What is Faith?

[El Cid]

I’ve already explained, and have others, why no free will doesn’t mean we don’t try to influence people. Do you want me to quote you posts from upthread?

But you are not choosing to influence people, because without a free will you cant choose anything.

And, we are animals anyway, just in terms of the classification of organisms.

While we have animal bodies, we are far more than our bodies, that is why we have a true free will unlike animals.

 

[Gus Bovona]

You deny that computers are programmed?

No? But the issue whether people have fee will.

With semantics you have to choose what word to use. Without free will you dont have a choice.

Without free will choices are still made, similar to a computer. It’s whether the choices are free or determined. If you want to say that determined choices aren’t really choices, that’s just semantics.

 

[Gus Bovona]

But you are not choosing to influence people, because without a free will you cant choose anything.

As I implied above, this is just semantics, you are not offering an argument. A selection is made from potential options - one could say X, one could say Y - and something gets said. That's just what determinism is claiming.

While we have animal bodies, we are far more than our bodies, that is why we have a true free will unlike animals.

Saying we are far more than our bodies is just a fancy way of assuming what you want to prove, that we have free will. It's not a demonstration or an argument that we have free will, because now you have to show that we are far more than our bodies.

 

[Komodo]

As I implied above, this is just semantics, you are not offering an argument. A selection is made from potential options - one could say X, one could say Y - and something gets said. That's just what determinism is claiming.

Agreed. Or to put it another way, if "free will" is defined as "the capacity to make choices," then essentially everybody (including determinists) agrees that human beings do have free will, and the argument is moot.

 

[El Cid]

Science cant conclude anything.

If you interpret the word "conclude" in a certain way, you're right, but there is a meaning or context to "conclude" that makes my sentence make sense. Why not go with that one?

Only scientists can conclude something. Science is just what the study of nature is called.

El Cid said:
But because of the bias of mainstream scientists, you are correct.

I dont have a copy of the book. But one example from another book is Roger DeHart a biology teacher at Burlington High School was forced to resign because he believed in a supernatural designer of living things and provided evidence for that designer from biology to his students.

No, not in most of the cases dealt with in the book. There is also Dean Kenyon, Nancy Bryson, Caroline Crocker, and Richard Sternberg to name some more.

It will be easier to discuss a single case at a time. Which one do you want to start with?

Nancy Bryson was removed from her post as head of the science and math division of Mississippi University for women after she delivered a lecture to honors students about some of the scientific weaknesses of chemical and biological evolution.

El Cid said:
Often hunches are right even in science.

Sure. But when they are hunches, they have not been determined to be right, they are just hunches, nothing more. And, plenty of hunches have been wrong. Maybe most. So a hunch doesn't mean much (except as, perhaps, a direction for future research).

Nevertheless they are sometimes right.

El Cid said:
As a scientist myself

What kind of scientist are you? In what field?

Biologist

El Cid said:
I have talked to some that have admitted that is why they do it.

I don't see how it would be possible to verify or confirm or dig into the details of your statement, so I don't see what role it can play in our conversation. Perhaps you can see a way?

Nevertheless it is evidence. I wouldn't lie about it.

El Cid said:
It would be considered unscientific that something could be supernatural.

There must surely be more than one scientist in the world who believes that, just like there are surely more than one scientist in the world who believes anything, crazy or not. This, therefore, is unremarkable.

Furthermore, the only way that bias against the supernatural would be significant is if it is widespread through science (because science crowd-sources its claims, in a sense), so you'd have to have some sort of survey of scientists throughout the world, and the survey would have to show significant levels of bias. Do you have anything like that? If not, I don't see where this is going.

I have seen such a survey at least for the US and it is overwhelming that they believe that science can only be conducted from a naturalist perspective.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Only scientists can conclude something. Science is just what the study of nature is called.

Basically, I agree. Not sure where this is going.

