Our universe is contingent

[bahman]

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?

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'.

Building a better telescope does not help you since the stuff beyond the observable universe moves faster than the speed of light so their light never reaches us.

[Age]

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."

Although this may well be absolutely True, does it have ANY relevance to what I ACTUALLY SAID?

If yes, then what is 'that', SUPPOSEDLY?

If ANY one is Truly INTERESTED, then 'I' think, whereas 'you' are thoughts, or thinking. And, because of what 'you' are, EXACTLY, 'you' do NOT become older. 'you' are, ACTUALLY, always becoming newer, or anew. Although, the body becomes what is known as 'older'. And, even this could be 'argued' against.

But, as I say, Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

[Age]

There is no contradiction. Mind simply exists.

EVERY thing 'simply exists', OBVIOUSLY.

Mind is not contingent but the rest is contingent.

But you said 'mind' "exists since the beginning of time", and is NOT eternal, which would mean that 'mind' is ACTUALLY contingent, on the so-called "beginning of time".

According to "bahman's" so-called "logic" 'mind' could NOT exist without "the beginning of time" so 'mind' 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.

And, if you are REALLY NOT 'trying to' DEFLECT, and so you REALLY can NOT comprehend and understand that if the 'mind' creates EVERY thing but the 'mind' did NOT exist prior to this so-called "beginning of time", and 'itself' ONLY started to exist with "the beginning of time", then this does NOT logically follow, then is there ANY thing that could help you?

What I UNDERSTAND here VERY CLEARLY is that the more you 'try to' back up and support your previous CLAIMS, the MORE you are, ONCE AGAIN, contradicting "yourself" and becoming MORE and MORE ILLOGICAL. As PROVEN True by your very OWN words here.

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.

OF COURSE it 'follows'. I NEVER said it did NOT follow. I said, VERY CLEARLY, that it does NOT 'logically' follow.

LOOK,

But since x has a beginning, then, y exists, since the beginning of time.

SEE, this does NOT, and I will repeat DOES NOT, 'logically' follow, OBVIOUSLY.

Just because some 'thing' 'has a beginning', this DOES NOT mean that some 'thing' 'else' exists, NOR that this latter 'thing' exists "since the beginning of the former 'thing'.

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.

OF COURSE you WILL NOT, and this is because you CAN NOT.

The MORE you 'try' to defend your position/BELIEF the MORE RIDICULOUS and ILLOGICAL your words are becoming. As evidenced AND PROVED True in this thread as well as in some of your other threads.

Either from nothing or it simply exist at the beginning.

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

Off-topic.

So, you start a thread with the title - "Our universe is contingent", but when one brings up the ILLOGICAL, ABSURD, and/or RIDICULOUS comments you make in regards to the Universe, Itself, then 'that', suddenly, becomes so-called "off-topic".

And, if one can NOT talk about where, nor what, the Universe came from, because this is, supposedly, "off-topic", in a thread about how the Universe is, supposedly, contingent, then you could NOT SHOW ANY MORE just how ONE-SIDED and CLOSED you REALLY ARE here.

"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.

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.

And here we have ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of how one is NOT able to back up and support their CLAIMS. In fact they have become SO STUPID from being so TOTALLY CLOSED that they are now NOT even able to just say what the word 'regress' means nor refers to, to them.

Probably for the Fact that they have NEVER thought about this previously.

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?

Literally, by your very own words. And, your position is just NOT clear to me because you will NOT SHOW how your position could be 'logically possible', let alone 'logically true'.

WHY this is happening is because you are only expressing what you currently BELIEVE is true, but which is NOT necessarily true, and which you have NO absolutely PROOF for, and then this leads to you 'trying to' come up with absolutely ANY thing that could fit in with those BELIEFS, no matter how False, Wrong, Incorrect, and DISTORTED they are.

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.

Since when has "former mind" and "latter mind" been in this discussion?

And, this NEVER explained, well to me anyway, what the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE IS between, "It didn't come to exist since the beginning of time." FROM "It exists since the beginning of time."

In fact you have only CONFUSED things here MORE for me, of which I am NOT even going to try to dismantle, get clarified, and understand now.

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.

Okay. This is totally understandable. Especially considering the CLAIMS you are making here, and what you do NOT YET KNOW.

