Our universe is contingent

[Sculptor]

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?

Yes, I am part of the universe and so are my parts. THis changes nothing.
The universe can change as a whole uncontingently since it is all there is. There is nothing outside the universe so there is no contingency.
I am older but that is contingent on other parts of the universe.

[bahman]

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?

Yes, I am part of the universe and so are my parts. THis changes nothing.
The universe can change as a whole uncontingently since it is all there is. There is nothing outside the universe so there is no contingency.
I am older but that is contingent on other parts of the universe.

Suppose you only exist in the universe.

[Sculptor]

Do you become older when your parts become older?

Yes, I am part of the universe and so are my parts. THis changes nothing.
The universe can change as a whole uncontingently since it is all there is. There is nothing outside the universe so there is no contingency.
I am older but that is contingent on other parts of the universe.

Suppose you only exist in the universe.

Are you taking your meds?

[bahman]

Yes, I am part of the universe and so are my parts. THis changes nothing.
The universe can change as a whole uncontingently since it is all there is. There is nothing outside the universe so there is no contingency.
I am older but that is contingent on other parts of the universe.

Suppose you only exist in the universe.

Are you taking your meds?

No, I am serious. The whole is contingent on its parts. No part, no whole.

[Sculptor]

Suppose you only exist in the universe.

Are you taking your meds?

No, I am serious. The whole is contingent on its parts. No part, no whole.

Rubbish.

[bahman]

Are you taking your meds?

No, I am serious. The whole is contingent on its parts. No part, no whole.

Rubbish.

You know that I am right.

[Sculptor]

No, I am serious. The whole is contingent on its parts. No part, no whole.

Rubbish.

You know that I am right.

I am sure you think that.

[Age]

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.

EVERY thing 'simply exists', OBVIOUSLY.

But, IF, according to the "logic" of "bahman", absolutely NOTHING in the WHOLE Universe created the 'mind' BUT 'mind' is NOT eternal, then how in hell did the 'mind', and ALL of the other DIFFERENT and SEPARATE 'minds' come into existence? And, this is NOT even mentioning your OTHER CLAIM that NOTHING could even exist because ALL 'things' can NOT even exist without ALL of these 'minds', which somehow came to exist AFTER other 'things' were ALREADY in existence.

And, if there is NO 'contradiction' in there, there you are MORE BLIND than I first noticed.

But since time has a beginning then mind exist since the beginning of time.

This does NOT, and I will repeat DOES NOT 'logically' follow. As can be CLEARLY SEEN here.

Besides that Fact, there is absolutely NO proof AT ALL that the 'time', which you are 'trying to' reference and allude to here, could NOT, and I will repeat COULD NOT have 'a beginning', ANYWAY.

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.

How could absolutely ANY thing come from absolutely NO thing? And,

"at the beginning" of 'what', EXACTLY?

Also, if 'it' started at the beginning of time, then time also started at the beginning of 'it', correct?

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.

WHY do you ASSUME and BELIEVE that 'regress' is NOT acceptable?

What does 'regress' even mean or refer to, to you?

Can you REALLY NOT SEE just how STUPID and FOOLISH your words LOOK here?

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.

ONCE AGAIN, we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how BLIND and STUPID these adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, REALLY could be and WERE.

It would NOT matter how much they CONTRADICT "themselves", how much LACK OF ABILITY they had to CLARIFY or back up and support their CLAIMS and BELIEFS, those BELIEFS of theirs just completely and utterly BLINDED them to thee ACTUAL Truth and to REALITY, Itself.

What do you think or BELIEVE what you are saying is 'accurate' in relation to, EXACTLY?

Is it in relation to thee One and ONLY Truth or just in relation to what you think and BELIEVE is true?

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.

What is the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE?

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

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

Many, probably infinite.

So, there can, probably, be an infinite amount of 'minds', but there can NEVER be an eternal 'mind'. Yet, EVERY one of those probably, infinite amount of 'minds' ONLY ever exists since this so-called event of "the beginning of time".

Which is just MORE CONTRADICTIONS being placed onto your OTHER CONTRADICTIONS.

