Our universe is contingent

[Sculptor]

Our universe is contingent

"Contingent"
1. subject to chance.
2. occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.

ONE
I cannot see how the universe is subject to chance. The universe is what it is there is no room for more. God does not play dice.
TWO
Since the universe, by defintion all that exists, then it cannot depned on anything else since there is nothing else outiside the universe.

The whole thread is a waste of time.

[Age]

The mind cannot be created since otherwise, you need something that creates the mind, etc. and this leads to a regress.

Okay. So, to you, the 'mind' can NOT be created, and is therefore eternal. But, the Universe is created, and thus began and is finite.

Yes, mind is not created. No, mind is not eternal in the sense that it existed in the infinite past. It exists since the beginning of time.

But 'what' created EVERY thing, including 'time' and the 'mind', since the beginning of 'EVERY things, including time's and mind's, creation?

And, if the 'mind' can NOT be created, but is NOT eternal, then how do you EXPLAIN this OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION?

The universe is not created either. It started to exist at the beginning of time.

It started from 'what', EXACTLY?

And, what was the PROOF, EXACTLY, that the Universe, the 'mind', and EVERY thing else, including time, itself, started with the "beginning of time"?

Also, could ANY or ALL of this be Incorrect and thee ACTUAL Truth be somehow DIFFERENT in some way? Or, is this just NOT POSSIBLE?

Now, you say and claim that the 'mind' is NOT created but yet there are MANY 'minds', and that ALL of these MANY 'minds' are made up of 'substance', correct?

Mind is a substance.

Which the substance only came into existence at the beginning of Existence, correct?

And, how is this substance only passed onto or shared among some things?

Also, how MANY 'minds' are there, EXACTLY?

And, if the 'mind' is NEEDED to create things, then HOW could things like 'time', the Universe, and EVERY thing be created if the 'mind', itself, did NOT even exist BEFORE ALL of these things came into Existence?

I have another proof for the existence of the mind which is off-topic.

What were your 'prior' proof or proofs, for the existence of 'mind'? And then,

If there is no mind then there is a regress in causality.

WHY?

But, to you, there is NO regress in causality because you just say, "It ALL began", including 'mind', and therefore, to you, ALL-OF-THIS is 'resolved'.

Also, if you REALLY can NOT YET SEE that if 'mind' creates EVERY thing but 'mind' does NOT exist prior to the so-called "beginning", then what you said here is PURE ABSURD ILLOGICALITY, then I am NOT sure that 'you' EVER WILL.

What is your "other" proof, for the existence of 'mind'?

You can find it in here

But in that post of yours you say that "the mind is immortal", which that obviously could mean 'everlasting' or 'eternal', which OBVIOUSLY CONTRADICTS
your claim that the 'mind' is NOT eternal. So, how do you define the word 'immortal'?

You also claim that ANY thing that is subject to change requires a 'mind'. But OBVIOUSLY for the so-called "beginning" to be subject to change, then a 'mind' would be needed. But, also according to you the 'mind' did NOT exist prior to the so-called "beginning", which would OBVIOUSLY be subject to change, and would have IN FACT been CHANGE, ITSELF.

So, what you are essentially saying and CLAIMING here is that there was NOTHING (or NO thing) and then there was JUST SUDDENLY SOMETHING (or EVERY thing).

Are you at all ABLE to explain how this could even logically be a POSSIBILITY?

You are better to read your own question.

Considering 'I' wrote my OWN question, 'I' have read it. And, in that question there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that suggests that someone created the WHOLE Universe, Itself.

Now, if you would like to continue disputing this Fact, then please go ahead.

I am more than willing to PROVIDE thee PROOF that CLEARLY SHOWS that I NEVER even suggested that someone created thee Universe, Itself.

I will also be able to SHOW just HOW and WHY 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, were so QUICK to JUMP to making ASSUMPTIONS, and to arriving to CONCLUSIONS, and that 'you' would do this BEFORE absolutely ANY CLARIFICATION was made FIRST. Which is what led 'you', human beings, to ALL of your MISUNDERSTANDINGS and Wrong CONCLUSIONS.