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.

So, to you, EVERY thing, that is; thee Universe, ONLY exists because of this 'mind' thingy. BUT, this 'mind' thingy only started existing when time, EVERY thing else, began existing, AND, to you, this talking about the Universe is AGAIN, supposedly, "off-topic" in a thread about 'the Universe being contingent'.

Which REALLY says a LOT about just how ONE-SIDED and CLOSED you REALLY ARE.

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.

What do you mean by, " 'the' argument "?

You say this like this is 'the, ONLY, argument'. And, the ONLY One which could be true, right, AND correct, correct?

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.

There may well NOT be. But, until you provide ACTUALLY PROOF that there is NO contradiction, we SEE otherwise.

LOOK, all you have to do is just CLARIFY, by EXPLAINING, HOW and WHY 'what' IS OBVIOUSLY 'contradictory', to us, and which is, OBVIOUSLY, NOT 'contradictory', to you, is NOT 'contradictory' in relation to the ACTUAL Universe, what is REAL, and thee ACTUAL Truth, Itself.

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.

WHAT 'question'?

I NEVER asked absolutely ANY question here.

You REALLY do SEE, and SAY, the MOST ABSURD and RIDICULOUS things.

I was just repeating YOUR CLAIM.

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.

But 'time', in the sense you are talking about here, does NOT, and could NOT, have a beginning.

So, now it is MY WORD against YOUR WORD. And, how do you think or imagine we could SOLVE this?

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.[/quote]

'you' are NOT reading, NOR hearing, the ACTUAL words that 'I' am putting here in front of 'you'.

The you can NEVER reach infinity. So, saying, "Happy you that could reach infinity", is NONSENSICAL and completely and utterly CONTRADICTS or OPPOSES what I ACTUALLY CLEARLY WROTE, SAID, and STATED here.

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.

But just because some 'thing' is NOT acceptable, TO YOU, this does NOT mean that that 'thing' is NOT True, NOT Right, nor NOT Correct.

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.

So, I ask you a question about the Universe, and Its so-called "beginning", and I also say how a "beginning Universe" is ILLOGICAL, and do this in a thread about the supposed and alleged, "Our universe is contingent", view, AND BELIEF, of yours. But, you CLAIM that 'this' is "off-topic". Which is Truly hilarious to us reading this.

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.

Help me 'what', supposedly and EXACTLY?

[Skepdick]

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.

Exactly. That is why I asked you "What has caused you to believe this?" ? Since it can't possible be "the stuff beyond the observable universe". That stuff (if it exists) has no causal effect on your mind/beliefs whatsoever so it can't be the cause of your belief.

So what has caused you to believe this is.... ?

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

Again... I shall repeat myself.. what has caused you to believe this?

[Age]

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?

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'.

Building a better telescope does not help you since the stuff beyond the observable universe moves faster than the speed of light so their light never reaches us.

But what, EXACTLY, to you, IS 'the observable universe'?

Are you able to fathom that AT ANY POINT throughout human history ANY one of 'you', human beings, could make the interpretation and the claim that; "We can NOT see past a certain point in the Universe. Therefore, the "stuff" beyond that certain point is NOT observable and this is because that stuff moves faster than the speed of light. So, this means their light never reaches us".

Besides the Fact that the CLAIM and the INTERPRETATION is just False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, with better telescope advancements, human beings are CONTINUALLY seeing further afield, and although they can see FURTHER, and so the observable universe, to them, is getting larger, they STILL continue on with this same OLD INTERPRETATION and CLAIM, but just with a further field of view.

[bahman]

EVERY thing 'simply exists', OBVIOUSLY.

Mind is not contingent but the rest is contingent.

But you said 'mind' "exists since the beginning of time", and is NOT eternal, which would mean that 'mind' is ACTUALLY contingent, on the so-called "beginning of time".

According to "bahman's" so-called "logic" 'mind' could NOT exist without "the beginning of time" so 'mind' IS 'contingent'.

No. Mind simply has existed since the beginning of time. It didn't come to existence at beginning of time.

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.

