Both the Bible and Quantum Mechanics requires and logically entails a believing mind.

[Tercon]

In the Bible and Quantum Mechanics both require and logically entail a believing mind in order for the truth and reality of God to be known, and WFC and entanglement to have a way and place to occur. So, if even WFC and entanglement requires and logically entails a believing mind for physicality to have a way and place to occur and exist, then even physicality requires and logically entails a believing mind to occur and exist too.
Therefore, knowledge of the truth, reality, WFC and entanglement all require a believing mind for a way and place to occur. And outside or without a believing mind none of these things can be known to exist or occur.
And if consciousness is life and consciousness requires and logically entails a believing mind in order to be known to occur and exist, then a believing mind must be the primary source of life and consciousness.

We know the body and brain die, but we don't and can't know or experience a believing mind's demise, because all knowing and experiencing too requires and logically entails a believing mind in order to occur in reality.

 

[The Pixie]

In the Bible and Quantum Mechanics both require and logically entail a believing mind in order for the truth and reality of God to be known, and WFC and entanglement to have a way and place to occur. ...

Do you mean the theory of QM as understood by mankind, as devised in the earlier twentieth century? That certainly requires a mind.

But if you mean the laws of nature that the theory attempts to model, then I see no reason to suppose a mind is involved.

Do you? Can you tell us what that reason is?

 

[Tercon]

Do you mean the theory of QM as understood by mankind, as devised in the earlier twentieth century? That certainly requires a mind.

But if you mean the laws of nature that the theory attempts to model, then I see no reason to suppose a mind is involved.

Do you? Can you tell us what that reason is?

It all comes down to how much does the truth matter to you?
And I do; because everything that exists and has an occurrence including QM, the laws of nature and its models that QM produces all logically entail and requires a believing mind to have a way and place to exist and occur or in other words to collapse into.
And without or outside of a believing mind what other way or place that you KNOW of; that has the capacity to know the truth and make reality known to anyone else believing it?
And if you know of another way or place outside of a believing mind that has this capacity, then say what it is and explain how and why it makes itself known to you?

This is the truth that the Bible makes known about belief and believing. It talks more about belief and believing than any other one subject, except of course Christ, but it does make known that the knowledge of God comes from belief (faith) and that believers can't know God without believing as Christ believes; that God is the Father of all who believe in Him. God became man so believers could have a way to become a child of God. And that Way was believing as Christ believed.

 

[The Pixie]

It all comes down to how much does the truth matter to you?
And I do; because everything that exists and has an occurrence including QM, the laws of nature and its models that QM produces all logically entail and requires a believing mind to have a way and place to exist and occur or in other words to collapse into.
And without or outside of a believing mind what other way or place that you KNOW of; that has the capacity to know the truth and make reality known to anyone else believing it?
And if you know of another way or place outside of a believing mind that has this capacity, then say what it is and explain how and why it makes itself known to you?

This is the truth that the Bible makes known about belief and believing. It talks more about belief and believing than any other one subject, except of course Christ, but it does make known that the knowledge of God comes from belief (faith) and that believers can't know God without believing as Christ believes; that God is the Father of all who believe in Him. God became man so believers could have a way to become a child of God. And that Way was believing as Christ believed.

I see you failed to answer as to whether you are talking about the theory of QM or the actual laws of nature.

Is that because you choose to conflate the two? Or you do not understand the difference? Either way, it is clear that if I want to know the truth, I am better off looking elsewhere.

 

[Tercon]

I see you failed to answer as to whether you are talking about the theory of QM or the actual laws of nature.

Actually I was talking about how and why the truth and reality is known to us. So, what were you "talking about" when you are referencing "the theory of QM or the actual laws of nature"?

Is that because you choose to conflate the two? Or you do not understand the difference? Either way, it is clear that if I want to know the truth, I am better off looking elsewhere.