Nancy Bryson was removed from her post as head of the science and math division of Mississippi University for women after she delivered a lecture to honors students about some of the scientific weaknesses of chemical and biological evolution.

Here is the account from the Chronicle of Higher Ed, http://arn.org/docs2/news/criticreinstated031803.htm. It sounds like it very well could be a case of denying academic freedom, but it’s hard to tell for sure.

Nevertheless they are sometimes right.

”Sometimes” doesn’t help us at all before we know whether any particular case is one of those times or not.

Biologist

What was your terminal degree? What type of job or specialty?

Nevertheless it is evidence. I wouldn't lie about it.

This would make any rational person doubt how good of a scientist you are if you think evidence should be accepted because someone says they wouldn’t lie about it.

I have seen such a survey at least for the US and it is overwhelming that they believe that science can only be conducted from a naturalist perspective.

A lot depends on exactly what that survey asks. Do you have a link?

 

[El Cid]

Science cant conclude anything. But because of the bias of mainstream scientists, you are correct.

The earth orbits the sun?

No, science is just what the study of nature is called. Only scientists can make conclusions derived from science.

El Cid said:
I dont have a copy of the book. But one example from another book is Roger DeHart a biology teacher at Burlington High School was forced to resign because he believed in a supernatural designer of living things and provided evidence for that designer from biology to his students.

No, he provided his interpretation of the evidence from biology with no science to back it up in a science classroom where his remit was to teach evolutionary biology.

Evidence he didnt back it up with science? He was a biology teacher not an evolutionary biology teacher. The best way to learn a scientific theory to study its weaknesses. If a theory is unfalsifiable then it is probably false.

 

[Whatsisface]

No, science is just what the study of nature is called. Only scientists can make conclusions derived from science.

You're not addressing the point. You said "Science cant conclude anything", I replied with the obvious example of the Earth orbiting the sun. The above seems to change the subject.

Evidence he didnt back it up with science? He was a biology teacher not an evolutionary biology teacher. The best way to learn a scientific theory to study its weaknesses. If a theory is unfalsifiable then it is probably false.

There is no science that supports ID, there are only inferences from science but those inferences are not themselves backed up by science.

 

[El Cid]

Actually I am making both arguments. If somehow naturalism could produce nonphysical entities, then our judgements would be based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain, rather than on the weighing evidence and coming to logical conclusions.

I've addressed this claim repeatedly -- most recently here -- and you have not attempted to show why my argument to the contrary was wrong.

Ok I will deal with it when I reach that post.

El Cid said:
But many naturalists don't believe that nonphysical entities exist.

Those who don't believe that nonphysical entities exist, believe instead that mental activities like weighing evidence are actually unusual forms of physical activity. They don't deny that weighing evidence exists. So "many naturalists don't believe that nonphysical entities exist" does not support your argument that "If naturalism is true, then weighing evidence cannot exist."

The evidence says otherwise. There has never been experimental evidence that chemical reactions can produce conclusions.

El Cid said:
See above, and you didn't answer my question.

I have repeatedly answered this question ("how can physical activity cause mental activity") by saying that we don't know, but that this doesn't mean either that naturalism is false or, that if naturalism is true, our conclusions are not caused by judging and considering.

Well I am glad you admit that scientists dont know.

El Cid said:
No, studies have shown that women think in more socially oriented terms and men think in more spatially oriented terms, and there are at least several other differences.

I am quite confident that no studies can possibly have shown that all women think one way and all men think another way, and thus that male or female gender is inscribed in every brain.

Of course, there are outliers in all human behavior, but 80-90% of women do think that way as well as 80-90% men thinking the way they do. This could only be possible if their sex and gender is inscribed in every brain cell.