So, the so-called 'substance' of these, probably, infinite amount of 'minds', (which you do NOT know what it is, EXACTLY) exists since the so-called "beginning of time", BUT NOT BEFORE, and which could have come from absolutely NO thing AT ALL, but just "simply exists". Now, was this, probably, infinite amount of 'minds' existing at that moment of the so-called "beginning of time" or was there just one 'mind' and a, probably, infinite amount of 'minds' have grown out of that first 'one mind'?

Also, WHY did you NOT answer my clarifying question posed to you in relation to how is this, supposed, 'substance' passed on and shared among some things?

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.

Did you answer my clarifying question about what is the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE here, before?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Now, let us IMAGINE if this CLAIM of yours that absolute NO thing could exist if there was NO 'mind', and that 'mind' NEVER existed before or prior to this absolutely CONFUSING, ILLOGICAL, and so-called term, "since the beginning of time", then HOW could 'time' 'begin', 'come into existence', or 'simply exist' if 'mind' was NOT so-called "simply existing" then?

Or, from YOUR "accurate thinking and seeing" of 'things' did absolutely ALL 'things' just "simply exist" ALL AT ONCE?

If no, then what is the EXACT order of 'things', according to "bahman logic"?

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

WHY?

There is an argument from change that explains that.

Do you EVER wonder WHY NO one accepts and agrees with your arguments but you STILL go on to CLAIM that you have made up these arguments, which you CLAIM are true, right, accurate, and correct?

Also, what is 'that' argument that, supposedly, explains WHY if there is NO 'mind' then there is a regress in causality? Obviously, it would NOT be ANY of the so-called "arguments" that you have made up "yourself" because NONE of them explains HOW a 'mind' is NEEDED for ANY thing to exist BUT if there is NO 'mind', then there, somehow, is a regress in causality?

The absolutely OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION here just SHOWS that there could NEVER be an EXPLANATION for some 'thing' occurring that is an ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBILITY to occur, even by your OWN so-called "logic", "bahman".

You say and CLAIM that the 'mind' is NEEDED for ANY 'thing' to exist, BUT if there is NO 'mind', then causality, itself, just regresses.

For 'causality' to exist, or regress, 'things' are NEEDED, but you CLAIM that 'things' can ONLY exist if there IS a 'mind'. So, HOW, if there is NO 'mind', could 'things' causally 'regress'?

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.

And, to you 'mind' is neither eternal.

AND, you also CLAIM and say that what you say and CLAIM here is 'accurate' and NOT a 'contradiction', AT ALL.

Some, however, beg to differ.

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.

Thank you 'captain OBVIOUS'.

And, prior to ALL 'thing' existing, according to 'you' 'mind' is NEEDED, ALSO.

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.

I KNOW, and AGAIN, thank you 'captain OBVIOUS'.

I just asked you nicely to CLARIFY how you can OVERCOME the apparent and OBVIOUS 'contradiction' here.

And, to help you out THIS TIME, but do NOT expect it ALL the OTHER TIMES, to OVERCOME the seemingly OBVIOUS contradiction here all you had to say was 'immortal' may imply an 'eternalness' but one can still 'begin' and then last forever more, and be 'immortal', without necessarily having lasted forever in the past.

We cannot reach infinity but we don't die also.

Who and/or what, supposedly, does NOT die?

And, OF COURSE, 'you', finite human beings, could NOT reach 'infinity'.

ONLY 'I' can reach 'infinity'.

But neither of these STOPS 'you' from being ABLE to SEE and UNDERSTAND 'infinity', Itself, nor SEE and UNDERSTAND that what you have been CLAIMING is accurate and NOT contradictory is ACTUALLY NOT accurate at all and very contradictory, to say the least.

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.

Just out of CURIOSITY, WHY do you INSIST that there MUST HAVE BEEN "a beginning"?

Besides the Fact that there is OBVIOUSLY absolutely NO 'logical explanation' for how such a thing could even be a POSSIBILITY to occur, let alone to be AN ACTUALITY, there is ALSO the Fact that there is ABSOLUTELY NO 'need' AT ALL for such a thing to even occur.

So, AGAIN, WHY do some of 'you', human beings, PERSIST with this MOST ILLOGICAL, ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, STUPID, AND FOOLISH ASSUMPTION and idea?

Ok, so we are in the same page.

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

This page contains these comments.

You STILL can NOT even respond to just this one ACCURATELY and CORRECTLY.

OF COURSE "this page contains these comments". BUT, what 'page' are you referring to, EXACTLY?