And, if you are REALLY NOT 'trying to' DEFLECT, and so you REALLY can NOT comprehend and understand that if the 'mind' creates EVERY thing but the 'mind' did NOT exist prior to this so-called "beginning of time", and 'itself' ONLY started to exist with "the beginning of time", then this does NOT logically follow, then is there ANY thing that could help you?

What I UNDERSTAND here VERY CLEARLY is that the more you 'try to' back up and support your previous CLAIMS, the MORE you are, ONCE AGAIN, contradicting "yourself" and becoming MORE and MORE ILLOGICAL. As PROVEN True by your very OWN words here.

Contingent or non-contingent nothing could possibly exist before the beginning of time since before the beginning of time does not exist.

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?

Literally, by your very own words. And, your position is just NOT clear to me because you will NOT SHOW how your position could be 'logically possible', let alone 'logically true'.

WHY this is happening is because you are only expressing what you currently BELIEVE is true, but which is NOT necessarily true, and which you have NO absolutely PROOF for, and then this leads to you 'trying to' come up with absolutely ANY thing that could fit in with those BELIEFS, no matter how False, Wrong, Incorrect, and DISTORTED they are.

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.

Since when has "former mind" and "latter mind" been in this discussion?

And, this NEVER explained, well to me anyway, what the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE IS between, "It didn't come to exist since the beginning of time." FROM "It exists since the beginning of time."

In fact you have only CONFUSED things here MORE for me, of which I am NOT even going to try to dismantle, get clarified, and understand now.

I meant former and later statements.

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.

But 'time', in the sense you are talking about here, does NOT, and could NOT, have a beginning.

So, now it is MY WORD against YOUR WORD. And, how do you think or imagine we could SOLVE this?

You are wrong and I am right since infinity by definition cannot be reached.

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.

Help me 'what', supposedly and EXACTLY?

Your endless questions.

[bahman]

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.

Exactly. That is why I asked you "What has caused you to believe this?" ? Since it can't possible be "the stuff beyond the observable universe". That stuff (if it exists) has no causal effect on your mind/beliefs whatsoever so it can't be the cause of your belief.

So what has caused you to believe this is.... ?

There is no reason to believe that matter just vanishes beyond the observable universe. We are not in the center of the observable universe. Let's say that we move a few parsecs away from where we are. The observable universe changes accordingly.

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

Again... I shall repeat myself.. what has caused you to believe this?

I have an argument for the whole is infinite. The observable universe by definition is finite.

[Age]

Mind is not contingent but the rest is contingent.

But you said 'mind' "exists since the beginning of time", and is NOT eternal, which would mean that 'mind' is ACTUALLY contingent, on the so-called "beginning of time".

According to "bahman's" so-called "logic" 'mind' could NOT exist without "the beginning of time" so 'mind' IS 'contingent'.

No. Mind simply has existed since the beginning of time. It didn't come to existence at beginning of time.

1. 'time', in the sense you are referring to here, did NOT begin. Besides that you can NOT YET even explain, in a truly logical sense, what 'time' IS, EXACTLY. So, you do NOT YET even KNOW what 'time' IS to then make the CLAIM that "time began".

2. If 'mind' was NOT existing, then it was somehow just simply existing at some moment, no matter what you call that moment, then that 'mind' was created or caused by some 'thing'. Unless, OF COURSE, you want to BELIEVE that some things can come from NO thing. But if you want to BELIEVE that, then you will be on your own here.

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

And, if you are REALLY NOT 'trying to' DEFLECT, and so you REALLY can NOT comprehend and understand that if the 'mind' creates EVERY thing but the 'mind' did NOT exist prior to this so-called "beginning of time", and 'itself' ONLY started to exist with "the beginning of time", then this does NOT logically follow, then is there ANY thing that could help you?

What I UNDERSTAND here VERY CLEARLY is that the more you 'try to' back up and support your previous CLAIMS, the MORE you are, ONCE AGAIN, contradicting "yourself" and becoming MORE and MORE ILLOGICAL. As PROVEN True by your very OWN words here.

Contingent or non-contingent nothing could possibly exist before the beginning of time since before the beginning of time does not exist.

The "beginning of time", in the sense that you are alluding to here, is a fallacy.

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

Literally, by your very own words. And, your position is just NOT clear to me because you will NOT SHOW how your position could be 'logically possible', let alone 'logically true'.