El Cid said:
Below are changes in the brains that occur when children are involved:
Mothers are biologically primed to provide nurturing oriented toward creating a strong attachment relationship. Dramatic increases in oxytocin and oxytocin receptors during the process of giving birth and caring for infants act like a switch in mothers, turning on maternal behaviors. New moms find themselves expressing positive feelings, affectionately touching and gazing at their infants, and engaging in “motherese” vocalizations. Infants’ levels of oxytocin parallel their mothers’, producing feelings of calm and well-being that similarly bond mother and offspring.

Everybody knows that this generalization about mother-child bonding has many, many exceptions. I can only guess that the author here said "mothers" instead of "mothers, generally" because that went without saying.

See above.

El Cid said:
Fathers also experience significant physiological changes that “prime” them for bonding. But the same hormones elicit different types of responses. Instead of inviting “security-inducing” behaviors, fathers’ levels of oxytocin are associated with “stimulatory” behaviors, like tickling and bouncing. This suggests a biological foundation for what we observe all around us. While mothers are more likely to “coo and cuddle” their infants, fathers are more likely to “tickle and toss.” These differences foreshadow more extensive complementary patterns exhibited across children’s development.

You said I was wrong to say that studies could only show how men or women were more likely to think or act, and yet your own quote explicitly speaks of what women are "more likely" to do and what men are "more likely" to do. You're not disputing my point at all, which was that "XY chromosomes produce Male brains, XX chromosomes produce Female brains" is a gross oversimplification.

They do when all working together as they should.

El Cid said:
No, the changes are more global not individual neurons, they act on the brain as a whole. Turning the whole brain blue or pink as I explained above.

Then you shouldn't have been talking about "every cell" being male or female.

The brain is made up of those cells so every cell has its part in producing the male or female brain.

El Cid said:
It sounds like you are saying that it is a mental illness.

No, because I don't think having a self-image at odds with one's biological sex is a mental illness. Even if I did, however, what then? If people with male bodies think of themselves as women, because some of their chromosomes produced a brain which gave them a female self-image (or vice versa), you can call the resulting gender dysphoria a "mental illness" or you can call it a "mental adaptation," or you could call it anything you like: but it still would not show the mind defying the brain, it would show the mind obeying a brain which had not developed in the usual way.

While it may not prove that the mind is defying the brain, it is evidence that it very well may be doing so. It would be just as out of sync as if the XX chromosomes in the cells of a female in the groin area produced a male organ.

El Cid said:
I was taking the activists position, where they claim it is "real". IOW that there really is a woman trapped in a mans body. Which is your position?

I think their feelings are certainly real, and they are probably the result of chromosomes governing brain development which didn't perform the way they do in the great majority of cases. I certainly don't believe that we carry homunculi within us which are struggling to "get out."

There is no evidence that their brain structure is any different from someone whose mind matches their gender.

El Cid said:
It would also mean that the mind is not as controlled by the physical brain as much as naturalists claim. Thereby providing strong evidence that dualism is true.

I said (again) that I am not making the case that naturalism is true, but that you are wrong to say that if naturalism were true, we couldn't trust our own reasoning. Nothing about transgenderism has any bearing on that point. If you believe otherwise, let's grant your premise here for the sake of argument: Dualism is true. How do you get from there to "Therefore if naturalism were true, we couldn't trust our own reasoning"?

So far, I have not seen any argument, starting with any premise, which validly reached that conclusion.

If naturalism were true, then we would never see any transgenders because the mind would be 100% dependent on the physical structure of the brain. The mind would always match the gender of their chromosomes.

 

[Komodo]

Komodo said:

Those who don't believe that nonphysical entities exist, believe instead that mental activities like weighing evidence are actually unusual forms of physical activity. They don't deny that weighing evidence exists. So "many naturalists don't believe that nonphysical entities exist" does not support your argument that "If naturalism is true, then weighing evidence cannot exist."

The evidence says otherwise. There has never been experimental evidence that chemical reactions can produce conclusions.

