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

[The Pixie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Tercon]

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.

Strawman. And I am talking about how and why you can know of anything's existence without believing it exists to begin with.

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

Strawman. But how could YOU KNOW they exist without believing they exist first?

How do you know they cannot?

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

Another strawman. I am talking how what can be known and not what "cannot" be known, because what "cannot" be known denotes nothing knowable.

It is not an explanation at all. So what?

Why do you keep referring to it then?

That is not proof.

Here some proof in your own words:

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.

And just what are these "things" that you say exists "that we do not know about". Please say what they are and how you know they exist without a believing mind letting to know that they do in fact exist?

So prove it.

I have; because belief is necessary 100% of the time in order to make all truth and reality known to us and you have not shown otherwise.

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?

Strawman. No, I am talking about how and why what we know exist is known to exist. The real question is 'why do I know the computer still exists when I close my eyes?

Answer: My belief makes it known to me and that is why belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality (my computer) known to exists even when I close my eyes? It is because I still continue to believe it exist even when I can't see it, as that is the power of belief.

But how do you know "the rocks on Mars" that "no one" including you "knows about exist" is KNOWN it you? I mean; I know my computer exists because I can see and use it or in other words my belief possesses a object of belief that I have already known exists. But what object of belief do you have when you are not referring to or denoting something that "no one knows about exist"?

You still need to prove the territory requires a believing mind.

Strawman and deflection. Actually you need to show how YOU can KNOW of anything's existence without a believing mind making it known to you?

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,

Why don't you name something that doesn't need a believing mind in order to make it known to exist to you, starting with "the map" and "territory"? And if you are not referring to something that is knowable, then say what it is and how you know it exists without a believing mind making it known to you?

 

[The Pixie]

Strawman. And I am talking about how and why you can know of anything's existence without believing it exists to begin with.

Okay...

Strawman. But how could YOU KNOW they exist without believing they exist first?

Knowing they exist and believing they exist are the same.

But they do exist, whether you know they exist or not. Or whether you believe they exist or not.

Another strawman. I am talking how what can be known and not what "cannot" be known, because what "cannot" be known denotes nothing knowable.

But previously you were talking about whether it can exist or not.

Why do you keep referring to it then?

Because in other posts of yours that was clearly what you were talking about.

"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?"

I would like to think that after over four months, you have realised that that is nonsense, but I strongly suspect you will return to that nonsense soon enough.

Here some proof in your own words:

"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."

I said it is proof according to your reasoning. Which is to say, utter BS.

And just what are these "things" that you say exists "that we do not know about". Please say what they are and how you know they exist without a believing mind letting to know that they do in fact exist?

Why? Do you deny they exist? Do you deny the existence of rocks on Mars that no one knows about?

I have; because belief is necessary 100% of the time in order to make all truth and reality known to us and you have not shown otherwise.

I have not contested otherwise either.

I am saying that things can exist without us knowing about them, without us believing they exist.

Strawman. No, I am talking about how and why what we know exist is known to exist. The real question is 'why do I know the computer still exists when I close my eyes?

If that is all you are talking about, who cares? But in post #3 you said:

"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."

Back then you were saying the existence of a thing requires a believing mind. That was utter nonsense. Now you seem to be trying to drop that BS, at least in part.

Answer: My belief makes it known to me and that is why belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality (my computer) known to exists even when I close my eyes? It is because I still continue to believe it exist even when I can't see it, as that is the power of belief.

So what?

What we originally debated was whether something requires a believing mind to exist.

But how do you know "the rocks on Mars" that "no one" including you "knows about exist" is KNOWN it you? I mean; I know my computer exists because I can see and use it or in other words my belief possesses a object of belief that I have already known exists. But what object of belief do you have when you are not referring to or denoting something that "no one knows about exist"?

The rocks no one knows about are not known to me. They are not known to anyone.

And yet they still exist.

Strawman and deflection. Actually you need to show how YOU can KNOW of anything's existence without a believing mind making it known to you?

Again, I was contesting whether their existence depends on someone knowing them - that is your original position on this thread.

Why don't you name something that doesn't need a believing mind in order to make it known to exist to you, starting with "the map" and "territory"? And if you are not referring to something that is knowable, then say what it is and how you know it exists without a believing mind making it known to you?

Again, this was not originally about being known to exist. Back on page one you were insisting a believing mind was required for the thing to exist at all.

If you have changed you mind, have the decency to admit instead of making these false accusations of "strawman".

 

[Temujin]

NT

 

[Temujin]

Strawman. And I am talking about how and why you can know of anything's existence without believing it exists to begin with.



Strawman. But how could YOU KNOW they exist without believing they exist first?



Another strawman. I am talking how what can be known and not what "cannot" be known, because what "cannot" be known denotes nothing knowable.



Why do you keep referring to it then?



Here some proof in your own words:


And just what are these "things" that you say exists "that we do not know about". Please say what they are and how you know they exist without a believing mind letting to know that they do in fact exist?



I have; because belief is necessary 100% of the time in order to make all truth and reality known to us and you have not shown otherwise.