WHY this is happening is because you are only expressing what you currently BELIEVE is true, but which is NOT necessarily true, and which you have NO absolutely PROOF for, and then this leads to you 'trying to' come up with absolutely ANY thing that could fit in with those BELIEFS, no matter how False, Wrong, Incorrect, and DISTORTED they are.

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.

Since when has "former mind" and "latter mind" been in this discussion?

And, this NEVER explained, well to me anyway, what the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE IS between, "It didn't come to exist since the beginning of time." FROM "It exists since the beginning of time."

In fact you have only CONFUSED things here MORE for me, of which I am NOT even going to try to dismantle, get clarified, and understand now.

I meant former and later statements.

This STILL does NOT make any sense to me, and REALLY only confuses things more.

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

But 'time', in the sense you are talking about here, does NOT, and could NOT, have a beginning.

So, now it is MY WORD against YOUR WORD. And, how do you think or imagine we could SOLVE this?

You are wrong and I am right since infinity by definition cannot be reached.

'infinity', by definition, OBVIOUSLY, can NOT be reached by 'you', human beings. I have ALREADY stated this. However, 'infinity', by definition, can be, and is, reached, OBVIOUSLY.

Perhaps this page can help you.

Help me 'what', supposedly and EXACTLY?

Your endless questions.

Okay.

[bahman]

But you said 'mind' "exists since the beginning of time", and is NOT eternal, which would mean that 'mind' is ACTUALLY contingent, on the so-called "beginning of time".

According to "bahman's" so-called "logic" 'mind' could NOT exist without "the beginning of time" so 'mind' IS 'contingent'.

No. Mind simply has existed since the beginning of time. It didn't come to existence at beginning of time.

1. 'time', in the sense you are referring to here, did NOT begin. Besides that you can NOT YET even explain, in a truly logical sense, what 'time' IS, EXACTLY. So, you do NOT YET even KNOW what 'time' IS to then make the CLAIM that "time began".

No, time began to exist. Time is a substance that allows motion.

2. If 'mind' was NOT existing, then it was somehow just simply existing at some moment, no matter what you call that moment, then that 'mind' was created or caused by some 'thing'. Unless, OF COURSE, you want to BELIEVE that some things can come from NO thing. But if you want to BELIEVE that, then you will be on your own here.

No. You are better to read what I wrote and think about it before commenting on it.

And, if you are REALLY NOT 'trying to' DEFLECT, and so you REALLY can NOT comprehend and understand that if the 'mind' creates EVERY thing but the 'mind' did NOT exist prior to this so-called "beginning of time", and 'itself' ONLY started to exist with "the beginning of time", then this does NOT logically follow, then is there ANY thing that could help you?

What I UNDERSTAND here VERY CLEARLY is that the more you 'try to' back up and support your previous CLAIMS, the MORE you are, ONCE AGAIN, contradicting "yourself" and becoming MORE and MORE ILLOGICAL. As PROVEN True by your very OWN words here.

Contingent or non-contingent nothing could possibly exist before the beginning of time since before the beginning of time does not exist.

The "beginning of time", in the sense that you are alluding to here, is a fallacy.

Why?

Literally, by your very own words. And, your position is just NOT clear to me because you will NOT SHOW how your position could be 'logically possible', let alone 'logically true'.

WHY this is happening is because you are only expressing what you currently BELIEVE is true, but which is NOT necessarily true, and which you have NO absolutely PROOF for, and then this leads to you 'trying to' come up with absolutely ANY thing that could fit in with those BELIEFS, no matter how False, Wrong, Incorrect, and DISTORTED they are.



Since when has "former mind" and "latter mind" been in this discussion?

And, this NEVER explained, well to me anyway, what the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE IS between, "It didn't come to exist since the beginning of time." FROM "It exists since the beginning of time."

In fact you have only CONFUSED things here MORE for me, of which I am NOT even going to try to dismantle, get clarified, and understand now.

I meant former and later statements.

This STILL does NOT make any sense to me, and REALLY only confuses things more.

Then think through. I cannot make it easier.

[Age]

No. Mind simply has existed since the beginning of time. It didn't come to existence at beginning of time.

