Do you agree or disagree with the below statement and what does this statement mean to you?

Tiburon

Member
Do you agree or disagree with the below statement and what does this statement mean to you?

'The only way and place that the truth and reality can be known and experienced is in and by a believing mind.' Thanks
Based upon my current experience and dependent upon how the words used are defined then I would agree with that statement.
 
Actually if the ONLY way we can know and experience the truth and reality is in and with our believing minds, then the ONLY way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist and experienced is in and with our believing mind. Therefore, reality must be a believing mind or the truth and reality must be the product of a believing mind.
I guess this makes sense. It is like a version of 'I think therefore I am'. I agree that all we know to be real takes place in our minds. However, the way we determine what is real comes from our senses and the evidence they detect. And the best sensory evidence is empirical evidence.

So while our beliefs are in our minds those beliefs are founded upon our sensory input from the real world. You need both to determine reality.

So yes - reality only exists in our 'believing minds'. We determine what we believe in our minds based on empirical evidence from our senses.

How does this apply to God or proving that Christianity is real?
 

Tercon

Active member
I guess this makes sense. It is like a version of 'I think therefore I am'. I agree that all we know to be real takes place in our minds. However, the way we determine what is real comes from our senses and the evidence they detect. And the best sensory evidence is empirical evidence.
Then wouldn't you say that if the only way and place we know and experience the truth and reality is in and with our believing minds, then wouldn't it also be true that what we experience as "sensory evidence" is also belief based as well, because what we experience with and through our senses we believe as well in order to know and experience it?
So while our beliefs are in our minds those beliefs are founded upon our sensory input from the real world. You need both to determine reality.
Not true, because if we also have to believe what we are experiencing with our senses as well, then all our interpretation of what we are experiencing is belief based too.
So yes - reality only exists in our 'believing minds'. We determine what we believe in our minds based on empirical evidence from our senses.
No. If belief is necessary before the truth and reality are known to us, then all truth and reality including empirical evidence, if empirical evidence is knowledge based as well fall under belief. As if empirical evidence is a part of the truth and reality, then it too must be belief based in order to be known to us.
How does this apply to God or proving that Christianity is real?

If it is true that the ONLY way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist and be experienced is in and with a believing mind and the truth and reality always existed, because it is self-refuting to suggest otherwise, then the truth and reality must have always existed in a believing mind or the truth and reality must have always been the product of a believing mind.

Well, if the truth and reality always existed in a believing mind or the truth and reality must have always been the product of a believing mind, then the truth and reality must be a personage.

You should also note that the truth, reality and a believing mind is what also creates living conscious beings as well.
 

Tercon

Active member
Based upon my current experience and dependent upon how the words used are defined then I would agree with that statement.
So if the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist and be experienced is in and by a believing mind, then the only way and place that the truth and realty can be known to exist is in and with a believing mind. There is NO other way or place outside of a believing mind that possesses the ability to both know the truth and reality and also the only way and place that it can be known and experienced.
But if you disagree, then say what that other way or place is that has this necessary capacity outside of a believing mind, that is capable of the belief function?
 

Whatsisface

Active member
How can you know a mind exists without a belief in reality?

How can you know "existence without belief", when belief is necessary in order to make the existence of anything known in reality silly?
You do realise that all this is circular, right? Reality is contingent on minds, but minds are part of reality. That's a fallacious argument on your part.

 

Tercon

Active member
You do realise that all this is circular, right? Reality is contingent on minds, but minds are part of reality. That's a fallacious argument on your part.
Strawman, rather reality requires and implies a believing mind, because the truth and reality cannot be known or experienced without a believing mind. And you are just projecting your unbelief.
If a believing mind is reality, because it cannot be known to exist in no other way or place else, then reality is a believing mind. And if reality is the product of a believing mind, then the product of a believing mind must be reality.
 
Then wouldn't you say that if the only way and place we know and experience the truth and reality is in and with our believing minds, then wouldn't it also be true that what we experience as "sensory evidence" is also belief based as well, because what we experience with and through our senses we believe as well in order to know and experience it?
Kinda - I'd say that in the end everything is in our minds since that is the seat of consciousness. It is possible that my senses are wrong and I am actually in a mental institution saying 'empirical evidence!' over and over again to a wall.
Not true, because if we also have to believe what we are experiencing with our senses as well, then all our interpretation of what we are experiencing is belief based too.
I agree that everything is in the mind. However, we discovered long ago that our sense are pretty reliable for figuring out what is real. If I use empirical evidence to inform my mind and then act on that information it works. My eyes say there is a tree and I touch the tree and I smell the tree and I hear the leaves. Thus the tree is real. This repeats a billion billion times a day with success. It is how we function at the most basic level.

So while I agree that the mind holds all belief we also know that the mind is not in a glass jar. The mind uses the senses, and empirical evidence found by those senses, to inform the mind. When we do this we meet success. If we close off the senses, if we close our access to the empirical evidence obtained by the senses, we start walking into walls very quickly.
No. If belief is necessary before the truth and reality are known to us, then all truth and reality including empirical evidence, if empirical evidence is knowledge based as well fall under belief.
I disagree here. Reality and belief come after the empirical evidence. For example I may believe in my believing mind that the grocery store is on the corner. However, if I go to the corner and my senses obtain empirical evidence that says the store is not there (e.g. the corner is an empty parking lot) then my belief changes. I now believe that I was wrong and the grocery store is not on the corner. I now believe there is a parking lot there based on my senses and empirical evidence.