Strawman and evasion. No, it is because I can read; and according to both the Bible and QM both require and logically entail a believing mind in order to be known to exist and occur. And you have not shown otherwise and it is clear that you are doing everything to avoid knowing the truth. I know that the truth is scary when you are on the outside looking in, but it is the only thing that saves us from our own unbelief and lies.

 

[The Pixie]

Actually I was talking about how and why the truth and reality is known to us. So, what were you "talking about" when you are referencing "the theory of QM or the actual laws of nature"?
...

Your OP starts "In the Bible and Quantum Mechanics both require and logically entail a believing mind in order for the truth and reality of God to be known, and WFC and entanglement to have a way and place to occur." I asked you to clarify what you mean by the "Quantum Mechanics" bit. I think we have now established you have no clue, and hence the OP can be rejected as nonsense.

 

[The Pixie]

Evasion. Where you have "established you have no clue" and why don't you deal with what's being said to you instead of running away?

According to both the Bible and QM both require and logically entail a believing mind in order to be known to exist and occur.
...

And yet you cannot say if you mean the theory proposed by man or the laws of nature when you say QM. It is clear you are confusing the map with the territory. Given that, it is pretty clear everything else you say is nonsense.

 

[Tiburon]

Evasion. Where you have "established you have no clue" and why don't you deal with what's being said to you instead of running away?

According to both the Bible and QM both require and logically entail a believing mind in order to be known to exist and occur.
If a believing mind is necessary and logically entailed in order for WFC and entanglement to have a way and place to occur.
And also, measurement or observation too necessarily and logically entails a believing mind to do the measuring and observing.
Therefore, QM is completely dependent on a believing mind for its modeling. Also, modeling too requires a believing mind in order to occur. Now, if you think what I said isn't true, then say how and why it isn't true.

With regard to QM, a believing mind is NOT-necessary and logically entailed in order for WFC and entanglement to have a way and place to occur.
The Bible and QM both require a believing mind in order to be known to exist. That is all.

 

[The Pixie]

Is that the best you can come up with; "And yet you cannot say if you mean the theory proposed by man or the laws of nature when you say QM"?

I do not need any more. That alone proves you have no clue what you are talking about.

Please list all the things that you can "say" that doesn't require a believing mind in order to be known to exist or occur?

To know it exists, or merely to exist? To know it exists, everything needs a mind. But just to exist, that is not the case. A simple rock exists without a mind to help it.

I expect this is where you try to shift the burden of proof on me. Not happening. You are the one who seems to think a rock needs a mind to exist, the onus is on you to prove it.

 

[Tiburon]

How do you know something can occur without your believing mind informing you of its occurrence?

Because the world continues on without me knowing every occurrence.
How do you know something does occur in reality? How do you know it isn't just a product of your believing mind?

 

[The Pixie]

Please explain how and why "that alone proves you have no clue what you are talking about"? You didn't mention how and why I "have no clue what you are talking about"?

The issue of whether you mean the man-made theory of QM or the actual laws of nature. Given I have talked about almost nothing else on this thread, and more specifically was responding to your comment "Is that the best you can come up with; "And yet you cannot say if you mean the theory proposed by man or the laws of nature when you say QM"?", your question here looks decidedly disingenuous.

How do you "know it exists" without believing it exists in reality?

Me? I do not. I have a believing mind, and that mind knows it exists.

But the rock exists whether I know about it or not.

There will be rocks on Mars no one knows about. But they still exist.

If in reality you require a believing mind in order to know everything that occurs, is true and exists; including "a simple rock exists", then in reality outside of or without a believing mind you can know nothing. So, why are you pretending you can?

To know it, yes. But not for it to exist.

The rock exists whether someone knows about it or not,

The truth and reality are the objects of a believing mind, because without a believing mind neither the truth nor reality can be known to exist or occur.

Wrong. The rock exists even if we do not know about. If you think otherwise, the onus is on you to prove it.

