The universe as the totality of existence

[Susma]

Here is my concept of the universe:

• ref: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.
  
  • Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

I like to ask people who like myself love to think about concepts: their definitions and explanation:

• What do you think of my concept of the universe?

Susma

[Susma]

My experience in my talks with people is that they don't like to agree on what exactly is a concept about something that is represented by a word, for example, universe.

Or evidence, or God.


But then they talk so very vehemently about it in one or another direction, namely: in opposing even just the possibility of its existence in the realm of realities outside the mind, or in supporting at most just the possibility of its reality outside the mind.

Whose mind?

Whose else, but man's mind.


So, I invite them to work with me to come to an agreed on concept of for example the universe, but they don't want to.

So they want to talk about something the concept of which they don't want to come to an agreement on, and each one talks on and on in one direction or another and even in opposite directions.


Now, isn't that the utmost of illogic in the mind of such people who will talk about something, but they don't want to work together to come to agreement on exactly: what is the concept of the something they want to talk about, and that in different directions even in opposite directions, namely: to insist on the existence or non-existence of the something in objective reality the concept corresponds to.


That I can see logically to be as I said the utmost illogic in the minds of everyone who does not want to work to agree on the concept, but at the same time talk endlessly about it in propounding at least its possible existence or in opposing even just the possibility of its existence.


So, a lot or almost all endless controversies from the dawn of man's conscious intelligence to the present is due to the refusal of people to come to agree on what exactly is the concept of the thing they want to talk about.


And why don't they want to do the logical thing, namely: to collaborate to agree first on what exactly is the concept of the thing they are talking about?

Why else but so that they can for themselves each one feel so sure of himself that he is right or correct or in possession of the fact or even the truth.


What do the people who love concepts say?

Or there is no one here who loves to examine what is a concept and thereby also what is the concept of the universe, by working together with other people who love concepts and care to talk with other similar people on what is the concept of the universe?


I love concepts and I want to work with people who are also lovers of concepts, and in particular to come to an agreed on concept of what is the universe.

My own tentative contribution is the following on the concept of the universe:

• Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

Susma

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. The "Definitions and Explanations" subforum is not meant for a place to discuss terms, but to simply present commonly accepted definitions of terms.

[Susma]

Well, I guess it is all right here now to invite my contending posters in my two threads one the take 2 of the other on "The universe is the evidence for God's existence," to come over here to talk about working together to come to agreement on what is the concept of universe, evidence, God.

Or any other concepts you guys want to bring up for us all to collaborate on to come to agree on what they mean.



So, Adamoriens, JohnPaul, Janx, Confused, Goat, McCulloch, etc., what are you waiting for?



Ah yes, we will also consult dictionaries and your favorite internet authorities.




Susma

[Susma]

I think I better send a common pm to the following contender posters to come over here to talk about agreeing on concepts:

• Adamoriens, JohnPaul, Janx, Confused, Goat, McCulloch, Flail.

In this way they will get to know where I am now located and come over should they truly want to talk about concepts of universe, evidence, God, and of course circular argument, to achieve together commonly mutually accepted concepts on these items.



There, I have sent a pm to Adamoriens, can't do it to them all with one common pm.

• Flag Subject To Date
  Come to my new thread on collaborating on concepts. Adamoriens Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:52 pm

Anyway, I hope Adamoriens will come over, because we have unfinished business and also with the rest of the others.


Yes! We will also consult dictionaries and their favorite internet authorities.




Susma

[McCulloch]

Here is my concept of the universe:

• Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

Firstly, I see no reason for any individual to redefine the meaning of words. Universe is a word that does have existing definitions.

Susma asks for opinions about his concept. Here are mine:

• It is too long. All of the words after the totality of existence seem to me to add nothing meaningful.
• It may be too wide for the purposes that Susma wants to use. For example, if God exists, then God is a part of and therefore not the creator of the universe, as the definition now stands.
• Personal preference: Use the term humans rather than man.
• The phrase where man lives in and is part and parcel of makes the definition anthropocentric. The universe existed prior to human appearance and will exist after human extinction, thus it makes no sense to define the universe in terms of human habitation.
• The phrase as also everything else that exists is grammatically incorrect and adds no meaning whatsoever to the definition.
• The phrase at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse, inappropriately adds all imaginary things into the definition. As far as I know, unicorns, fire breathing dragons, vampires and werewolves are not a part of the universe, yet they are subject of human imagination

Most of these issues have been brought to Susma's attention previously, yet Susma still repeatedly asks for opinions about his concept and has yet made no adjustments to his definition.

[Adamoriens]

Thanks for the message, Susma. I'm not optimistic about further discussion, so I'll leave it to you to comment on what I've already posted in the earlier thread.

[Susma]

Here is my concept of the universe:

• Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

[Enumeration by Susma]

1. Firstly, I see no reason for any individual to redefine the meaning of words. Universe is a word that does have existing definitions.

