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

The Pixie

Well-known member
No, actually all I have to do is show that the truth and reality can't be known to exist in or occur with without a believing mind, because there is no other way or place that the truth and reality can be known to exist or occur. And your inability to name any other way or place is just more proof of that.



That's how the truth and reality works, as the truth and reality can't be known exist or occur without or outside of a believing mind. And if it could, then someone could tell us what that other way or place is that can make to the truth and reality known to exist and occur. But as of yet; no-one can.
You are, once again, moving the goalposts.

Where we disagree is whether reality can exist without a believing mind.

Here, you are talking about whether it can be known to exist. Once more, and quite deliberately I suspect, you are confusing the map with the territory.

Strawman. No, rather both the map and the territory are still only knowable in and with a believing mind.
Knowable, yes. But the territory exists, either way.

Does this magical way or place "where" reality "can exist without a believing mind" have a way to exist and occur that's knowable?
Knowable, no. But the territory exists, either way.

And if this magical way or place you say exists that doesn't require a believing in order to exist and occur, then how come you can't say what it is and explain how it exists and occurs?
Thinks just exist. Like that rock on Mars no one has ever seen. Nothing magical about it.

What would be magic would be the rock popping into existence the first time someone looks that way and sees it.

Strawman. Actually no-one is capable naming a way or place that exists and occur without a believing mind.
And yet they sill exist.

The territoty was there before anyone named the places.

My claim is that the truth and reality is 100% believable and knowable.
That is a whole different discussion, and there are arguments that something simply are not knowable. For example, if the universe is infinite, could we ever know that?

But none of that impinges on the issue of whether reality requires a believing mind to exist,


And yours is that "reality" doesn't even consist of belief and knowledge.
No, it is that reality does not require a believing mind to exist,

Strawman. Sure it does, because the truth is that the only way and place reality can be known to exist and occur is in and with a believing mind. So, if you remove belief and a mind, then you are left with nothing capable of making the truth and reality exist or occur. Remember, if existence, truth and reality is something that occurs, then it must have a believing mind to exist in and to occur with.
And again, you confuse the map with the territory.

You start by saying a believing mind is required to know if reality exists, and conclude that it is required for it to exist at all!
 

Tercon

Well-known member
You are, once again, moving the goalposts. Where we disagree is whether reality can exist without a believing mind.

Here, you are talking about whether it can be known to exist. Once more, and quite deliberately I suspect, you are confusing the map with the territory.

Knowable, yes. But the territory exists, either way.

Knowable, no. But the territory exists, either way.


Thinks just exist. Like that rock on Mars no one has ever seen. Nothing magical about it.

What would be magic would be the rock popping into existence the first time someone looks that way and sees it.

And yet they sill exist.

The territoty was there before anyone named the places.

That is a whole different discussion, and there are arguments that something simply are not knowable. For example, if the universe is infinite, could we ever know that?

But none of that impinges on the issue of whether reality requires a believing mind to exist,

No, it is that reality does not require a believing mind to exist,

And again, you confuse the map with the territory.

You start by saying a believing mind is required to know if reality exists, and conclude that it is required for it to exist at all!

Actually where you depart from the truth and reality is when you pretend that there is anything knowable outside or without a believing mind. It all comes down to how much the truth and reality matters to you.
But if there is something that exists or occurs outside or without a believing mind, then you need to name what that way or place is and explain how you know it exists or occurs without the benefit of a believing mind in order to give it a way or place to exist in or occur with? As if it is true that this way or place exists in reality that doesn't depend on a believing mind for its existence or occurrence, then explain how you know this way or place exists or occurs without your believing mind to make it known to exist or occur to you. Again, do you know what the statement 'belief is necessary for knowledge' means?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Actually where you depart from the truth and reality is when you pretend that there is anything knowable outside or without a believing mind. It all comes down to how much the truth and reality matters to you.
I never said anything was knowable without a believing mind.

I said it still exists without a believing mind.

But if there is something that exists or occurs outside or without a believing mind, then you need to name what that way or place is and explain how you know it exists or occurs without the benefit of a believing mind in order to give it a way or place to exist in or occur with?
Why do I need to do that?

It is YOUR claim that everything needs a believing mind to exist. The onus is on you to prove it that, say, a rock on Mars does not exist until someone knows about it.

As if it is true that this way or place exists in reality that doesn't depend on a believing mind for its existence or occurrence, then explain how you know this way or place exists or occurs without your believing mind to make it known to exist or occur to you.
Because it was there before anyone knew about it.

Again, do you know what the statement 'belief is necessary for knowledge' means?
It means you are still confusing the map with the territory.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
I never said anything was knowable without a believing mind.

I said it still exists without a believing mind.

What are you referring to when you say "it? And how do you know "it" exists and occurs in reality without a believing mind?

And yes, you are implying that something you are referring to as "it" is "knowable without a believing mind".

And if this "it" can exist and occur without a believing mind, please explain how you know "it" exists and occurs in reality without the benefit of a believing mind?

Why do I need to do that?

It is YOUR claim that everything needs a believing mind to exist. The onus is on you to prove it that, say, a rock on Mars does not exist until someone knows about it.

I have done that, because we can't know of a way or place that exists or occurs without a believing mind. You are pretending you can do the impossible in order to hide the emptiness of your position.

Because it was there before anyone knew about it.

How do YOU KNOW "it was there before" YOU KNEW "about it" without the benefit of a believing mind informing YOU of that? So, you still need a believing mind in order to know that.