 

[The Pixie]

edit

As you say, that rock on Mars continues to exist, without anyone on earth knowing the truth and reality of its existence.

And okay, to have knowledge of that rock would require a person to believe it exists. So what?

edit

But that is not so. You just admitted the rock continues to exist despite no one knowing about it.

edit

So why did you not say you were referring to both when I asked you?

Looks to me like you only just thought this one up.

edit

Okay. That rock on Mars is not belief or knowledge based, it does not require or logically entail a believing mind for its occurrence and existence.

edit

I am referring to that rock on Mars.

 

[Tiburon]

edit

It doesn't however require my mind to know and believe it in order for it to occur.
It only require my believing mind for me to KNOW it occurred.

edit

So everything you "know" to exist and occur is just a product of your believing Mind?

 

[mikeT]

edit

This is false. Quantum mechanics states no such requirement.

 

[The Pixie]

edit

Maybe you need to be clearer in what you mean.

If the rock "just continues without you knowing the truth and reality of its existence" how is that different to the rock existing, without anyone knowing about it?

Are you disputing whether the rocks on Mars exist before we know about them? You need to be clear on this, because it is foundational to what we are arguing about.

If you think an object only exists once people know about it, then that is a huge claim that you need to back up. The implication is that the entire North and South American continents did not exist until they were settled however many years ago. The implication is that the earth is hollow because no one knows for sure what is down there!

I think that that position is nonsense, and I am sure most people would agree, so if you are really saying that, you need some pretty good evidence.

On the other hand, if you agree with me that that rock on Mars exists even when no one knows about it, then my argument stands. There was no straw man. Please clarify one way or the other.

I strongly suspect this is again confusing the map with the territory, and further would guess that you will therefore refuse to answer this question, either because your confusion is too ingrained and you cannot, or simply because you refuse to admit you could be wrong.

Here is the statement: There exists on Mars right now some rocks that no one knows exist and no one believes exists and no one knows the truth and reality of there existence. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[The Pixie]

edit

But the rock still exists. i claim no more than that.

The rock continues to exist, even though we have no knowledge of it. As you like to put it, without us knowing the truth and reality of its existence

edit

It is referring to the rock. The rock is a thing, it exists.

edit

Wrong. The rock exists, it is real, it is a part of reality.

It does not magically start to exist when we discover it. It was already there.

edit

But I am not talking about knowledge, I am talking about reality. The rock exists, we just do not know it exists.

edit

Okay. But the rock still exists.

edit

Wrong. The rock exists whether people rock about it or not. Again, it does not magically start to exist when we discover it. It was already there.

edit

Sure. So what? The rock still exists.

edit

No. But the rock still existed before I knew about the planet.

edit

Okay. But the rock exists regardless of your beliefs.

edit

I am not saying that. All I am saying is the rock exists regardless of your beliefs and knowledge.

 

[The Pixie]

What "rock" are you referring to?

A rock on Mars that no one has every seen. Does not matter specifically which one there are lots.

But "without us knowing the truth and reality of its existence" doesn't refer to or denote any kind of knowledge, but the lack thereof. So, "the rock" has no object of belief and without belief there is no knowledge of the truth or reality.

But it still exists.

You think like that because you also believe unbelief exists, but unbelief too lacks any kind of knowledge, because unbelief too lacks a object of belief and belief is necessary for any knowledge of the truth and reality.

What do you mean by unbelief? I believe things exist that no one knows about. They are thinks that I believe do not exist.

Again, what rock? Post a picture of "the rock", so I can see what you are referring to.

You are not following this, are?

I am taking about a rock on Mars no one knows is there. Therefore there is no photo.

But you can't know the truth about something until you believe "it" exists in reality.

Obviously.

Well, if you are not referring to a form of "knowledge" and something you "just do not know it exists", and the truth and reality contains knowledge and definitely refers to and denotes knowledge, then you are definitely NOT referring to or denoting the truth or reality.

Okay, but the rock still exists.

Do you believe "the rock" exists?