Ok, so we are in the same page.

If you say so. But what 'page' is that, EXACTLY?

[Age]

Yes,

Usually when someone uses the word, 'Yes', after someone else has spoken, this implies an agreement. Which would mean that you AGREE that there is One and ONLY One Universe. Yet, after your 'Yes', you go on and say:

there are universes that are causally not related to our universe, what we physically observe.

Which TOTALLY CONTRADICTS your 'Yes'.

Now, either you could have said, 'Yes', to some 'thing' that I have absolutely NO clue NOR idea about AT ALL. Or, you could have just said, 'Yes', for the sake of saying, 'Yes', and for NO other reason. If you have ANY inkling AT ALL about being Truly UNDERSTOOD here, then you WILL CLARIFY things for us here. Otherwise, you will just EVADE this AS WELL.

ONCE AGAIN, I will note YOUR use of the word "our" in relation to 'universe', your PRESUMPTION that absolutely EVERY thing, IMMEDIATELY, beyond what 'you', human beings', (or what some other things) 'physically observe' are in some OTHER so-called "universes", and that ALL of those things are, in some Truly ILLOGICAL way, NOT causally related to 'this universe".

I will now NOT even ask you to answer and explain how, EXACTLY, could this even be LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, let alone AN ACTUALITY.

I mean the observable universe that we experience is not the whole.

OF COURSE what 'you', human beings, observe and/or experience is OBVIOUSLY NOT the whole.

Is there ANY one who would even think that only those things that they experience is the whole?

But are you here just 'trying to' DEFLECT from what you ACTUALLY said and wrote above in regards to 'that' what is beyond what you observe is NOT able to causally relate to what is observed?

No.

So, you say some thing, which I REPEAT, but then you say, 'No'.

And, from past conversations with 'you', "bahman", you are NOT able to EXPLAIN the OBVIOUS and BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS here, correct?

The whole is one. Our universe, the matter that we experience is not the only one since there are matter outside of the observable universe that we cannot experience.

So, who and/or what does the 'our' word refer to, EXACTLY, and what, EXACTLY, separates the matter beyond what 'you' experience from 'that' what 'you' do experience and what you VERY SADLY call and refer to as "our universe"?

[Age]

A simple example is the matter that exists beyond the observable universe.

So, when "bahman" is looking out into the Universe, on a bright cloudless sunny day, ALL of the stars, planets, moons, meteorites, dust, et cetera, besides of course for the sun and the earth, themselves, are ALL in "OTHER" "universes", correct?

If this is NOT correct, then WHY NOT, and WHAT IS, EXACTLY?

No, we cannot observe the stuff beyond the observable universe.

And, OBVIOUSLY, you can NOT observe ANY stuff beyond the sun and the earth on a cloudless sunny day. So, to you, the 'observable universe' on a cloudless day is NOT the SAME 'universe' as on a cloudless night.

Which is a GREAT WAY to envision that what is seen as the so-called "observable universe" to EACH or EVERY one of 'you', human beings, throughout ANY time, is ONLY a PART of ALL-THERE-IS.

And, there is NO separation ANYWHERE.

So, the word 'Universe' means or refers to ALL-THERE-IS, TOTALITY, or Everything, and thee OBVIOUSLY One and ONLY Universe MUST BE and HAS TO BE infinite in 'size', and eternal in 'time'.

This can NOT be REFUTED, no matter how hard, nor how many times, 'you', human beings, 'try to' REFUTE this Fact.

[Age]

There is no reason to believe that the universe abruptly vanishes at the edge of the observable universe.

But what is the reason to believe that ANY thing past the 'observable universe' does NOT causally relate (nor causally interact) with the 'observable (to human beings) universe'?

Because they move at a speed faster than the speed of light.

How do you KNOW this?

And, "they", whatever they are, supposedly, move at a speed faster than the speed of light in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

So even the light from this star can never reach us. Therefore the observable universe is causally independent of the whole.

To me, you sometimes come up with the most RIDICULOUS wording, which does NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW, AT ALL.

What, EXACTLY, is 'this star', which the light of can, supposedly, NEVER reach us? And, who is 'us' here?

