Maybe this is will be my last time to write here Since I almost said everything on my mind, so I hope that I haven't been unpleasant guest. and I want to Apologize to anyone I have insulted especially Nyarlathotep and Randomhero, not including xenoview since I still Insist that he Is Omni-stupid, Omni-Brainless and Omni-Ignorant and IF I would make a Top 100 list Of all stupid Ignorant people of all time he would definitely make it to the whole 100 places in the list. I really hope he won't Interpret that to his FIXED reply on anything that is: "So are you saying that god is a necessary being? can you prove god exists? you haven't proved that god is real, all you do is just claiming that there is one" and this irrelevant bullshit. Anyway, I haven't seen Any Objection to my arguments that can really be called objections, But rather responses that circulate over "SCIENCE doesn't say that, this isn't scientific, You can't make scientific claims using logic, these are not proofs do you have a scientific proof? do not say anything about the universe because SCIENCE says we don't know, do not say that Actual Infinite regress cannot exist because SCIENCE doesn't say that ... etc" we can put it in a simple syllogism that goes like:

P1) X claims that y is not the case.
P2) SCIENCE doesn't say that y is not the case.
C1) therefore, X cannot say that y is not the case.

Now, we all know that there are things that we know necessarily, and SCIENCE cannot "DISPROVE" them such as the law of non-contradiction on which SCIENCE is based. SO, we cannot say that SCIENCE can Prove that 1+1=5 because it would lead to logical impossibilities. So, we can say that SCIENCE cannot PROVE logical impossibilities. they do not even fall under the subjects that It addresses since they cannot exist. SCIENCE deals Only with What is Possible in itself, All subjects that SCIENCE address are not logical impossibilities in themselves. [SIDE NOTE: that doesn't mean that all Possible subjects are addressed by science] but all scientific subjects are Possible in themselves.

So, Before Claiming that SCIENCE can Prove 'y' in the future, we must know what 'y' is. As logicians say, Conceptualization Precede Predication/Assertion. So, we can say that, IF 'y' entails logical Impossibilities then 'y' cannot exist let alone be proven by SCIENCE. So, I would divide the subjects into 2 main categories:
1- Subjects that are Impossible in themselves.
2- Subjects that are Possible in themselves.
And would divide the second category into two sub-categories:
2.1- Possible Subjects that are addressed by SCIENCE.
2.2- Possible Subjects that are not addressed by SCIENCE.

NOTE: I do not consider Art, Psychology, Politics ..etc to be SCIENCE, so IF you do consider them to be, then you can ignore the sub-categorization. Anyway, to avoid the dispute in terminology I'm just gonna stick to the main categorization.

Now, what I'm actually saying IS:

P1) 'y' entails logical impossibility
P2) logical impossibilities cannot exist./logical Impossibilities cannot be proven by SCIENCE.
C1) therefore 'y' cannot exist./'y' cannot be proven by SCIENCE.

For example when I said that Actual Infinite regression (y) cannot exist I argued that it entails logical impossibilities. Now, there are Only 2 ways to refute that claim:
1- You can argue that the arguments that was used against 'y' are fallacious and therefore 'y' doesn't entail logical impossibilities.
2- You can say that Logical Impossibilities can exist indeed and can be proven by SCIENCE. but then you would be refuting SCIENCE itself.

So, when you object that SCIENCE doesn't say that 'y' is not the case OR it's for SCIENCE to prove it OR it's a scientific subject so we need scientific proofs, you're actually saying either that 'y' does not entail any logical impossibility OR SCIENCE can Prove logical impossibilities. just saying that 'y' is possible in itself is not gonna make it Possible unless You Proved it and you cannot prove it except through these 2 ways.

So I'm not really making a scientific claim that needs scientific proofs when saying that actual infinite regress cannot exist, since the mind Is able to reveal logical contradictions unless you're saying that we need a scientific proof to prove that a certain claim entails logical contradiction. in fact it would be absurd to say such a thing because then you would need at least to Presuppose that the claim "SCIENCE can prove that a certain claim is contradictory" Is itself not contradictory. OR you would have to presuppose that whichever conclusion you would get from this scientific experiment would not be contradictory itself.
------------------------------------------------------

There is also an objection that raised by LogicForTW to the premise that states that contingent things must have a cause, which is, as I understood it and he can refine for me, this is only can be true inside the universe or after the universe existed but it doesn't apply before that, because this rule is created inside the universe so I can't use it before the universe existed.

And I would say that is not true, it wasn't created inside the universe, it has nothing to do with the existence or the nonexistence of the universe OR with inside or outside anything. that's like saying the logical contradiction is not logical contradiction outside the universe. the only thing that doesn't need a cause for its existence is necessary. so saying that an essence that is contingent only needs a cause within the universe would imply that all contingent things, before the universe existed, were either necessary or Impossible and that would entail logical absurdities since the former implies that all contingent things have always been existent, but if that was true then what would be left to be caused into existence? that would contradict your statement that contingent things are caused within the universe. And if it was the latter then all contingent things cannot be caused whatsoever to exist. the way in which an essence relate to existence does not depend on the existence of some other essence. because the existence of that 'other essence' must also relate to its essence somehow (either necessarily or contingently). so at the end you would admit that the existence of an essence does not depend on the existence of another essence. an essence in itself relates to existence either necessarily or contingently. a giraffe in itself is possible to exist and not to exist whether there is a universe or not. the Phoenix in itself is possible to exist and not to exist whether there is a universe or not. and the possible( in relation to existence) beings in themselves do not contain the reason for their existence, their essences are neutral to exist and not to exist so they would need an external cause to preponderate them to exist, if they were to exist, whether there is a universe or not.