I believe there are rocks on Mars that no one has every seen. I believe they do exist.

Do you deny they exist?

Actually in reality we magically start to know it exists as soon as we believe it exists.

It is not magic. Knowing it exists is virtually synonymous with believing it exists.

Send me a picture, so I can see "the rock" you are referring to in reality.

Again, try to keep up. We are talking about a rock no one has ever seen. There are no photos.

Does that make you think it does not exist? Do you need to see a photo of something before it can exist?

But that's not how the truth and reality works, because it is a Non Sequitur. As if any knowledge of the truth and reality requires a belief in reality, then how could you know that "rock" existed on Mars "before" you believed and "knew about the planet" existing?

I know there are rocks on Mars because that is the nature of the universe. It is a rocky planet, most of which has yet to be explored.

Do you deny that there are rocks on Mars no one has ever seen?

But that is exactly what you're implying when you say that you could know "the rock still existed before" you "knew about the planet" existed. As all knowledge of the truth and reality follows a certain order, because you can't know any truth about something in reality without first believing that it exists in reality. That's what a belief in reality is necessary before the truth and reality is known to you means. So, your claim is out of logical sequence; first comes belief, then comes knowledge.

Despite all that, the rock still exists, despite people not knowing about it. It is a part of reality -, it is true - without anyone believing it is true.

 

[The Pixie]

So, you are not referring to or denoting any actual knowledge you have, rather you are just pretending?

I have no knowledge of the rock, if that is what you mean.

But the rock still exists. I am not pretending it exists.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that 'rocks exist on Mars'?

Sure. There are countless rocks on Mars that we have no knowledge, but that exist nevertheless.

Lack of belief, unbelief doesn't exist in reality, because everything that exists is only known to exist because of belief and not unbelief. Unbelief has no object of belief in order to make it known in reality. It is just the lack of something (belief), that does exist and occur in reality.

I do not believe in fairies and unicorns. How about you?

So, you just believe that rocks exist on Mars, and I do as well.

Right. And they exist despite us not knowing about it. And they existed long before anyone believed there were rocks on Mars.

 

[The Pixie]

Well if you're not referring to any form of knowledge or something that is knowable, then you can't be denoting the truth or reality, because both the truth and reality requires belief and knowledge.

No they do not. The rock exists. That is the truth. That is reality.

Reality still exists when no one knows about it.

If you can't know of anything's existence without belief and knowledge, then you are in fact pretending to know something that in reality you don't.

Okay.

But the rock still exists.

But I have seen rocks on Mars, so I have an object of belief that is knowledge of reality.

But they are countless more you have not seen, that know one is aware of. And they still exist.

Or perhaps I should say that I have seen things, so I have an object of belief that is knowledge of reality? Clear this is just sematics - how our language groups objects.

That's right; as unbelief are like "fairies and unicorns", they don't exist in reality either.

Okay.

Well I don't know about you, but the rocks I believe exist on Mars I believe they exist because I have seen rocks on Mars.

Right! We know those rocks exist, even though no one has seen them. No belief necessary, they just exist.

 

[Tercon]

No they do not. The rock exists. That is the truth. That is reality.

Are you suggesting that knowing of the truth and reality doesn't require belief and knowledge?

Reality still exists when no one knows about it.

How do you know that is true when reality is only knowable through belief?

But they are countless more you have not seen, that know one is aware of. And they still exist.

You can't pretend to know something that in reality you don't, as if you haven't seen what is over the next hill, then don't pretend that it is some kind of knowledge until you see or hear something that you can believe in reality.

Or perhaps I should say that I have seen things, so I have an object of belief that is knowledge of reality? Clear this is just sematics - how our language groups objects.

Not just semantics. If you skew how and why the truth and reality is known to you, then the truth and reality will elude you as well.

Right! We know those rocks exist, even though no one has seen them. No belief necessary, they just exist.

Question: How do you know rocks exist?