1. 'time', in the sense you are referring to here, did NOT begin. Besides that you can NOT YET even explain, in a truly logical sense, what 'time' IS, EXACTLY. So, you do NOT YET even KNOW what 'time' IS to then make the CLAIM that "time began".

No, time began to exist. Time is a substance that allows motion.

LOL
LOL
LOL

"bahman".

2. If 'mind' was NOT existing, then it was somehow just simply existing at some moment, no matter what you call that moment, then that 'mind' was created or caused by some 'thing'. Unless, OF COURSE, you want to BELIEVE that some things can come from NO thing. But if you want to BELIEVE that, then you will be on your own here.

No. You are better to read what I wrote and think about it before commenting on it.

Yes. I expressed CLEARLY what 'it' is that you have been expressing and CLAIMING here. As evidenced and PROVED above.

Contingent or non-contingent nothing could possibly exist before the beginning of time since before the beginning of time does not exist.

The "beginning of time", in the sense that you are alluding to here, is a fallacy.

Why?

Because that perception of 'time' 'you' are alluding to here, which, by the way, 'you", "yourself", do NOT even have a grasp on and KNOW EXACTLY, could NOT begin.

The Universe, or 'time', beginning is just a VERY OLD STORY, which some of 'you', in the days when this is being written, SADLY, STILL BELIEVE is true. As evidenced and PROVED above.

I meant former and later statements.

This STILL does NOT make any sense to me, and REALLY only confuses things more.

Then think through. I cannot make it easier.

You can NOT make 'what' easier? And, WHY are 'you' NOT able to make 'it' easier?

[bahman]

1. 'time', in the sense you are referring to here, did NOT begin. Besides that you can NOT YET even explain, in a truly logical sense, what 'time' IS, EXACTLY. So, you do NOT YET even KNOW what 'time' IS to then make the CLAIM that "time began".

No, time began to exist. Time is a substance that allows motion.

LOL
LOL
LOL

"bahman".

2. If 'mind' was NOT existing, then it was somehow just simply existing at some moment, no matter what you call that moment, then that 'mind' was created or caused by some 'thing'. Unless, OF COURSE, you want to BELIEVE that some things can come from NO thing. But if you want to BELIEVE that, then you will be on your own here.

No. You are better to read what I wrote and think about it before commenting on it.

Yes. I expressed CLEARLY what 'it' is that you have been expressing and CLAIMING here. As evidenced and PROVED above.

The "beginning of time", in the sense that you are alluding to here, is a fallacy.

Why?

Because that perception of 'time' 'you' are alluding to here, which, by the way, 'you", "yourself", do NOT even have a grasp on and KNOW EXACTLY, could NOT begin.

The Universe, or 'time', beginning is just a VERY OLD STORY, which some of 'you', in the days when this is being written, SADLY, STILL BELIEVE is true. As evidenced and PROVED above.

This STILL does NOT make any sense to me, and REALLY only confuses things more.

Then think through. I cannot make it easier.

You can NOT make 'what' easier? And, WHY are 'you' NOT able to make 'it' easier?

I think I am done with you.

[RCSaunders]

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

Contingent on what?

If what you are calling the universe is contingent on something, what it is contingent on is part of the universe.

The universe is all there is, which is why it is called, "the universe." If something is contingent on something else, it cannot be the whole universe, only part of it. The universe consists of all that exists, both those parts that are contingent on other things and the the things they are contingent on.

Your premise is nonsense.

[bahman]

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

Contingent on what?

Contingent on its parts.

If what you are calling the universe is contingent on something, what it is contingent on is part of the universe.

Yes, the parts are contingent so the universe is contingent too since the universe is made of its parts. The universe is not an objective thigs but its parts are.

[Skepdick]

I have an argument for the whole is infinite. The observable universe by definition is finite.

I feel like a stuck record but...

What has caused you to believe that the whole is infinite IF you have only ever observed the finite?

[Sculptor]

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

Contingent on what?

Contingent on its parts.

If what you are calling the universe is contingent on something, what it is contingent on is part of the universe.

Yes, the parts are contingent so the universe is contingent too since the universe is made of its parts. The universe is not an objective thigs but its parts are.

It's like you are a bot with a sentence generator with no understanding of the words you are using.