The Kingdom of God

Tercon

Well-known member
If the only way and place that the truth and reality of God can be known to exist is in and by believing mind, then the only way and place that the truth and reality of God can be known to exist is in and by His and our believing minds. So, God's Kingdom must exist in His and His believers believing minds, because outside of a our believing minds no truth and reality is knowable.

But if you disagree, then please name at least one other way or place that the truth and reality can be known to exist outside or without a believing mind. No scoffing please.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
If the only way and place that the truth and reality of God can be known to exist is in and by believing mind, then the only way and place that the truth and reality of God can be known to exist is in and by His and our believing minds. So, God's Kingdom must exist in His and His believers believing minds
The green word-salad states the same thing twice; redundant.

The opinion in red doesn't follow from the green.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
If the only way and place that the truth and reality of God can be known to exist is in and by believing mind, then the only way and place that the truth and reality of God can be known to exist is in and by His and our believing minds. So, God's Kingdom must exist in His and His believers believing minds, because outside of a our believing minds no truth and reality is knowable.

But if you disagree, then please name at least one other way or place that the truth and reality can be known to exist outside or without a believing mind. No scoffing please.
As with all your threads, you start with a conditional premise whose antecedent you never bother to prove or even support, and then draw a conclusion that doesn't follow, before telling us the only way to refute you is to disprove something that no-one has ever denied.

What you've failed to do is show that the "reality of God" even exists. What is the reality is that He doesn't exist at all? What if reality is instead the mind-independent universe of space and time that apparently everyone but you acknowledges to exist?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
As with all your threads, you start with a conditional premise whose antecedent you never bother to prove or even support, and then draw a conclusion that doesn't follow, before telling us the only way to refute you is to disprove something that no-one has ever denied.

Well if you know of another way or place outside of a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known to exist, then say what it is and how it makes the truth and reality known to you without a belief or a believing mind?

What you've failed to do is show that the "reality of God" even exists. What is the reality is that He doesn't exist at all? What if reality is instead the mind-independent universe of space and time that apparently everyone but you acknowledges to exist?

Well "if reality is" a "mind-independent universe", then show me how you know this "mind-independent universe" is known to you without relying on a believing mind in order to make its truth and reality known to you? Please explain how you know anything that is "mind-independent", because if you require your believing mind in order to make it known to you, then that's NOT "mind-independent" at all silly.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Well if you know of another way or place outside of a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known to exist, then say what it is and how it makes the truth and reality known to you without a belief or a believing mind?
No-one is claiming that knowledge is possible without a mind. As usual, you aren't even trying to address any of the problems I just identified with your OP.

Well "if reality is" a "mind-independent universe", then show me how you know this "mind-independent universe" is known to you without relying on a believing mind in order to make its truth and reality known to you? Please explain how you know anything that is "mind-independent", because if you require your believing mind in order to make it known to you, then that's NOT "mind-independent" at all silly.
Again, no-one is claiming that mind-independence applies to knowledge of reality as well as applying to its existence. As usual, you're not addressing anything that was said to you.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
No-one is claiming that knowledge is possible without a mind. As usual, you aren't even trying to address any of the problems I just identified with your OP.

Strawman, I am claiming that NO knowledge of the truth and reality is possible without a believing mind. As usual, you strawman.

Again, no-one is claiming that mind-independence applies to knowledge of reality as well as applying to its existence. As usual, you're not addressing anything that was said to you.
Actually what I have done is show how and why the truth and reality of God is known to exist. And you haven't done anything to refute that.

Well, if God is reality and you say that "He doesn't exist at all", then the truth and reality isn't known to you, that's all that means.

How can reality be "mind-independent", when everything that is knowable in reality is dependent on a believing mind in order to make it known to you silly?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Strawman, I am claiming that NO knowledge of the truth and reality is possible without a believing mind. As usual, you strawman.
I did not strawman. As usual, you simply can't read well enough to understand what was said to you. Again, no-one is claiming that knowledge is possible without a mind. As usual, you still aren't even trying to address any of the problems I identified with your OP.

Well, if God is reality...
Just like in your OP, you've failed to show that the antecedent of your conditional premise is true. You have not shown that God is reality.

How can reality be "mind-independent", when everything that is knowable in reality is dependent on a believing mind in order to make it known to you silly?
Because reality and knowledge of it are not the same thing. It is only the former, and not the latter, that I said was mind-independent.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
I did not strawman. As usual, you simply can't read well enough to understand what was said to you. Again, no-one is claiming that knowledge is possible without a mind. As usual, you still aren't even trying to address any of the problems I identified with your OP.