I said you were not making a case for claim #1: that if naturalism is true, then weighing evidence cannot exist. In response, you make an argument for claim #2: that naturalism is false (because chemical reactions cannot produce conclusions). Again and again I have pointed out that claim #1 is different from claim #2, and so an argument for claim #2 is not an argument for claim #1; you have yourself acknowledged that claim 1 and claim 2 are two different claims. And yet, again and again -- as here -- you ignore that fact.

This is getting monotonous. I'm skipping over your arguments that transgenderism is evidence against naturalism. I really should never have bothered taking them up in the first place, because they are only relevant to claim #2 (that naturalism is false), and as I've said again and again, my quarrel here is with claim #1 (that if naturalism were true, then weighing evidence couldn't exist).

I have to ask again: do you understand that even if you offered an absolute, incontrovertible proof that naturalism was false, it would NOT at all imply that "if naturalism were true, weighing evidence couldn't exist"? Because if you do understand that, you should stop giving me arguments that naturalism is false, when you are asked to give an argument that if naturalism were true, weighing evidence couldn't exist.

I'm at a loss here as to how a scientist can so entirely, repeatedly miss this very basic point that evidence for one proposition is not necessarily evidence for some quite different proposition.

If you think I am wrong here, and that what you are saying is evidence for the proposition, "if naturalism were true, weighing evidence couldn't exist," you should be able to provide an argument which gets us from

P1: There is no experimental evidence that chemical actions can cause conclusions

to

C: Therefore, if naturalism were true, weighing evidence couldn't exist.

I can't imagine how you could get from one proposition to another.

Komodo said:

I said (again) that I am not making the case that naturalism is true, but that you are wrong to say that if naturalism were true, we couldn't trust our own reasoning. Nothing about transgenderism has any bearing on that point. If you believe otherwise, let's grant your premise here for the sake of argument: Dualism is true. How do you get from there to "Therefore if naturalism were true, we couldn't trust our own reasoning"?

So far, I have not seen any argument, starting with any premise, which validly reached that conclusion.

If naturalism were true, then we would never see any transgenders because the mind would be 100% dependent on the physical structure of the brain. The mind would always match the gender of their chromosomes.

And again you just pick up the wrong stick! I offered to stipulate to the premise that naturalism is false, and asked how you get from the premise "naturalism is false" to the conclusion "if naturalism were true, we couldn't trust our own reasoning." And instead you provide yet another argument that naturalism is false! Your argument is "If naturalism were true, then we would never see any transgenders; we see transgenders; therefore..."

What's the conclusion that logically follows from this? Is it "therefore, if naturalism were true, we couldn't trust our own reasoning"? I would really like you to tell me. If you can't, I don't see the point in continuing with this dialogue.

 

[El Cid]

If naturalism is true, mental states may exist...

Then you are withdrawing your previous claim, that if naturalism was true, mental states would not exist.

Yes, I was thinking of materialism.

El Cid said:
...but they would be based on chemical reactions whose product is based on their ratio in the brain, not based on the weighing of evidence and logical reasoning.

The naturalistic account is that chemical reactions, which are not based on the weighing of evidence, produce the human mind, with all the human mind's capacities, including the capacity to weigh evidence and judge the logical status of claims. You may not believe this claim, but it is not inherently self-contradictory, and it does not imply that those mental capacities do not actually exist.

No, it does imply those mental compacities do not exist, because chemical reactions have never been observed to produce logical reasoning.

El Cid said:
There are no oughts that you should come to logically. If naturalism is true then the mental states based purely on the brain, ie physical states, just ARE, their cant be oughts.

You are making a category error here. Neither the naturalist nor the dualist is claiming that "mental states are oughts" or that "mental states are valid arguments" or that "mental states are the color blue"; they are claiming that mental states are capable of discerning when something ought to be done or when an argument is valid or when the shirt is blue.

But you are also claiming that if naturalism is true you still ought to come to certain conclusions. Something based on physical states just are, they cant be oughts.