Strawman. No, I am talking about how and why what we know exist is known to exist. The real question is 'why do I know the computer still exists when I close my eyes?

Answer: My belief makes it known to me and that is why belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality (my computer) known to exists even when I close my eyes? It is because I still continue to believe it exist even when I can't see it, as that is the power of belief.

But how do you know "the rocks on Mars" that "no one" including you "knows about exist" is KNOWN it you? I mean; I know my computer exists because I can see and use it or in other words my belief possesses a object of belief that I have already known exists. But what object of belief do you have when you are not referring to or denoting something that "no one knows about exist"?



Strawman and deflection. Actually you need to show how YOU can KNOW of anything's existence without a believing mind making it known to you?



Why don't you name something that doesn't need a believing mind in order to make it known to exist to you, starting with "the map" and "territory"? And if you are not referring to something that is knowable, then say what it is and how you know it exists without a believing mind making it known to you?

Imagine a Johari's window, or draw one on paper if you prefer. Alter the rows to read "Things that exist" and "Things that do not exist". Label the columns to read "Things that we know whether they exist or not" and "Things that we don't know whether they exist or not".

Now, most people would agree that there are things that will go into every box. Indeed, there are things in every box that someone believes in, even if we don't know precisely which box to put them in. Obviously God and Vishnu cannot both exist, but we don't know for sure which, if either actually does exist. One or both must be in the bottom left corner, not existing but we don't know for sure that they don't exist.

This diagram might help you visualise the fact that the existence of things is independent of our knowledge of their existence. It will also help you understand that we can believe things that we are certain about, and also believe things that we are not certain about.

 

[Tercon]

Knowing they exist and believing they exist are the same.

Agreed, belief is the only form of knowledge that connects us to the truth and reality.

But they do exist, whether you know they exist or not. Or whether you believe they exist or not.

But how do you "knowing they exist" without the benefit of a believing mind to making that known to you?

But previously you were talking about whether it can exist or not.
Because in other posts of yours that was clearly what you were talking about.

"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?"

Strawman. No, I want to know how you know existence exists without a believing mind making it known to you? Please explain how you know this.

I would like to think that after over four months, you have realised that that is nonsense, but I strongly suspect you will return to that nonsense soon enough.

Why? When you have not shown me how you know something exists without the benefit of a believing making it known to you.

I said it is proof according to your reasoning. Which is to say, utter BS.

Projection. Why can't you show me how you know something exists without the benefit of a believing making it known to you?

Why? Do you deny they exist? Do you deny the existence of rocks on Mars that no one knows about?

Would you say that you know they exist because you believe they exist?

I have not contested otherwise either.

I am saying that things can exist without us knowing about them, without us believing they exist.

Strawman. But if all knowledge of the truth and reality requires a believing mind and a object of belief.

The above is a picture from NASA of rocks on Mars. We now have a belief in reality and knowledge of rocks on Mars. And you don't have pretend anymore that the truth and reality doesn't require a believing mind in order to be known to exist.

If that is all you are talking about, who cares? But in post #3 you said:

"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."

Red Herring. And you have never dealt with my claim. Explain how YOU can KNOW anything about the truth, reality or even a physical occurrence without the benefit of a believing mind for the truth, reality or even a physical occurrence to collapse into? Stop running away and deal with what it being said to you.

 

[Tercon]

Imagine a Johari's window, or draw one on paper if you prefer. Alter the rows to read "Things that exist" and "Things that do not exist". Label the columns to read "Things that we know whether they exist or not" and "Things that we don't know whether they exist or not".

Now, most people would agree that there are things that will go into every box. Indeed, there are things in every box that someone believes in, even if we don't know precisely which box to put them in. Obviously God and Vishnu cannot both exist, but we don't know for sure which, if either actually does exist. One or both must be in the bottom left corner, not existing but we don't know for sure that they don't exist.

This diagram might help you visualise the fact that the existence of things is independent of our knowledge of their existence. It will also help you understand that we can believe things that we are certain about, and also believe things that we are not certain about.

How is a diagram and its existence "independent of our knowledge of their existence"? Asking me to do something that so obviously requires a believing mind isn't an example of something that doesn't require a believing mind in order to be known to exist.
Maybe you can explain to everyone how you know something that is true in its existence without the benefit of a believing mind in order to be known to exist?

 

[The Pixie]

Agreed, belief is the only form of knowledge that connects us to the truth and reality.

What other forms of knowledge are you dismissing here?

All knowledge connects truth to reality - that is what knowledge is.

But how do you "knowing they exist" without the benefit of a believing mind to making that known to you?

I do not. We could be talking about hypothetical rocks. But if hypothetically those rocks exist, they exist whether we know about them or not.

Strawman. No, I want to know how you know existence exists without a believing mind making it known to you? Please explain how you know this.

But your original claim was that things do not exist unless we know about them.

You whine repeatedly about "strawman", but the truth is that the so-call strawman is what you were advocating back in November.

Why? When you have not shown me how you know something exists without the benefit of a believing making it known to you.