Your CONCLUSION is like saying, the sight of the internal knee cap can never reach 'us', the eyes. Therefore, the observable human body is causally independent of the whole, human body. Which is OBVIOUSLY RIDICULOUS, and ILLOGICAL.

If there is some star, of which the light has NOT YET reached 'you', personally, then:

1. How do you KNOW that "that star" even ACTUALLY EXISTS. And,

2. How does it LOGICALLY FOLLOW that 'that star' is completely and utterly independent from the rest of thee Universe?

The whole is infinite whereas the observable universe is finite.

And, to quite few many people, the 'whole' is also known as 'the Universe'. As the word 'Universe' infers and entails Everything.

Also, one can 'see' with the physical eyes, and brain, OR, they can SEE (or UNDERSTAND) with the Mind's EYE, thee Truly OPEN Mind.

So, what is 'observable,' to some, with the physical eyes is OBVIOUSLY 'finite'. But, what is OBSERVABLE, to "others", with the Truly OPEN Mind is ACTUALLY 'infinite', and CRYSTAL CLEAR I will add.

SEE, because of the limitations of the physical eyes, and the brain, what is observed, and seen, with them can be and IS DISTORTED. However, because there are absolutely NO limitations of the Mind's EYE, and the Truly OPEN Mind, what is observed, AND SEEN, with IT can NOT be and is NOT DISTORTED.

Nonsense. You better to educate yourself a bit. You need to read this.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just HOW these people, in those days, were just NOT READY nor ABLE to LOOK AT and SEE things, from thee Truly OPEN perspective YET.

By the way, what PART EXACTLY is, SUPPOSEDLY, "nonsense"?

And, if you say, "All of it", then you will have to ELABORATE, otherwise your CLAIM is ACTUALLY PURE NONSENSE.

By the way, NO one HAS TO read what the 'observable universe' is to educate "them" 'self' that the words 'observable universe' just refers to and means that part of thee Universe that 'you', human beings, can observe at ANY given moment, in no matter what period of the human history one is LOOKING FROM.

For example, OBVIOUSLY, the 'observable universe' continually becomes BIGGER the BETTER the instruments are, which human beings are continually inventing and creating to LOOK, and SEE, further AND FURTHER.

[Skepdick]

A simple example is the matter that exists beyond the observable universe.

What has caused you to believe that matter exists beyond the observable universe?

There is no reason to believe that the universe abruptly vanishes at the edge of the observable universe. The whole is infinite whereas the observable universe is finite.

What does any of that have to do with causality?

If any matter exists "beyond" that which you can observe then such matter has no causal effect on your observations.

If it cannot cause you to observe it - why do you think it's there?

[bahman]

Our universe is contingent

"Contingent"
1. subject to chance.
2. occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.

ONE
I cannot see how the universe is subject to chance. The universe is what it is there is no room for more. God does not play dice.
TWO
Since the universe, by defintion all that exists, then it cannot depned on anything else since there is nothing else outiside the universe.

The whole thread is a waste of time.

Even if the physical observable universe was the whole, the whole is internally subject to change.

[bahman]

Okay. So, to you, the 'mind' can NOT be created, and is therefore eternal. But, the Universe is created, and thus began and is finite.

Yes, mind is not created. No, mind is not eternal in the sense that it existed in the infinite past. It exists since the beginning of time.

But 'what' created EVERY thing, including 'time' and the 'mind', since the beginning of 'EVERY things, including time's and mind's, creation?

And, if the 'mind' can NOT be created, but is NOT eternal, then how do you EXPLAIN this OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION?

There is no contradiction. Mind simply exists. But since time has a beginning then mind exist since the beginning of time.

The universe is not created either. It started to exist at the beginning of time.

It started from 'what', EXACTLY?

Either from nothing or it simply exist at the beginning.

And, what was the PROOF, EXACTLY, that the Universe, the 'mind', and EVERY thing else, including time, itself, started with the "beginning of time"?

The proof for the existence of mind is separate. Time and other stuff exists since beginning since the regress is not acceptable.