What you would need is an argument which began with the naturalistic premise -- "chemical reactions produce the human mind and all the human mind's capacities" and concluded, "the human mind is not capable of discerning when an argument is valid and when it is invalid." You aren't providing any such argument.

I just did above. How can things that just are, be oughts?

El Cid said:
What sort of property of matter could one hold to which would enable matter to see in the sense of rational insight?

Asked and answered repeatedly: we don't know how matter in the brain gives rise to a mind which is capable of rational insight. This fact does not imply either "matter in the brain cannot give rise to a mind which is capable of rational insight" or "if matter gave rise to the mind, we would not be capable of rational insight."

Glad you concede that we have no evidence that such a thing can occur.

El Cid said:

Komodo said:
You did not, for example, address the following questions I asked:
You had said that logic didn't "cause" things but did "produce" them. I said I didn't understand the distinction, and I still don't. What is the difference between saying "logic produces conclusions" and saying "logic causes conclusions"?

Logic produces rational insight into our thoughts.

You are still not addressing that question! What is the difference between saying "logic causes rational insight," which you reject, and "logic produces rational insight," which you accept? How do you produce something without being a cause of that thing?

Causality implies the false impression that just a series of causes and effect can produce rational insight, but we know from science that is extremely unlikely if not impossible. Logic produces conclusions, it doesnt cause them.

 

[Komodo]

[. . .] No, it does imply those mental capacities do not exist, because chemical reactions have never been observed to produce logical reasoning.

Apparently your argument is:
P1 If naturalism were true, chemical reactions would be the cause of mental capacities including logical reasoning.
P2 Chemical reactions have never been observed to produce logical reasoning.
C Therefore, if naturalism were true, mental capacities would not exist.

You must know that this isn't in any way a valid argument. Can you, in fact, produce a valid formal argument which reaches the conclusion "if naturalism were true, mental capacities would not exist"?

Moreover, if you are making the claim "if naturalism is true, then our judgments are unreliable," then you are assuming, for the sake of argument, that naturalism is true. But if naturalism is true, then chemical reactions are the cause of mental capacities including logical reasoning. So you simply cannot assume that those reactions can not be the cause of mental capacities, because that would imply that naturalism was false, and you would be abandoning your own argument.

You do this constantly. I challenge the claim that "if naturalism is true, then our judgments are unreliable," and you abandon that claim in order to defend a different claim: that naturalism is false. At this point, I think it would be fair to assume you just are not interested in defending the claim that "if naturalism is true, then our judgments are unreliable," and you are only interested in defending the claim that naturalism could not be true. And if you are going to do that, you have to do better than "we haven't seen chemical reactions produce logical arguments," because "we have not seen it" doesn't mean it is not possible.

But you are also claiming that if naturalism is true you still ought to come to certain conclusions. Something based on physical states just are, they cant be oughts.

Apparently your argument is:

P1 If naturalism were true, all our thoughts about what we ought to do would be the products of physical states.
P2 Things that are the products of physical states can't be "oughts."
C Therefore, if naturalism were true, our thoughts about what we ought to do couldn't exist.

You must see that this conclusion does not follow from the premises. Do you have a better argument, in which the conclusion does necessarily follow from the premises? Please try to present an actual formal argument.

I just did [present an argument] above.

What you presented above wasn't a valid argument. Maybe it contained the hint of one, but that's something you'd have to clarify.

How can things that just are, be oughts?

Mental states -- whether they are products of chemistry or products of a spirit -- are not, themselves, "oughts"; mental states can only be about oughts (about whether some things ought to be done or ought not be done). Again you're making a category error.

Glad you concede that we have no evidence that such a thing can occur.

I conceded no such thing. I said "we don't know how matter in the brain gives rise to a mind which is capable of rational insight." Do you not understand that "we don't know how this happens" is not the same as "we have no evidence that this happens"?