If it is, "This page, 'which' contains these comments", then just SAY SO. But if 'it' is some thing else, then ALSO just SAY SO.

Also, if it is 'this page', which contains these comments', then HOW EXACTLY are 'we', supposedly, on "the same page"? When quite a lot of 'you', adult human beings, make the claim, "we are on the same page", then this sometimes refers to thinking or seeing the 'same things'. Which, from what I take from 'these writing' on 'this page', or 'in this response' here, we are VERY FAR from thinking or seeing the 'same things'.

[Age]

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.

WHY do you say things, which CONTRADICT what you have previously said or which you are 'trying to' argue for?

[Age]

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.

I seriously HOPE that when I POINT OUT that this is ANOTHER clearly obvious CONTRADICTION, that you will NOT, also again, say and CLAIM that, "No it is not".

You cannot observe more, not matter how hard you try.

Yes you can, and actually in two ways:

1. When you LOOK FROM thee Truly OPEN Mind, and NOT just from one's own ALREADY gained perspective of things.

2. When you just build better telescopes and so you can see further and thus obviously observe more.

WHY do you think the Universe is continually, apparently, getting larger, spatially and temporally, along with the advancement and progression of better observing technologies?

Did you think that it was just a coincidence that the distances of the Universe just got bigger and longer along with the ability to see and observe further and more?

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.

So, what we have here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just HOW shallow, closed, narrowed, and egotistical the adult human being REALLY was, back in those days when this was being written. Some of them, as exampled here, ACTUALLY BELIEVED that it was only what 'it' could observe and experience which was important, and all that REALLY MATTERED. They also ACTUALLY that all of 'that' was "theirs" as well, as though they has some sort of OWNERSHIP over 'it' somehow, and that EVERY thing else was "just some thing else", and "others", and did NOT belong in their OWN 'little world' and 'very narrowed view of things'.

There were, literally, NOT ABLE to SEE the big and whole Truth of 'things' because of their OWN making up of such very narrowed, short-sighted, and CLOSED view of 'things'.

[Age]

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?

Yes, what about it?

Have you read it yet?

[Age]

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

How do you KNOW this?

Because the universe expands.

But this is ONLY what you have been TOLD is true, and which you now BELIEVE, is true.

But there is NO ACTUAL PROOF for this CLAIM, AT ALL.

And, considering what the Universe ACTUALLY IS, it is an IMPOSSIBILITY anyway to expand.

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.

But, if I moved 'us' (whatever or whoever that ACTUALLY IS) to, lets say, for example, a position 13 billion light years away from earth, then the 'observable universe' would look VERY DIFFERENT to 'you' and so the now so-called "our universe" would be VERY DIFFERENT, and what 'you' had previously classed and called "our universe" you would now be 'trying to' CLAIM is NOT "our universe" AT ALL, and those OTHER 'things' do NOT causally relate nor interact with "our universe". Which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, is a VERY NARROWED and SHORT-SIGHTED way of LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things'.

LOOK, it is THIS SIMPLE, the word 'Universe' just refers to ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing joined, or united, together as One, which is, literally, literally just Everything, or the WHOLE. Which, by the way, there can NEVER be a separation ANYWHERE in this WHOLE, including in those little 'separate universes', which 'you', human beings, dream up and then imagine exist.

In other words, what is just observable to, and known by, 'you', tiny and insignificant little animal creature, called and known by as, 'the human being', is relatively just about nothing compared to what REALLY EXISTS.

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?

Yes, WHY?

Have you?

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.

So, to you, the size of the so-called 'observable universe' is the EXACT SAME to 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, as it was to 'the', human beings, in say two million years prior to when this was being written, and that size will be the EXACT SAME in say two million years, from when this was being written, to 'those', correct?

Also, no matter what period 'you', human beings, live 'you' use phrases like, "a physical limitation that cannot be prohibited", which is REALLY just an EXCUSE for 'your' OWN limitations of NOT YET KNOWING what is beyond what 'you', human beings, can observe and/or imagine/fathom.

[Age]

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?

When, and if, you EVER learn and understand FULLY what the 'you' IS, EXACTLY, then the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you had been previously ASSUMING will be DISCOVERED.

[jayjacobus]

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?