Also, could ANY or ALL of this be Incorrect and thee ACTUAL Truth be somehow DIFFERENT in some way? Or, is this just NOT POSSIBLE?

No, What I am saying is accurate.

Now, you say and claim that the 'mind' is NOT created but yet there are MANY 'minds', and that ALL of these MANY 'minds' are made up of 'substance', correct?

Mind is a substance.

Which the substance only came into existence at the beginning of Existence, correct?

It didn't come to exist since the beginning of time. It exists since the beginning of time.

And, how is this substance only passed onto or shared among some things?

Also, how MANY 'minds' are there, EXACTLY?

Many, probably infinite.

And, if the 'mind' is NEEDED to create things, then HOW could things like 'time', the Universe, and EVERY thing be created if the 'mind', itself, did NOT even exist BEFORE ALL of these things came into Existence?

Mind exist since the beginning of time. It didn't come to existence though.

What were your 'prior' proof or proofs, for the existence of 'mind'? And then,

If there is no mind then there is a regress in causality.

WHY?

There is an argument from change that explains that.

But, to you, there is NO regress in causality because you just say, "It ALL began", including 'mind', and therefore, to you, ALL-OF-THIS is 'resolved'.

Mind didn't begin to exist.

Also, if you REALLY can NOT YET SEE that if 'mind' creates EVERY thing but 'mind' does NOT exist prior to the so-called "beginning", then what you said here is PURE ABSURD ILLOGICALITY, then I am NOT sure that 'you' EVER WILL.

Prior to beginning could not exist.

What is your "other" proof, for the existence of 'mind'?

You can find it in here

But in that post of yours you say that "the mind is immortal", which that obviously could mean 'everlasting' or 'eternal', which OBVIOUSLY CONTRADICTS
your claim that the 'mind' is NOT eternal. So, how do you define the word 'immortal'?

Mind being immortal does not mean that it is eternal. We cannot reach infinity but we don't die also.

You also claim that ANY thing that is subject to change requires a 'mind'. But OBVIOUSLY for the so-called "beginning" to be subject to change, then a 'mind' would be needed. But, also according to you the 'mind' did NOT exist prior to the so-called "beginning", which would OBVIOUSLY be subject to change, and would have IN FACT been CHANGE, ITSELF.

So, what you are essentially saying and CLAIMING here is that there was NOTHING (or NO thing) and then there was JUST SUDDENLY SOMETHING (or EVERY thing).

Are you at all ABLE to explain how this could even logically be a POSSIBILITY?

Either there was noting but mind at the beginning or there was something and mind at the beggining.

Considering 'I' wrote my OWN question, 'I' have read it. And, in that question there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that suggests that someone created the WHOLE Universe, Itself.

Now, if you would like to continue disputing this Fact, then please go ahead.

I am more than willing to PROVIDE thee PROOF that CLEARLY SHOWS that I NEVER even suggested that someone created thee Universe, Itself.

I will also be able to SHOW just HOW and WHY 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, were so QUICK to JUMP to making ASSUMPTIONS, and to arriving to CONCLUSIONS, and that 'you' would do this BEFORE absolutely ANY CLARIFICATION was made FIRST. Which is what led 'you', human beings, to ALL of your MISUNDERSTANDINGS and Wrong CONCLUSIONS.

Ok, so we are in the same page.

If you say so. But what 'page' is that, EXACTLY?

This page contains these comments.

[bahman]

Usually when someone uses the word, 'Yes', after someone else has spoken, this implies an agreement. Which would mean that you AGREE that there is One and ONLY One Universe. Yet, after your 'Yes', you go on and say:



Which TOTALLY CONTRADICTS your 'Yes'.

Now, either you could have said, 'Yes', to some 'thing' that I have absolutely NO clue NOR idea about AT ALL. Or, you could have just said, 'Yes', for the sake of saying, 'Yes', and for NO other reason. If you have ANY inkling AT ALL about being Truly UNDERSTOOD here, then you WILL CLARIFY things for us here. Otherwise, you will just EVADE this AS WELL.