Recap:
ME: You had said that logic didn't "cause" things but did "produce" them. I said I didn't understand the distinction, and I still don't. What is the difference between saying "logic produces conclusions" and saying "logic causes conclusions"?
YOU: Logic produces rational insight into our thoughts.
ME: You are still not addressing that question! What is the difference between saying "logic causes rational insight," which you reject, and "logic produces rational insight," which you accept? How do you produce something without being a cause of that thing?
YOU: [Just now]

Causality implies the false impression that just a series of causes and effect can produce rational insight, but we know from science that is extremely unlikely if not impossible. Logic produces conclusions, it doesnt cause them.

And I still don't know what "logic produces conclusions, it doesn't cause them" is supposed to mean. Let's drop it.

 

[El Cid]

If your definition of having free will is “being capable of considering and choosing,“ then we have free will, even if determinism is true (I think this position is called “compatibilism”), and I wouldn’t argue with the claim that without free will we wouldn’t be fully human.

Well I am glad we agree on something!

 

[El Cid]

Yes, our behavior will be like our autonomic nervous system, just like you cant stop breathing nor will your heart to stop beating

Yes, but the actual argument is irrelevant. It would just be random chance on whether the sound had any real meaning.

The argument is not irrelevant. If I said, "You gave me $10, then I gave you $5, so I owe you $5, right?" and you said, "Yes," you're not going to say yes if I said I only owed you $3. The content, the meaning, the sounds are *not* random nor irrelevant. You're expecting me to say I owe you $5, so if I say anything different, especially a smaller figure, you're going to have your behavior changed.

Only if my flowchart program included such a scenario or if there was some instinctual reaction to the symbols of 10, 5, and 3.

El Cid said:
True love involves the will, because feelings change all the time. So true love is not possible without a free will.

Your syllogism and logic isn't working:

P1 - True love involves the will
P2 - Feelings change all the time.
Therefore,
P3 - True love is not possible without a free will.

P3 does not logically follow from P1 and P2.

Actually, I made a mistake. Our syllogism P2 should say "The will does not exist." Then P3 follows.

El Cid said:
The mothers behavior would just follow the flow chart by which they have been programmed. No love there.

That is not an argument that love isn't possible with a flow chart, you're just asserting that it isn't.

All natural selection would select for, is that she acted in a way that allowed the survival of her children. Love is not necessary for survival and neither is a free will so neither would be selected for.

El Cid said:
It may have to do with logic, but that would just be a random accident, because the only real basis would be the right stimulus.

El Cid said:
See above about how our behavior would be controlled by our built in programming or flow chart. Even scientists.

Can you state the necessary and sufficient reasons why humans can't do logic without free will? I'm confused as to what your argument actually is.

Because truly logical reasoning requires unique combinations of premises that probably would not have been part of our programmed flowchart, therefore we would never be able to come to the correct conclusion. But because we are not bound to a pre-programmed flowchart if we have a free will, our minds can come up with unique conclusions and solutions.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Only if my flowchart program included such a scenario or if there was some instinctual reaction to the symbols of 10, 5, and 3.

I see nothing to prevent a deterministic brain from perceiving and responding to symbols like 10, 5, and 3 (that doesn't already assume there is no free will, which would make a circular argument).

Actually, I made a mistake. Our syllogism P2 should say "The will does not exist." Then P3 follows.

But claiming there is no free will doesn't require saying there is no will at all (unless you want to make that argument), so P2 is not part of the claim that there is no free will.

All natural selection would select for, is that she acted in a way that allowed the survival of her children. Love is not necessary for survival and neither is a free will so neither would be selected for.

What gets selected for is not what is required. What gets selected for is merely that which offers even a small advantage for leaving more offspring than those who don't have what is selected for.

Because truly logical reasoning requires unique combinations of premises that probably would not have been part of our programmed flowchart, therefore we would never be able to come to the correct conclusion. But because we are not bound to a pre-programmed flowchart if we have a free will, our minds can come up with unique conclusions and solutions.