If you go to the middle of a parking lot and insist that you are in a grocery store because of your believing mind then you get to go to a mental hospital :)
As if empirical evidence is a part of the truth and reality, then it too must be belief based in order to be known to us.
Correct.
If it is true that the ONLY way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist and be experienced is in and with a believing mind and the truth and reality always existed, because it is self-refuting to suggest otherwise, then the truth and reality must have always existed in a believing mind or the truth and reality must have always been the product of a believing mind.
Our mind interprets truth and reality of the world around us. Reality does not exist in my mind. I know this because if I die reality will keep right on going. Reality is separate from the mind. We may understand reality and truth in our mind but reality does not exist there and reality is not depend on human minds in any way.

You can believe in your believing mind that the moon does not exist. The moon will still be there.
Well, if the truth and reality always existed in a believing mind or the truth and reality must have always been the product of a believing mind, then the truth and reality must be a personage.
Our understanding or truth and reality exist in the mind. Truth and reality are objective and live outside of any human mind. The reality of the moon's existence is not in your mind - it is not dependent on your mind - it is objectively out in space.

That is why people come and go, live and die, and reality does not change.
You should also note that the truth, reality and a believing mind is what also creates living conscious beings as well.
I have no idea how you could prove the origin of consciousness. This is one of the most difficult issues in modern science. If you have empirical evidence for the nature of consciousness then you may go to Stockholm for your Nobel Prize :)
 

Whatsisface

Active member
Strawman,
You say this too often no matter what.
rather reality requires and implies a believing mind, because the truth and reality cannot be known or experienced without a believing mind. And you are just projecting your unbelief.
This in no way addresses my point and it just repeats your usual claim. According to you, reality requires a believing mind. But a mind is part of reality, which requires a believing mind. Which comes first, a mind or reality?
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
You say this too often no matter what.

This in no way addresses my point and it just repeats your usual claim. According to you, reality requires a believing mind. But a mind is part of reality, which requires a believing mind. Which comes first, a mind or reality?
Well, he can't say a Mind, because if that mind is real, reality came first.

But I suppose that's your point :)
 

Tercon

Active member
You say this too often no matter what.
I say it often because you strawman often :).
This in no way addresses my point and it just repeats your usual claim.
What "point", as you haven't made a "point", so what are you referring to?

According to you, reality requires a believing mind. But a reality requires a believing mind which requires a believing mind. Which comes first, a mind or reality?
Strawman. Actually if it is all minds including the original mind that is required to believe before the truth and reality are known to us, then us like in God's image experience His reality and mind the same way He does . But it is still truth that the only way and place that is capable of knowing, making known and representing the truth and reality is a believing mind.
And if the truth is that reality ONLY requires us to have a believing mind in order to make the truth and reality known to and in us, then it is the occurrence and action of belief by the mind that enlightens the mind to the reality of the truth.
And if reality can ONLY be known to exist in and by a believing mind, then everything that exists in reality is a part of reality, including believing minds. So, if a believing mind must occur in reality before it too becomes a part of reality, then the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist is a believing mind. Therefore, us like our Creator must possess a believing mind.
 
Last edited:

Tercon

Active member
Well, he can't say a Mind, because if that mind is real, reality came first.

But I suppose that's your point :)
Strawman, but I can say that they can and do occur at the same time, because a mind cannot be conscious of the truth or reality without that mind FIRST having a belief in reality. :)
 

Whatsisface

Active member

I say it often because you strawman often :).
You say it to everyone automatically. It loses any value because of it.
What "point", as you haven't made a "point", so what are you referring to?#
I didn't think you understood it.

Strawman.
Again..
Actually if it is all minds including the original mind that is required to believe before the truth and reality are known to us, then us like in God's image experience His reality and mind the same way He does . But it is still truth that the only way and place that is capable of knowing, making known and representing the truth and reality is a believing mind.
And if the truth is that reality ONLY requires us to have a believing mind in order to make the truth and reality known to and in us, then it is the occurrence and action of belief by the mind that enlightens the mind to the reality of the truth.
And if reality can ONLY be known to exist in and by a believing mind, then everything that exists in reality is a part of reality, including believing minds. So, if a believing mind must occur in reality before it too becomes a part of reality, then the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist is a believing mind. Therefore, us like our Creator must possess a believing mind.
So, what came first, God's mind, or reality?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I guess this makes sense. It is like a version of 'I think therefore I am'. I agree that all we know to be real takes place in our minds. However, the way we determine what is real comes from our senses and the evidence they detect. And the best sensory evidence is empirical evidence.

So while our beliefs are in our minds those beliefs are founded upon our sensory input from the real world. You need both to determine reality.

So yes - reality only exists in our 'believing minds'. We determine what we believe in our minds based on empirical evidence from our senses.

How does this apply to God or proving that Christianity is real?
I think, when all the verbiage, the tautology and the confusion is stripped away, the essence of Tercon's argument starts with "I think, therefore I am." and ends with "God thinks, therefore everything is."
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
I can say that they can and do occur at the same time, because a mind cannot be conscious of the truth or reality without that mind FIRST having a belief in reality.
Minds cannot exist without reality, therefore, reality predates the first mind ever to exist. :)
 

Tercon

Active member
Minds cannot exist without reality, therefore, reality predates the first mind ever to exist. :)
Strawman. Rather, if a mind cannot be known to exist in reality without both existing in and together in the same place, then reality must have always existed in and with a mind, because the truth is that reality cannot be known to exist without the benefit of a believing mind. Understand?
 

Tercon

Active member
Nope. Can't have a mind without reality, but you can have reality without a mind.

Suck it up, buttercup :)
Strawman, didn't say you could "have a mind without reality" buttercup. :) No more than you can know or have reality without a believing mind.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Do you agree or disagree with the below statement and what does this statement mean to you?

'The only way and place that the truth and reality can be known and experienced is in and by a believing mind.' Thanks
No. I do not agree
 
Top