Once again you fail to understand what a strawman is.No actually you started with a strawman.
I said "Belief based simply on believing for no reason?" Do you see that symbol near the end? That is a question mark.
It indicates a question. You stated the your belief was based upon belief itself. That seems circular. I was asking you to clarify I was not making a declaration.
Again not a strawman. I was not misrepresenting your argument, I was stating how things are in the real world not how you believe they are.Strawman. But my argument isn't based on beliefs in reality aka justified true beliefs and not "false beliefs". Can you see the colored purple bolded words? And these things you are referring to above bolded in the purple, they are "false beliefs" and not beliefs in reality aka justified true beliefs.
You mean you don't understand what I'm saying. I can't help you with your ignorance.Illogical nonsense. But a "lack of evidence is" "evidence of a lack" of evidence silly. And you admitting that you don't know certainly isn't proof that you are talking about the truth and reality here.
"lack of evidence is" "evidence of a lack" of evidence. Yes. That is what I said. And it has no bearing upon the truth or fallacy of the claim.
Evidence is what shows the truth or fallacy of the claim and you have yet to provide any.
May mean it is true. It doesn't mean that it is.Actually in reality a "Lack of evidence that something is false" may in fact mean "it is true".
Only evidence that something actually "is true" counts.
As in the example of the invisible dragon. Not being able to prove that it doesn't exist, is not evidence of it's existence.
Hypothetical don't have to exist. That's what makes them hypothetical. If they existed they would be actuals.Strawman. Using hypotheticals that don't exist or hasn't occurred in reality isn't evidence that you know how the truth and reality is known to you, it just shows that you don't know how the truth and reality works and isn't known to you.
What it shows is that you don't understand or accept the logic behind it.
Not a strawman.But your strawman isn't what I am claiming at all.
My claim is that the truth and reality necessarily existed always and because the truth and reality always necessarily, then there must be some evidence of it always necessarily always existing. So, if the truth and reality necessarily always existed, because to suggest otherwise is self-refuting, then this inability to suggest otherwise and still be telling the truth must be evidence of the truth and reality's necessary existence.
And if the ONLY way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist and occur is in and with a Believing Mind, then the evidence of the truth and reality's necessary existence must be known in and with a Believing Mind.
Your claim is rambling nonsense.
How is suggesting that truth and reality haven't necessarily always existed self-refuting? Truth and reality may have only existed since last week. Can you prove otherwise?
The only way we can "know" truth and reality to exist and occur is in and with our Believing Minds.
That does not mean reality cannot exist and occur independently of our knowing.