Improbable things happen all the time, so saying something is improbable is no argument that it can't have happened. Also, are you implying that we're programmed from birth and that's it? Our programming changes all the time, given the plasticity of the brain.

 

[Tercon]

Wrong. I both believe God doesn't exist and disbelieve He does, it's all the same thing.

You are conflating belief and unbelief. I know you can't help it, because that's all you have.

Prove God is seat of logic.

If the logical truth always existed, because to say otherwise is self-refuting, and the logical truth is unknowable outside a believing mind, then the logical truth must be the product of the Original Believing Mind that always existed.

If God was the seat of logic then logic would be contingent, which means it wouldn't be absolute which means there would be no laws of logic

Yes; even logic, like Quantum Mechanics is contingent upon a Believing Mind for a way and means in order to occur and exist.

 

[Whatsisface]

You are conflating belief and unbelief. I know you can't help it, because that's all you have.

Strawman. It's the same thig.

If the logical truth always existed, because to say otherwise is self-refuting, and the logical truth is unknowable outside a believing mind, then the logical truth must be the product of the Original Believing Mind that always existed.

Yeah, if. You have yet to show any of that.

Yes; even logic, like Quantum Mechanics is contingent upon a Believing Mind for a way and means in order to occur and exist.

Sorry, it can't be contingent. If it was it wouldn't be absolute therefore there would be no laws of logic.

 

[Tercon]

Strawman. It's the same thig.

Wrong, you can't believe in what you disbelieve to exist in reality. Come on, you're smarter than that.

Yeah, if. You have yet to show any of that.

You have the follow the logical truth.

Does the logical truth exist in reality? Yes it does.
And if you don't think it does, then it is on you to show how and why the logical truth doesn't exist in reality.

And to say that the logical truth doesn't exist in reality; is this self-defeating? Yes it is, because to say that the logical truth doesn't exist in reality is a statement of truth. And if true, then the statement "the logical truth doesn't exist in reality" must be false.

Is the logical truth is knowable outside or without a believing mind? No, it isn't knowable without or outside of a believing mind, because belief and a believing mind is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to everyone; including you.

And if the only way and place that the logical truth and wave function collapse and fluctuation can be known to occur and exist is in and with a believing mind, then the foundation of reality must be an Original Believing Mind that always existed.

Sorry, it can't be contingent. If it was it wouldn't be absolute therefore there would be no laws of logic.

Strawman. Everything is contingent upon a Believing Mind, because nothing can be known to exist or occur without or outside of a believing mind. QED

 

[Whatsisface]

Wrong, you can't believe in what you disbelieve to exist in reality. Come on, you're smarter than that.

Strawman, I don't. You don't understand what I've said.

You have the follow the logical truth.

Does the logical truth exist in reality? Yes it does.
And if you don't think it does, then it is on you to show how and why the logical truth doesn't exist in reality.

Strawman. This makes no sense. I do believe logical truth exists in reality, I never said otherwise.

Is the logical truth is knowable outside or without a believing mind? No, it isn't knowable without or outside of a believing mind, because belief and a believing mind is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to everyone; including you.

So?

And if the only way and place that the logical truth and wave function collapse and fluctuation can be known to occur and exist is in and with a believing mind, then the foundation of reality must be an Original Believing Mind that always existed.

If, which you haven't shown.

Strawman. Everything is contingent upon a Believing Mind, because nothing can be known to exist or occur without or outside of a believing mind. QED

Wrong. Knowing things is contingent on a mind. States of affairs are independent of minds. (Except states of affairs to do with minds of course.)

 

[Tercon]

If, which you haven't shown.

If you are not referring to some kind of knowledge or mind that makes everything known to exist and occur, then just what is it that you are denoting; if it doesn't depend on a believing mind in order to make it known? Please explain.

Wrong. Knowing things is contingent on a mind. States of affairs are independent of minds. (Except states of affairs to do with minds of course.)

What "states of affairs" do you know of that don't have anything "to do with minds"?