Strawman, as that's not not I am claiming at all, it is you who is claiming that knowledge is possible with a mind, because there is lots of "knowledge" that isn't true or a part of reality.

My claim leaves no ambiguity as to what and why the truth and reality is known to us. And it because of ONLY one kind of knowledge and that one kind of knowledge ONLY; it is belief knowledge or a believing mind. My actual claim is that there is ONLY one way and place that the truth and reality can be experienced and known to exist; and that's in and by a believing mind.

Just like in your OP, you've failed to show that the antecedent of your conditional premise is true. You have not shown that God is reality.

Name one thing that doesn't require a believing mind in order to be known or known to exist silly?

Because reality and knowledge of it are not the same thing. It is only the former, and not the latter, that I said was mind-independent.

So, if "reality and knowledge of it are not the same thing", then how do YOU know the truth and reality; if they "are not the same thing" or not experienced in and by the same way or place silly?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Strawman, as that's not not I am claiming at all...
I didn't say you were, so I was not strawmanning you.

...it is you who is claiming that knowledge is possible with a mind...
THAT'S the strawman! I am NOT saying that at all.

...because there is lots of "knowledge" that isn't true or a part of reality.
Wrong. Knowledge is true by definition.

My claim leaves no ambiguity... My actual claim is that there is ONLY one way and place that the truth and reality can be experienced and known to exist; and that's in and by a believing mind.
That's ambiguous.

Name one thing that doesn't require a believing mind in order to be known or known to exist silly?
That's not what I'm claiming, nor is it even relevant to what I said, which is that you haven't shown God to be reality.

So, if "reality and knowledge of it are not the same thing", then how do YOU know the truth and reality; if they "are not the same thing" or not experienced in and by the same way or place silly?
I know things when my justified beliefs correspond with reality. Correspondence is not identity.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
I didn't say you were, so I was not strawmanning you.

I am not "claiming that knowledge is possible without a mind. As usual, you still aren't even trying to address any of the problems I identified with your OP".
My CLAIM: My claim leaves no ambiguity as to what and why the truth and reality is known to us. And it because of ONLY one kind of knowledge and that one kind of knowledge ONLY; it is belief knowledge or a believing mind. My actual claim is that there is ONLY one way and place that the truth and reality can be experienced and known to exist; and that's in and by a believing mind.

THAT'S the strawman! I am NOT saying that at all.


Wrong. Knowledge is true by definition.

There's lots of "knowledge" that isn't true or reality. "Knowledge" of fictional characters and lies are "knowledge", but they aren't "true by definition" are they. So you are wrong. There is only one kind of knowledge is true and that Justified True Belief. And Justified True Beliefs are beliefs in reality by definition.

That's ambiguous.

How is that ambiguous when it leaves no other way or place that the truth and reality can be known silly?
My actual claim is that there is ONLY one way and place that the truth and reality can be experienced and known to exist; and that's in and by a believing mind.

That's not what I'm claiming, nor is it even relevant to what I said, which is that you haven't shown God to be reality.

Well that's my claim and it isn't relevant to my claim? Again bluff, name one thing that doesn't require a believing mind in order to be known or known to exist silly? And the reason you can't answer it is because there is NO other way or place that the truth and reality can be known to exist. QED

I know things when my justified beliefs correspond with reality. Correspondence is not identity.

YOUR "justified beliefs" are still beliefs and entail a believing mind. And correspondence does imply belief.

"The definition of correspondence is the act of conforming or agreeing with someone or something else. ... An example of correspondence is when a person acts in the same way she appears to think". or believe.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
I am not "claiming that knowledge is possible without a mind.
And neither am I. So why even bring that up?

My claim leaves no ambiguity... My actual claim is that there is ONLY one way and place that the truth and reality can be experienced and known to exist; and that's in and by a believing mind.
Still very much ambiguous.

How is that ambiguous[?]
It is ambiguous because it fails to distinguish between the knowledge of reality vs the existence of reality having to be located in a mind. One is trivially true, while the other is completely false.

There's lots of "knowledge" that isn't true or reality.
No there isn't. Again, knowledge is true by definition. Knowledge of fiction is not a counterexample, as it is knowledge about true facts regarding what authors of fiction have written. This has been explained to you dozens of times before.

Again bluff, name one thing that doesn't require a believing mind in order to be known or known to exist silly?
Again bluff, that's not my claim. You are again conflating knowledge and existence.