Projection. Why can't you show me how you know something exists without the benefit of a believing making it known to you?

Would you say that you know they exist because you believe they exist?

All this is ignoring the point I was arguing against, and you seem to have now abandoned.

Strawman. But if all knowledge of the truth and reality requires a believing mind and a object of belief.

Did you mean to add something to that?

The above is a picture from NASA of rocks on Mars. We now have a belief in reality and knowledge of rocks on Mars. And you don't have pretend anymore that the truth and reality doesn't require a believing mind in order to be known to exist.

All those rocks existed before anyone knew about them.

That is all I have been claiming in this thread. Looks like you have now abandoned your idiotic claim that they did not exist when no one knew about them.

Red Herring. And you have never dealt with my claim. Explain how YOU can KNOW anything about the truth, reality or even a physical occurrence without the benefit of a believing mind for the truth, reality or even a physical occurrence to collapse into? Stop running away and deal with what it being said to you.

But I am not disputing that that you have to know something exists to know it exists. that is just a tautology.

What I disputed was your earlier claim that it did not exist before we knew about it. I see a lot of your earlier posts have disappeared - is that because you have had them removed because you have changed your position?

We do still have this:

"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."​

​

"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."​

Very clearly you were previously claiming a believing mind was required for a thing to exist. And equally clear now you want to pretend you never said.

 

[Temujin]

How is a diagram and its existence "independent of our knowledge of their existence"? Asking me to do something that so obviously requires a believing mind isn't an example of something that doesn't require a believing mind in order to be known to exist.
Maybe you can explain to everyone how you know something that is true in its existence without the benefit of a believing mind in order to be known to exist?

I'm not sure whether you are being disingenuous or plain stupid. The diagram I propose is to help visualise the situation.it isn't an example. It's a way of displaying examples. You are clearly hopeless at verbal comprehension, so I thought that visual cues might help you.

If you actually draw out the diagram I suggest, you will find that "Maybe you can explain to everyone how you know something that is true in its existence without the benefit of a believing mind in order to be known to exist?" doesn't make any sense. Which is exactly what I am trying to demonstrate to you m

 

[Tercon]

What other forms of knowledge are you dismissing here?

All knowledge connects truth to reality - that is what knowledge is.


I do not. We could be talking about hypothetical rocks. But if hypothetically those rocks exist, they exist whether we know about them or not.


But your original claim was that things do not exist unless we know about them.

You whine repeatedly about "strawman", but the truth is that the so-call strawman is what you were advocating back in November.


All this is ignoring the point I was arguing against, and you seem to have now abandoned.


Did you mean to add something to that?


All those rocks existed before anyone knew about them.

That is all I have been claiming in this thread. Looks like you have now abandoned your idiotic claim that they did not exist when no one knew about them.


But I am not disputing that that you have to know something exists to know it exists. that is just a tautology.

What I disputed was your earlier claim that it did not exist before we knew about it. I see a lot of your earlier posts have disappeared - is that because you have had them removed because you have changed your position?

We do still have this:

"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."​

​

"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."​

Very clearly you were previously claiming a believing mind was required for a thing to exist. And equally clear now you want to pretend you never said.

Red Herring.

When are you going to deal with the reality that everything that exists requires a believing mind in order to be known to exist?

"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."​

​

"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 and somewhere to exist and occur. And a believing mind is the only way and place that we know to exist that possesses this capacity.​

 

[Tercon]

I'm not sure whether you are being disingenuous or plain stupid. The diagram I propose is to help visualise the situation.it isn't an example. It's a way of displaying examples. You are clearly hopeless at verbal comprehension, so I thought that visual cues might help you.

If you actually draw out the diagram I suggest, you will find that "Maybe you can explain to everyone how you know something that is true in its existence without the benefit of a believing mind in order to be known to exist?" doesn't make any sense. Which is exactly what I am trying to demonstrate to you m

I am still waiting for you to show me how YOU KNOW something can exist or occur without the benefit of a believing mind making it known to you? When are you going to get to explain that?

 

[Temujin]

I am still waiting for you to show me how YOU KNOW something can exist or occur without the benefit of a believing mind making it known to you? When are you going to get to explain that?

And I have told you, as indeed has everyone else who have discussed this with you, that this is not disputed. Yes, to know that something is true, you need to believe that it is true. Put that away in the agreed box. Now tackle the problem of those people who believe things that are not true. They are sincere in their belief. You calling it unbelief is a lie. It's exactly the same as belief in reality. The objective difference is not in the person, but in the object of belief. In one case, it exists. In the other it does not. Belief doesn't call an object into existence. Belief is the expression of opinion on whether an object exists or not. Reality lies on the object. Knowledge of reality lies in the person having the knowledge. They are not the same thing. They may or may not be congruent.

 

[The Pixie]

Red Herring.

When are you going to deal with the reality that everything that exists requires a believing mind in order to be known to exist?

I have never disputed that.

What I dispute is your original claim that everything that exists requires a believing mind in order just to exist. That is utter nonsense.

No wonder you want to pretend this is about something else now.