It means you are still confusing the map with the territory.

Strawman. If both the map and territory exist and occur in reality, then both require a believing mind in order to exist and occur.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
What are you referring to when you say "it? And how do you know "it" exists and occurs in reality without a believing mind?
I am referring to anything that exists now but we do not know about. I am referring to anything that existed before we knew about it.

For example, most of the cells that are in your body. Do you know each and everyone? Have you seen them all? Of course not. But they still exist.

And yes, you are implying that something you are referring to as "it" is "knowable without a believing mind".
NO!

I am saying it can exist, without a believing mind! But at every turn you twist it to knowable. Every time you post you confuse the map with the territory.

And if this "it" can exist and occur without a believing mind, please explain how you know "it" exists and occurs in reality without the benefit of a believing mind?
That is how existence is.

The burden is on you to show that things cannot exist without a believing mind.

I have done that, because we can't know of a way or place that exists or occurs without a believing mind. You are pretending you can do the impossible in order to hide the emptiness of your position.
And yet these things still exist!

How do YOU KNOW "it was there before" YOU KNEW "about it" without the benefit of a believing mind informing YOU of that? So, you still need a believing mind in order to know that.
Close your eyes. Does that computer that was in front of you still exist, even when you cannot see it?

For a bonus, see if you can make it disappear by not believing in it. You will fail.

Because existence does not depend on belief.

Strawman. If both the map and territory exist and occur in reality, then both require a believing mind in order to exist and occur.
The map is the representation of the territory; in this discussion the map is what you believe about something, as opposed to the thing itself.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
I am referring to anything that exists now but we do not know about. I am referring to anything that existed before we knew about it.

Non Sequitur, as if belief or a believing mind is necessary in order to have any knowledge of the truth and reality at all times and especially in the present tense, then how can you know about something that isn't some form of belief or knowledge?

For example, most of the cells that are in your body. Do you know each and everyone? Have you seen them all? Of course not. But they still exist.

That's all belief based knowledge. Do you believe your cells and body exists or not?

NO!

I am saying it can exist, without a believing mind! But at every turn you twist it to knowable. Every time you post you confuse the map with the territory.

How do you know anything can exist or occur "without a believing mind", when the truth is that in reality belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to you?

That is how existence is.

Not knowing how things exist and occur isn't a logical explanation.

The burden is on you to show that things cannot exist without a believing mind.

I stated something that you are unable to refute, so your inability to show how and why the truth and reality is known to you is all the proof the Reader needs.

And yet these things still exist!

Yes, they exist because they are believed to exist and for no other reason are they known to exist.

Close your eyes. Does that computer that was in front of you still exist, even when you cannot see it?

Do you believe or disbelieve "that computer that was in front of you still exist"? If you believe it exist, then that's how and why you know it still exists. Belief is how we know things exist without having any empirical evidence of their existence, because belief doesn't rely on our physical senses to make the truth and reality known to us. That's why belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known.

For a bonus, see if you can make it disappear by not believing in it. You will fail. Because existence does not depend on belief.

You're conflating belief and unbelief again, because "not believing" is unbelief and not belief.

The map is the representation of the territory; in this discussion the map is what you believe about something, as opposed to the thing itself.

The fact that both "the representation of the territory" (the map) and "the territory" itself both require a believing mind in order to have a way and place to exist and occur supports my claim and not yours. You can't even explain and and why the truth and reality is known to you, but yet you still think your position is correct? You're going to have to do better than that.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Non Sequitur, as if belief or a believing mind is necessary in order to have any knowledge of the truth and reality at all times and especially in the present tense, then how can you know about something that isn't some form of belief or knowledge?
Again, you conflate "know" with "exist". Again you confuse the map with the territory.

I am talking about whether it exists - the territory. You are responding with how we know it exists - the map.

That's all belief based knowledge. Do you believe your cells and body exists or not?
I do.

But they would still exist, even if I did not. Cells still exist in slugs, even though they have no beliefs.

How do you know anything can exist or occur "without a believing mind", when the truth is that in reality belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to you?
How do you know they cannot?

It is your claim. The burden is on your to prove.

Not knowing how things exist and occur isn't a logical explanation.
It is not an explanation at all. So what?

I stated something that you are unable to refute, so your inability to show how and why the truth and reality is known to you is all the proof the Reader needs.
That is not proof.

I stated that things exists that we do not know about. You are unable to refute that. Therefore, according to your reasoning, that is all the proof the reader needs that I am right.

Yes, they exist because they are believed to exist and for no other reason are they known to exist.
So prove it.

Do you believe or disbelieve "that computer that was in front of you still exist"? If you believe it exist, then that's how and why you know it still exists. Belief is how we know things exist without having any empirical evidence of their existence, because belief doesn't rely on our physical senses to make the truth and reality known to us. That's why belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known.
Me? I believe the rocks on Mars no one knows about exist.

We are talking about what you believe. Why do you believe the computer still exists when you close your eyes?

The fact that both "the representation of the territory" (the map) and "the territory" itself both require a believing mind in order to have a way and place to exist and occur supports my claim and not yours. You can't even explain and and why the truth and reality is known to you, but yet you still think your position is correct? You're going to have to do better than that.
You still need to prove the territory requires a believing mind.

So far every time you have tried to do that you ended up talking about the map, not the territory. We all agree the map requires a believing mind,
 

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
From the various replies and his inability to address the questions it would seem that Tercon should have drunk a great deal more deeply from the Pierian spring before embarking on this thread.;)
 
Top