILL make the EXACT SAME mistakes and thus Wrong ASSUMPTIONS, ONCE MORE.

Can you answer my question instead of evading it?

But you NEVER asked a question here. What you did here, instead, was just make a statement and claim. As can be CLEARLY SEEN, EVIDENCED, and PROVED True by the ACTUAL words you used.

If you provide A question, then I CAN answer it.

Also, considering the ACTUAL AMOUNT of times that you do NOT answer my ACTUAL questions posed to you, your clarifying question here appears very obtuse.

If not, it is finite and has a beginning.

Well I do NOT, so there rest here is MOOT.

Again you don't understand simple logic.

LOL "bahman".

Contingency has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.


Mind creates Qualia and not the whole universe.

Well 'what' or 'who', EXACTLY, created the WHOLE Universe?

Minds sustain the universe constantly.

Will you answer my question instead of evading it?

And, who or what creates ALL of these "minds".

OBVIOUSLY if the WHOLE Universe had a beginning some one or some thing HAD TO create It, correct?

The universe has a beginning but it does not mean that someone created it.

I NEVER said someone created It. In fact I NEVER even suggested that someone created It.

I just asked you ANOTHER question, which, by the way, you did NOT answer and just 'tried to' evade, ONCE MORE.

They create Qualia but they are not God, the creator of beginning.

Is God the creator of so-called 'beginning" or not?

This we have already discussed this. There is no God as the creator of the beginning.

Off-topic.

As I just said, you are, SADLY, very mistaken.

No.

As spoken like a REAL human being.

[Age]

A collection of objects that are causally related.

Is there absolutely ANY object that is NOT causally related?

If yes, then 'what', EXACTLY?

If there are objects that are not causally related then they belong to another universe.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ANOTHER question that you will NOT answer, but will just evade.

Also, by your EVASIVE tactics, what this ACTUALLY means is that absolutely EVERY thing, to "bahman", belongs in and exists within this Universe. Which MEANS that this Universe is thee One and ONLY Universe.

What is the size and dimension of our universe?

Infinite.

Were you under some sort of ASSUMPTION or ILLUSION that It could be smaller or finite?

If yes, then 'what', EXACTLY, would lead you to such a PRESUMPTION as this?

What is the definition of the universe to you?

TOTALITY, Everything, or ALL-THERE-IS.

That is the point that we have different opinions about the definition of our universe.

OBVIOUSLY. This was ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY CLEAR from the VERY OUTSET.

In fact just about EVERY 'dispute' and 'argument' 'you', human beings, have been put down to just having DIFFERENT definitions and/or views of 'things'.

But anyway, from what you above here in this response, you also define and CLAIM this Universe is thee ONLY One as It, to you, is made up of, and consists of, EVERY thing.

We discussed it in another thread.

I discussed in another thread that if some galaxies are coming closer together, then where, EXACTLY, is the expansion taking place.

Off-topic.


That is not a proof.

Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of how even when thee ACTUAL evidence AND proof is provided to someone, then they will NOT accept thee ACTUAL PROOF when they BELIEVE otherwise.

Even what thee WHOLE Universe actually consists of and even how thee Universe ACTUALLY works, this, to some, is NOT enough proof, for them.

Feel free to believe that that is a proof.

But I do NOT believe ANY such thing.

Besides being BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS you are also completely and utterly DEAF, AS WELL. Especially considering just how MANY TIMES I have INFORMED you of this Fact.

[Age]

We have two type of decisions, conditional and free. Free decision independent of anything but mind.

BUT, you claim that 'mind' is a substance, and as such is therefore only existing because of preexisting conditions or because of cause and effect. Therefore, this 'mind' thingy, which you talk about here can NOT be independent and free as you claim here.

No, mind is a substance that cannot be caused. It is the uncaused cause.

WHY can this, SUPPOSED and ALLEGED, "substance", which you OBVIOUSLY have absolutely NO idea NOR clue about AT ALL, can NOT be, SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY "caused"?

Do you have ANY ACTUAL 'evidence', let alone 'proof' for this CLAIM of yours here?

Or, is this just ANOTHER one of YOUR CLAIMS, which you just made up out of NOTHING, just because you feel and think that it will somehow fit in with your CURRENT BELIEFS.

No, the mind cannot be caused since otherwise you end up with regress.

Here we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of how and where one will 'try to' say just about absolutely ANY thing in order to 'try to' "justify" their already obtained and currently held BELIEFS.

I am done with you.

You have said and CLAIMED this previously, but here you are STILL 'doing', with me.

Yes.

So, your point is PROVED MOOT here.

That is not correct. The chain of causality is like when you walk on a road. It is only one way that you can proceed. Options is like when the road forks. So you have to decide which way to take. Once you decide then everything becomes deterministic until you reach other options.

You OBVIOUSLY STILL have absolutely NO IDEA NOR CLUE AT ALL about FREE WILL, DETERMINISM, what thee Universe ACTUALLY IS, and who and what thee Universe is ACTUALLY dependent upon or not.

You have no idea what I am talking about.

And this is NOT for TRYING.

I have asked you that many CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which if you had answered, instead of evaded, then I would have at least SOME clue as to what you are meant to be actually talking about here.