Susma asks for opinions about his concept. Here are mine:

• 2. It is too long. All of the words after the totality of existence seem to me to add nothing meaningful.
• 3. It may be too wide for the purposes that Susma wants to use. For example, if God exists, then God is a part of and therefore not the creator of the universe, as the definition now stands.
• 4. Personal preference: Use the term humans rather than man.
• 5. The phrase where man lives in and is part and parcel of makes the definition anthropocentric. The universe existed prior to human appearance and will exist after human extinction, thus it makes no sense to define the universe in terms of human habitation.
• 6. The phrase as also everything else that exists is grammatically incorrect and adds no meaning whatsoever to the definition.
• 7. The phrase at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse, inappropriately adds all imaginary things into the definition. As far as I know, unicorns, fire breathing dragons, vampires and werewolves are not a part of the universe, yet they are subject of human imagination

8. Most of these issues have been brought to Susma's attention previously, yet Susma still repeatedly asks for opinions about his concept and has yet made no adjustments to his definition.

Before anything else, this is my signature:

• The big brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

I see very clearly and I hope Mc can see it also, namely:

• That he has not said anything at all that can render the concept of the universe from me an invalid concept.

That is a great failure to say something about a concept but to in effect say nothing serious about it in terms of its most important aspect, namely, whether it is a valid or an invalid concept.

Now he should ask me what is the distinction between a valid concept and an invalid concept, if he does not know; or ask the dictionaries and his internet authorities.


That is the utmost insuperable deficiency with Mc as also with a lot of atheists, they always miss dealing with a concept in terms of its most important aspect, namely, is the concept a valid concept or not.

They are out of their depths.


So, Mc, time for you to learn what is a valid concept.

Then you can attend to the most important aspect of a concept, is it valid?

Read again carefully everything in my concept of the universe and see whether at all there is anything in it that makes the whole concept invalid.

Here is my concept of the universe:

• Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

Now, if it is a valid concept then you have to either flee from it or deal with it, depending on your sincerity and your cognitive guts in the search for the facts in the world of realities.

The way I see you, your mind is into a routinized maze with only very limited number of routes, and no exit at all.




Dear Mc, please don't go away!


You are welcome to also delve into my cognitive psychology to seek the grounds of my cognitive statements.


And respect has nothing to do with my ideas or your ideas, just keep to the ideas and try to not act on the basis of someone is lacking respect for someone else, etc.



I almost forgot, I put your statements into an enumeration, so that you can point out which statement from you shows how my concept of the universe is an invalid concept.


What is an invalid concept?

Here is my concept or definition of an invalid concept:

• One that cannot have correspondence even to any possibility in reality, i.e., is intrinsically impossible to exist.

Go to the dictionaries and your internet authorities if you cannot or will not accept my concept or definition of what is an invalid concept, the opposite of which is a valid concept.


Lastly, I am not going to waste time and labor making comments on your statements one by one, since one by one and together as an assembly they say nothing about the validity or invalidity of my concept of the universe.

Suppose you come up with your concept of the universe, or you use the dictionaries and your internet authorities to come up with your concept of the universe.




Susma

[ThatGirlAgain]

Here is my concept of the universe:

• ref: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.
  
  • Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

I like to ask people who like myself love to think about concepts: their definitions and explanation:

• What do you think of my concept of the universe?

"or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse."

I have a problem with this part. I can imagine things that do not necessarily physically exist, e.g., pegasus/unicorn half breeds that play Spanish guitar. Are these things part of the universe? Does the universe you describe include some actually existing realm of ideas?

It would seem that 'universe = everything that exists' should be sufficient. My concept of the guitar playing quasi-horses exists in my mind, whatever that may ultimately mean, but the physical counterpart of that concept (and the concept is of physical things) may not exist anywhere in the universe. Whether concepts exist independently of minds is of course another question. If they do, they are part of the universe.

[Susma]

Here is my concept of the universe:

• ref: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.
  
  • Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

I like to ask people who like myself love to think about concepts: their definitions and explanation:

• What do you think of my concept of the universe?

"or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse."

I have a problem with this part. I can imagine things that do not necessarily physically exist, e.g., pegasus/unicorn half breeds that play Spanish guitar. Are these things part of the universe? Does the universe you describe include some actually existing realm of ideas?

It would seem that 'universe = everything that exists' should be sufficient. My concept of the guitar playing quasi-horses exists in my mind, whatever that may ultimately mean, but the physical counterpart of that concept (and the concept is of physical things) may not exist anywhere in the universe. Whether concepts exist independently of minds is of course another question. If they do, they are part of the universe.

I like you to enumerate some of the things that exist in the totality of existence or everything that exists which according to you is your concept of universe which incidentally I also agree, but still I want you to enumerate some of the things and then some more and then some more and then some more, until you have exhausted all the things that make up everything that exists in the universe that is the totality of existence.


In the meantime I am still waiting for Mc to return, unless he can't find his way out of his depths.




Susma