ONCE AGAIN, I will note YOUR use of the word "our" in relation to 'universe', your PRESUMPTION that absolutely EVERY thing, IMMEDIATELY, beyond what 'you', human beings', (or what some other things) 'physically observe' are in some OTHER so-called "universes", and that ALL of those things are, in some Truly ILLOGICAL way, NOT causally related to 'this universe".

I will now NOT even ask you to answer and explain how, EXACTLY, could this even be LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, let alone AN ACTUALITY.

I mean the observable universe that we experience is not the whole.

OF COURSE what 'you', human beings, observe and/or experience is OBVIOUSLY NOT the whole.

Is there ANY one who would even think that only those things that they experience is the whole?

But are you here just 'trying to' DEFLECT from what you ACTUALLY said and wrote above in regards to 'that' what is beyond what you observe is NOT able to causally relate to what is observed?

By observable universe I don't mean the stuff that we can experience due to the limitation of observation. It is the stuff that in principle can be observed. You cannot observe more, not matter how hard you try.

So, you say some thing, which I REPEAT, but then you say, 'No'.

And, from past conversations with 'you', "bahman", you are NOT able to EXPLAIN the OBVIOUS and BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS here, correct?

The whole is one. Our universe, the matter that we experience is not the only one since there are matter outside of the observable universe that we cannot experience.

So, who and/or what does the 'our' word refer to, EXACTLY, and what, EXACTLY, separates the matter beyond what 'you' experience from 'that' what 'you' do experience and what you VERY SADLY call and refer to as "our universe"?

I call whatever that we cannot experience as other universes. I call everything the whole.

[bahman]

So, when "bahman" is looking out into the Universe, on a bright cloudless sunny day, ALL of the stars, planets, moons, meteorites, dust, et cetera, besides of course for the sun and the earth, themselves, are ALL in "OTHER" "universes", correct?

If this is NOT correct, then WHY NOT, and WHAT IS, EXACTLY?

No, we cannot observe the stuff beyond the observable universe.

And, OBVIOUSLY, you can NOT observe ANY stuff beyond the sun and the earth on a cloudless sunny day. So, to you, the 'observable universe' on a cloudless day is NOT the SAME 'universe' as on a cloudless night.

Which is a GREAT WAY to envision that what is seen as the so-called "observable universe" to EACH or EVERY one of 'you', human beings, throughout ANY time, is ONLY a PART of ALL-THERE-IS.

And, there is NO separation ANYWHERE.

So, the word 'Universe' means or refers to ALL-THERE-IS, TOTALITY, or Everything, and thee OBVIOUSLY One and ONLY Universe MUST BE and HAS TO BE infinite in 'size', and eternal in 'time'.

This can NOT be REFUTED, no matter how hard, nor how many times, 'you', human beings, 'try to' REFUTE this Fact.

Have read this?

[Sculptor]

Our universe is contingent

"Contingent"
1. subject to chance.
2. occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.

ONE
I cannot see how the universe is subject to chance. The universe is what it is there is no room for more. God does not play dice.
TWO
Since the universe, by defintion all that exists, then it cannot depned on anything else since there is nothing else outiside the universe.

The whole thread is a waste of time.

Even if the physical observable universe was the whole, the whole is internally subject to change.

Exactly as I said. The contents of the universe are contingent upon each other. THe whole is NOT contingent upon anything.

[Sculptor]

No, we cannot observe the stuff beyond the observable universe.

And, OBVIOUSLY, you can NOT observe ANY stuff beyond the sun and the earth on a cloudless sunny day. So, to you, the 'observable universe' on a cloudless day is NOT the SAME 'universe' as on a cloudless night.

Which is a GREAT WAY to envision that what is seen as the so-called "observable universe" to EACH or EVERY one of 'you', human beings, throughout ANY time, is ONLY a PART of ALL-THERE-IS.

And, there is NO separation ANYWHERE.

So, the word 'Universe' means or refers to ALL-THERE-IS, TOTALITY, or Everything, and thee OBVIOUSLY One and ONLY Universe MUST BE and HAS TO BE infinite in 'size', and eternal in 'time'.

This can NOT be REFUTED, no matter how hard, nor how many times, 'you', human beings, 'try to' REFUTE this Fact.

