Whateverman
Well-known member
Can you remind me what that acronym stands for? I must have missed it when it appeared here a month ago (or so)
The logical truth and reality of God.
- Thread starter Tercon
- Start date
- Status
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
Sure. I suspect even Tercon has forgotten by now.
MIPUST = Mind-Independent Physical Universe of Space and Time
Your strawman is that our argument pertains to your unbelief of the truth and reality of God and my belief in the truth and reality of God. And has nothing to do with belief or unbelief of leprechauns and thus irrelevant and a strawman on your behalf.
And if “MIPUST is objective reality”, then like all truth and “objective reality” it too must be dependent on a believing mind to make it known to exist as well.
If “MIPUST is objective reality” and “Mind-Independent”, then please explain how you know it is based on the truth and reality without a belief in reality?
And if “MIPUST” requires a belief in reality in order to be known to exist, then that would make “MIPUST” mind dependent on a believing mind for its existence would it not?
Temujin
Well-known member
No, it would not. It would make “MIPUST” mind dependent on a believing mind for KNOWLEDGE OF ITS existence. Things can exist without us knowing they exist. Believing something doesn't bring atoms into existence. The mind doesn't affect the physical world. It just allows us to experience it.
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
I didn't even mention God. I said you don't believe in leprechauns. You agreed but said that was a strawman. Obviously it cannot be a strawman given that what I said was perfectly true and accurate.
Yes, like everything else, MIPUST requires a mind in order to be known. But it does not require a mind in order to exist.
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
No, because mind-dependence concerns existence, not knowledge. I've explained this to you dozens of times now. Needing a mind in order to be known does not make something mind-dependent.
Utter illogical nonsense.
If “Things can exist without us knowing they exist” then name one of these “things” that “can exist without us knowing they exist” silly?
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
Radioactivity existed for several billion years without being known to exist.
But my point was about the meaning of 'mind-independence'. Again, this concerns existence, not knowledge.
That's right and that's exactly why your response is a strawman, because you are referring to and talking about leprechauns, when I am referring to and denoting the truth and reality.
How can you know “MIPUST” true or exists in reality without a believing mind silly?
How do you know “Radioactivity existed for several billion years without being known to exist”, when in reality the ONLY way and reason you know it exists right now is in and because of your believing mind silly?
There is no such thing in reality as “mind-independent” “existence” or “knowledge” silly.
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
Read a history book. Radioactivity wasn't discovered until 1896.
That's what you need to prove. Get to it. Prove the mind-independent existence of MIPUST does not exist.
Whateverman
Well-known member
You know, object permanence is one of the first stages of infant growth. Maybe denial of object permanence implies we're dealing a genetically defective forum poster...
Another strawman, as I didn't agree that "it was true", I just agreed that you are talking about "leprechauns" when I am talking about the truth and reality silly.
And learn and “prove” what, that “a history book” is “mind-dependent” for its creation and existence as well silly? You're like a bag of hammers.
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
Yes you did.
Me: "You don't believe in leprechauns"
You: "I disbelieve in leprechauns"
You agreed that it was true that you don't believe in leprechauns. So it was not a strawman.
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
Learn that radioactivity existed for several billion years without being known to exist, thus proving things can exist without being known.
And what you need to prove is your claim that objective reality - i.e. MIPUST - doesn't exist.
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Of course it does. Our unbelief of the truth of reality of God is just the same as your unbelief of the truth or reality of leprechauns.
So everything you say about unbelievers and unbelief is equally true of you - you are an unbeliever too.
Another strawman, as I didn't agree that "it was true" you phony, I just agreed that you are talking about "leprechauns" when I am talking about the truth and reality silly.
Strawman and projection, when you are compare my belief in God to your unbelief in leprechauns, that's a conflation of belief and unbelief and then trying to project that unbelief unto everyone dumb enough to listen what atheist “think” they know about the truth and reality of God.
Everything we do including “learn”, we have to rely on our believing minds to do so silly.
And I have done just that, because in reality the only way and placer the truth, logic, morality, consciousness, existence and reality itself can be known and experienced is in and by a believing mind and you have not and cannot show otherwise. And if “MIPUST” exists in reality, it too must rely on a believing mind for its existence.
Nonsense, two different subjects silly. And nothing more than a projection and conflation of belief and unbelief.
Actually anything “equally true of” anything in reality requires a belief in reality and not your “unbelief” silly. You demonstrate with every post that you have no clue how the truth and reality works. And you are wallowing around in your unbelieving mind searching for ways to hide the truth and reality from yourself, instead of searching for the truth and reality.
- Status