When, and if, you EVER learn and understand FULLY what the 'you' IS, EXACTLY, then the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you had been previously ASSUMING will be DISCOVERED.

Descartes wrote, "I think therefore I am."

The exact opposite is "I think therefore I don't exist."

[bahman]

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.

EVERY thing 'simply exists', OBVIOUSLY.

Mind is not contingent but the rest is contingent.

But, IF, according to the "logic" of "bahman", absolutely NOTHING in the WHOLE Universe created the 'mind' BUT 'mind' is NOT eternal, then how in hell did the 'mind', and ALL of the other DIFFERENT and SEPARATE 'minds' come into existence? And, this is NOT even mentioning your OTHER CLAIM that NOTHING could even exist because ALL 'things' can NOT even exist without ALL of these 'minds', which somehow came to exist AFTER other 'things' were ALREADY in existence.

And, if there is NO 'contradiction' in there, there you are MORE BLIND than I first noticed.

Mind simply exists since the beginning of time but it is not contingent. If you cannot understand this then I cannot help you.

But since time has a beginning then mind exist since the beginning of time.

This does NOT, and I will repeat DOES NOT 'logically' follow. As can be CLEARLY SEEN here.

It does follow.

Besides that Fact, there is absolutely NO proof AT ALL that the 'time', which you are 'trying to' reference and allude to here, could NOT, and I will repeat COULD NOT have 'a beginning', ANYWAY.

I am not going to discuss this with you again.

It started from 'what', EXACTLY?

Either from nothing or it simply exist at the beginning.

How could absolutely ANY thing come from absolutely NO thing? And,

Off-topic.

"at the beginning" of 'what', EXACTLY?

The beginning of time.

Also, if 'it' started at the beginning of time, then time also started at the beginning of 'it', correct?

Yes.

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.

WHY do you ASSUME and BELIEVE that 'regress' is NOT acceptable?

What does 'regress' even mean or refer to, to you?

Can you REALLY NOT SEE just how STUPID and FOOLISH your words LOOK here?

I am not going to discuss the regress with you anymore since you cannot understand the obvious.

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.

ONCE AGAIN, we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how BLIND and STUPID these adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, REALLY could be and WERE.

It would NOT matter how much they CONTRADICT "themselves", how much LACK OF ABILITY they had to CLARIFY or back up and support their CLAIMS and BELIEFS, those BELIEFS of theirs just completely and utterly BLINDED them to thee ACTUAL Truth and to REALITY, Itself.

What do you think or BELIEVE what you are saying is 'accurate' in relation to, EXACTLY?

Is it in relation to thee One and ONLY Truth or just in relation to what you think and BELIEVE is true?

How could you judge me if you have tons of questions and when my position is not clear for you yet?

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.

What is the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE?

The difference is that in former mind did not exist at the beginning of time and then come to exist whereas in later mind exist at 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.

So, there can, probably, be an infinite amount of 'minds', but there can NEVER be an eternal 'mind'. Yet, EVERY one of those probably, infinite amount of 'minds' ONLY ever exists since this so-called event of "the beginning of time".

Which is just MORE CONTRADICTIONS being placed onto your OTHER CONTRADICTIONS.

So, the so-called 'substance' of these, probably, infinite amount of 'minds', (which you do NOT know what it is, EXACTLY) exists since the so-called "beginning of time", BUT NOT BEFORE, and which could have come from absolutely NO thing AT ALL, but just "simply exists". Now, was this, probably, infinite amount of 'minds' existing at that moment of the so-called "beginning of time" or was there just one 'mind' and a, probably, infinite amount of 'minds' have grown out of that first 'one mind'?

Also, WHY did you NOT answer my clarifying question posed to you in relation to how is this, supposed, 'substance' passed on and shared among some things?

These are really off-topic so I am not going to reply to them.

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.

Did you answer my clarifying question about what is the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE here, before?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Now, let us IMAGINE if this CLAIM of yours that absolute NO thing could exist if there was NO 'mind', and that 'mind' NEVER existed before or prior to this absolutely CONFUSING, ILLOGICAL, and so-called term, "since the beginning of time", then HOW could 'time' 'begin', 'come into existence', or 'simply exist' if 'mind' was NOT so-called "simply existing" then?

Or, from YOUR "accurate thinking and seeing" of 'things' did absolutely ALL 'things' just "simply exist" ALL AT ONCE?