Have read this?

This does not help you.

[bahman]

But what is the reason to believe that ANY thing past the 'observable universe' does NOT causally relate (nor causally interact) with the 'observable (to human beings) universe'?

Because they move at a speed faster than the speed of light.

How do you KNOW this?

Because the universe expands.

And, "they", whatever they are, supposedly, move at a speed faster than the speed of light in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

In respect to us.

So even the light from this star can never reach us. Therefore the observable universe is causally independent of the whole.

To me, you sometimes come up with the most RIDICULOUS wording, which does NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW, AT ALL.

What, EXACTLY, is 'this star', which the light of can, supposedly, NEVER reach us? And, who is 'us' here?

Your CONCLUSION is like saying, the sight of the internal knee cap can never reach 'us', the eyes. Therefore, the observable human body is causally independent of the whole, human body. Which is OBVIOUSLY RIDICULOUS, and ILLOGICAL.

If there is some star, of which the light has NOT YET reached 'you', personally, then:

1. How do you KNOW that "that star" even ACTUALLY EXISTS. And,

2. How does it LOGICALLY FOLLOW that 'that star' is completely and utterly independent from the rest of thee Universe?

Have you read this?

And, to quite few many people, the 'whole' is also known as 'the Universe'. As the word 'Universe' infers and entails Everything.

Also, one can 'see' with the physical eyes, and brain, OR, they can SEE (or UNDERSTAND) with the Mind's EYE, thee Truly OPEN Mind.

So, what is 'observable,' to some, with the physical eyes is OBVIOUSLY 'finite'. But, what is OBSERVABLE, to "others", with the Truly OPEN Mind is ACTUALLY 'infinite', and CRYSTAL CLEAR I will add.

SEE, because of the limitations of the physical eyes, and the brain, what is observed, and seen, with them can be and IS DISTORTED. However, because there are absolutely NO limitations of the Mind's EYE, and the Truly OPEN Mind, what is observed, AND SEEN, with IT can NOT be and is NOT DISTORTED.

Nonsense. You better to educate yourself a bit. You need to read this.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just HOW these people, in those days, were just NOT READY nor ABLE to LOOK AT and SEE things, from thee Truly OPEN perspective YET.

By the way, what PART EXACTLY is, SUPPOSEDLY, "nonsense"?

And, if you say, "All of it", then you will have to ELABORATE, otherwise your CLAIM is ACTUALLY PURE NONSENSE.

By the way, NO one HAS TO read what the 'observable universe' is to educate "them" 'self' that the words 'observable universe' just refers to and means that part of thee Universe that 'you', human beings, can observe at ANY given moment, in no matter what period of the human history one is LOOKING FROM.

For example, OBVIOUSLY, the 'observable universe' continually becomes BIGGER the BETTER the instruments are, which human beings are continually inventing and creating to LOOK, and SEE, further AND FURTHER.

No. The observable universe does not become bigger, the better the instrument we use. That is a physical limitation that cannot be prohibited.

[bahman]

What has caused you to believe that matter exists beyond the observable universe?

There is no reason to believe that the universe abruptly vanishes at the edge of the observable universe. The whole is infinite whereas the observable universe is finite.

What does any of that have to do with causality?

Because the forces which are the source of causality spread with the speed of light. So, the stuff beyond the observable universe is causally unrelated to us since the light or forces cannot reach us.

If any matter exists "beyond" that which you can observe then such matter has no causal effect on your observations.

If it cannot cause you to observe it - why do you think it's there?

Because the whole is infinite whereas the observable universe is finite.

[bahman]

Our universe is contingent

"Contingent"
1. subject to chance.
2. occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.

ONE
I cannot see how the universe is subject to chance. The universe is what it is there is no room for more. God does not play dice.
TWO
Since the universe, by defintion all that exists, then it cannot depned on anything else since there is nothing else outiside the universe.

The whole thread is a waste of time.

Even if the physical observable universe was the whole, the whole is internally subject to change.

Exactly as I said. The contents of the universe are contingent upon each other. THe whole is NOT contingent upon anything.

Do you become older when your parts become older?