YOUR "justified beliefs" are still beliefs and entail a believing mind. And correspondence does imply belief.
Reality and our knowledge of it can correspond, but correspondence is not identity. So reality and our knowledge of it are not the same thing, meaning mind-independence can concern the former rather than the latter. That is, the mind-independence we posit for MIPUST is the same as the mind-independence you posit for God - MIPUST does not depend upon your or my mind in order to exist, just as you claim God's mind does not depend upon your or my mind in order to exist.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Again bluff, that's not my claim. You are again conflating knowledge and existence.

You can't know anything about existence without a believing mind silly. QM even indicates this.

Reality and our knowledge of it can correspond, but correspondence is not identity. So reality and our knowledge of it are not the same thing, meaning mind-independence can concern the former rather than the latter. That is, the mind-independence we posit for MIPUST is the same as the mind-independence you posit for God - MIPUST does not depend upon your or my mind in order to exist, just as you claim God's mind does not depend upon your or my mind in order to exist.

How do you know any of that is true or reality without a believing mind silly?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You can't know anything about existence without a believing mind silly.
Again, no-one is claiming knowledge is possible without a mind, so this is not relevant at all.

QM even indicates this.
No, it doesn't.

How do you know any of that is true or reality without a believing mind silly?
Strawman. I do have a believing mind when it comes to what I said. Try actually addressing it:

Reality and our knowledge of it can correspond, but correspondence is not identity. So reality and our knowledge of it are not the same thing, meaning mind-independence can concern the former rather than the latter. That is, the mind-independence we posit for MIPUST is the same as the mind-independence you posit for God - MIPUST does not depend upon your or my mind in order to exist, just as you claim God's mind does not depend upon your or my mind in order to exist.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Again, no-one is claiming knowledge is possible without a mind, so this is not relevant at all.

Sure you are. How do you know God doesn't exist if His knowledge requires a believing mind in order to be known to exist or occur?

No, it doesn't.

Sure it does. QM requires and entails observation. It is ONLY a believing mind that can observe, know and believe the truth and reality occurrence. And outside of a believing mind nothing is knowable or occurable.

Strawman. I do have a believing mind when it comes to what I said. Try actually addressing it:

Reality and our knowledge of it can correspond, but correspondence is not identity. So reality and our knowledge of it are not the same thing, meaning mind-independence can concern the former rather than the latter. That is, the mind-independence we posit for MIPUST is the same as the mind-independence you posit for God - MIPUST does not depend upon your or my mind in order to exist, just as you claim God's mind does not depend upon your or my mind in order to exist.
No you don't have a believing mind. If you had a believing mind, then what would you need "MIPUST" for? When a believing mind is necessary and not MIPUST to make the truth and reality known to you silly. You're delusional.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Sure you are.
No, I am not. Again, no-one is claiming knowledge is possible without a mind. That is a strawman.

How do you know God doesn't exist if His knowledge requires a believing mind in order to be known to exist or occur?
I don't claim to know God doesn't exist. And like every other human being, I do have a believing mind. I just don't have a credulous mind that believes every dumb idea I come across.

Sure it does. QM requires and entails observation. It is ONLY a believing mind that can observe, know and believe the truth and reality occurrence. And outside of a believing mind nothing is knowable or occurable.
That's not what actual physicists say, and I'll take their word over yours.

No you don't have a believing mind. If you had a believing mind, then what would you need "MIPUST" for? When a believing mind is necessary and not MIPUST to make the truth and reality known to you silly. You're delusional.
You're projecting. A believing mind is a mind with beliefs, and I do have beliefs. MIPUST is reality, and that is probably why you don't understand it. MIPUST is truth and reality, but you clearly lack a believing mind when it comes to MIPUST. This is why you feel the need to attack and insult people while running from their questions.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
No, I am not. Again, no-one is claiming knowledge is possible without a mind. That is a strawman.

Strawman. No, but you do think that knowledge of the truth and reality is possible without a believing mind. But you are yet to show how the truth and reality is known without or outside of a believing mind.

I don't claim to know God doesn't exist. And like every other human being, I do have a believing mind. I just don't have a credulous mind that believes every dumb idea I come across.

Disbelieving that belief must occur before the truth and reality is known to you isn't a believing mind silly, it's a unbelieving mind.
It's only ignorant minds that disbelieve belief must occur before the truth and reality can be known to occur silly.

That's not what actual physicists say, and I'll take their word over yours.

And yet none those "actual physicists" can tell you how WFC and entanglement can occur without or outside of a believing mind. And why a believing mind is necessary in order to make WFC and entanglement occur. But I can.