If no, then what is the EXACT order of 'things', according to "bahman logic"?

Off topic.

WHY?

There is an argument from change that explains that.

Do you EVER wonder WHY NO one accepts and agrees with your arguments but you STILL go on to CLAIM that you have made up these arguments, which you CLAIM are true, right, accurate, and correct?

Also, what is 'that' argument that, supposedly, explains WHY if there is NO 'mind' then there is a regress in causality? Obviously, it would NOT be ANY of the so-called "arguments" that you have made up "yourself" because NONE of them explains HOW a 'mind' is NEEDED for ANY thing to exist BUT if there is NO 'mind', then there, somehow, is a regress in causality?

The absolutely OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION here just SHOWS that there could NEVER be an EXPLANATION for some 'thing' occurring that is an ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBILITY to occur, even by your OWN so-called "logic", "bahman".

You say and CLAIM that the 'mind' is NEEDED for ANY 'thing' to exist, BUT if there is NO 'mind', then causality, itself, just regresses.

For 'causality' to exist, or regress, 'things' are NEEDED, but you CLAIM that 'things' can ONLY exist if there IS a 'mind'. So, HOW, if there is NO 'mind', could 'things' causally 'regress'?

Do you know what is the argument from change is? Apparently yes. Then think through since you know the basics.

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.

And, to you 'mind' is neither eternal.

AND, you also CLAIM and say that what you say and CLAIM here is 'accurate' and NOT a 'contradiction', AT ALL.

Some, however, beg to differ.

There is no contradiction in what I am saying.

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.

Thank you 'captain OBVIOUS'.

And, prior to ALL 'thing' existing, according to 'you' 'mind' is NEEDED, ALSO.

You wouldn't ask this question if it was obvious to you.

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.

I KNOW, and AGAIN, thank you 'captain OBVIOUS'.

I just asked you nicely to CLARIFY how you can OVERCOME the apparent and OBVIOUS 'contradiction' here.

And, to help you out THIS TIME, but do NOT expect it ALL the OTHER TIMES, to OVERCOME the seemingly OBVIOUS contradiction here all you had to say was 'immortal' may imply an 'eternalness' but one can still 'begin' and then last forever more, and be 'immortal', without necessarily having lasted forever in the past.

Because time has a beginning and there is no prior to the beginning of time.

We cannot reach infinity but we don't die also.

Who and/or what, supposedly, does NOT die?

And, OF COURSE, 'you', finite human beings, could NOT reach 'infinity'.

ONLY 'I' can reach 'infinity'.

But neither of these STOPS 'you' from being ABLE to SEE and UNDERSTAND 'infinity', Itself, nor SEE and UNDERSTAND that what you have been CLAIMING is accurate and NOT contradictory is ACTUALLY NOT accurate at all and very contradictory, to say the least.

Happy you that could reach infinity.

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.

Just out of CURIOSITY, WHY do you INSIST that there MUST HAVE BEEN "a beginning"?

This I answered thousands of times. Because infinite past is not acceptable.

Besides the Fact that there is OBVIOUSLY absolutely NO 'logical explanation' for how such a thing could even be a POSSIBILITY to occur, let alone to be AN ACTUALITY, there is ALSO the Fact that there is ABSOLUTELY NO 'need' AT ALL for such a thing to even occur.

So, AGAIN, WHY do some of 'you', human beings, PERSIST with this MOST ILLOGICAL, ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, STUPID, AND FOOLISH ASSUMPTION and idea?

Off topic.

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

This page contains these comments.

You STILL can NOT even respond to just this one ACCURATELY and CORRECTLY.

OF COURSE "this page contains these comments". BUT, what 'page' are you referring to, EXACTLY?

If it is, "This page, 'which' contains these comments", then just SAY SO. But if 'it' is some thing else, then ALSO just SAY SO.

Also, if it is 'this page', which contains these comments', then HOW EXACTLY are 'we', supposedly, on "the same page"? When quite a lot of 'you', adult human beings, make the claim, "we are on the same page", then this sometimes refers to thinking or seeing the 'same things'. Which, from what I take from 'these writing' on 'this page', or 'in this response' here, we are VERY FAR from thinking or seeing the 'same things'.

Perhaps this page can help you.