You're projecting. A believing mind is a mind with beliefs, and I do have beliefs. MIPUST is reality, and that is probably why you don't understand it. MIPUST is truth and reality, but you clearly lack a believing mind when it comes to MIPUST. This is why you feel the need to attack and insult people while running from their questions.

If your "MIPUST is reality", then your "MIPUST" too must be a product of a believing mind as well, because outside of or without a believing mind nothing can be known to exist or occur. QED

I don't run from anything you have to say silly, I just refute it, because you are ignorant of how and why the truth and reality works. You have to make up nonsense like "MIPUST" in order to hide yourself from the truth and reality of God, when it is undeniable how and why the truth and reality is known to anyone who believes it.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
No, but you do think that knowledge of the truth and reality is possible without a believing mind.
No I don't. That is also a strawman. If you want to know what I think then you should ask me. Whenever you instead try to tell me what I think, you get it completely wrong.

Disbelieving that belief must occur before the truth and reality is known to you isn't a believing mind silly, it's a unbelieving mind. It's only ignorant minds that disbelieve belief must occur before the truth and reality can be known to occur silly.
That's another strawman. Non-one is denying that belief is necessary for knowledge. But that doesn't mean everything should be believed, so it doesn't mean we should believe in God. That knowledge requires belief just means that you can't know something true unless you also believe it, yet this does not give you any reason to believe in leprechauns or MIPUST, so it likewise gives us no reason to believe in God.

And yet none those "actual physicists" can tell you how WFC and entanglement can occur without or outside of a believing mind. And why a believing mind is necessary in order to make WFC and entanglement occur. But I can.
Wrong on both counts. You should really stop pretending to know physics better than actual physicists. This is not a subject where you have any knowledge or understanding.

If your "MIPUST is reality", then your "MIPUST" too must be a product of a believing mind as well, because outside of or without a believing mind nothing can be known to exist or occur. QED
False premise. MIPUST is reality. It is not the product of any mind.

I don't run from anything you have to say...
That's exactly what you do. How many of my questions are you evading right now across various threads? So many I've lost count.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
No I don't. That is also a strawman. If you want to know what I think then you should ask me. Whenever you instead try to tell me what I think, you get it completely wrong.
And I can tell you what you think because to disbelieve in belief's capacity to make the truth and reality known to you makes you completely ignorant of how and why the truth and reality is known.

That's another strawman. Non-one is denying that belief is necessary for knowledge. But that doesn't mean everything should be believed, so it doesn't mean we should believe in God. That knowledge requires belief just means that you can't know something true unless you also believe it, yet this does not give you any reason to believe in leprechauns or MIPUST, so it likewise gives us no reason to believe in God.

Yes. So how do you know God isn't true or exist without believing it then, when the truth and reality requires belief in order to be known to exist and occur?

Strawman and conflation of belief and unbelief, as no-one believes "leprechauns or MIPUST" to be reality.

God exists because God is the truth and reality itself.

Wrong on both counts. You should really stop pretending to know physics better than actual physicists. This is not a subject where you have any knowledge or understanding.

You should stop pretending you know anything about the truth and reality, because you don't even know how it is known to you.

False premise. MIPUST is reality. It is not the product of any mind.

If "MIPUST" "is not the product of any mind" and 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 how is "MIPUST" known to exist outside of a believing mind silly?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
And I can tell you what you think...
No, you cannot. Whenever you try you get it wrong. You are not a mind-reader.

Yes. So how do you know God isn't true or exist without believing it then, when the truth and reality requires belief in order to be known to exist and occur?
I didn't claim to know God doesn't exist. I claim only that you've given no good reason to think that He does. Knowledge does not require false belief. It requires only true belief, and you have not shown that belief in God would be true rather than false.

Strawman and conflation of belief and unbelief, as no-one believes "leprechauns or MIPUST" to be reality.
Wrong again. Almost everyone believes MIPUST to be reality. You are the exception here, not me.

God exists because God is the truth and reality itself.
Unsupported. You need to prove that God, rather than MIPUST, is truth and reality.

You should stop pretending you know anything about the truth and reality, because you don't even know how it is known to you.
Just as soon as you stop pretending to know physics better than physicists.

If "MIPUST" "is not the product of any mind" and 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 how is "MIPUST" known to exist outside of a believing mind silly?
Loaded question. That's your (still ambiguous) premise, not mine. Knowledge is mind-dependent, but MIPUST (by definition) is not.
 
Top