The logical truth and reality of God.

Nouveau

Well-known member
Another strawman, as I didn't agree that "it was true" you phony...
Yes you did. I just quoted you doing exactly that. Do you not recognize your own words?

Strawman and projection, when you are compare my belief in God to your unbelief in leprechauns...
That wasn't the comparison, Durcon. I compared our lack of belief in God to your lack of belief in leprechauns.

Everything we do including “learn”, we have to rely on our believing minds to do so silly.
Not in dispute, so not relevant.

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.
Also not in dispute, so not relevant.

And if “MIPUST” exists in reality, it too must rely on a believing mind for its existence.
Nope, that's what you need to prove. Knowledge of MIPUST depends on minds, but MIPUST does not require any mind in order to exist.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Nonsense, two different subjects silly. And nothing more than a projection and conflation of belief and unbelief.
That they are two different subjects unbelieved in does not make the unbelief different.

And there was no conflation because that particular issue is about unbelief, not belief - no belief was involved to be conflated with.
Actually anything “equally true of” anything in reality requires a belief in reality and not your “unbelief” silly.
Again you confuse a thing with belief (or unbelief) in that thing. Your unbelief in leprechauns is the same as our unbelief in gods. That is a fact, and I believe it.
You demonstrate with every post that you have no clue how the truth and reality works.
Since you have spent years demonstrating to all of us that you have no clue how the truth and reality works, your claim means absolutely nothing to me.
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.
This is just blatantly false. I, like everybody else, searches for the truth and reality. Nobody searches for ways to hide the truth and reality from themselves.

And if you think our unbelief in gods somehow means that we do, then precisely the same is true of you with your unbelief in leprechauns.

Always remember - whatever you say about us in relation to or because of our unbelief is equally true of yourself in your unbelief.

Oh, and also remember that not a single person agrees with you about how the truth and reality work. Not one.
 

ding

Active member
If the truth, logic and reality always existed, because it is a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction to suggest otherwise, then how or where could or can the truth, logic and reality have always been known to exist?
Infinite is a big number. Our finite minds I am convinced can never understand it.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Yes you did. I just quoted you doing exactly that. Do you not recognize your own words?
And quote-mining is the same thing as lying, as 'I didn't agree that "it was true" about any you have said here about the truth and reality, because you know neither. I just agreed that you are talking about "leprechauns" when I am talking about the truth and reality silly'. When you 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.
That wasn't the comparison, Durcon. I compared our lack of belief in God to your lack of belief in leprechauns.
And that's exactly why it's a conflation of belief and unbelief silly, one is a belief and the other an unbelief of two different subjects; God and leprechauns. That's why it isn't the same silly.
Not in dispute, so not relevant.Also not in dispute, so not relevant.
It is completely relevant because it is true about what we are discussing. Again, everything we do including “learn”, we have to rely on our believing minds to do so. And you cannot show otherwise.
Nope, that's what you need to prove. Knowledge of MIPUST depends on minds, but MIPUST does not require any mind in order to exist.
You have conceded, as if “Knowledge of MIPUST depends on minds” to make it known to exist, then how do YOU know MIPUST exists without your own mind telling you so? Again, everything that exists in reality requires a believing mind in order to make it known to exist.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Infinite is a big number. Our finite minds I am convinced can never understand it.

Not so finite as to not know that it is impossible for the truth and reality not to exist. One thing we can be sure of; whatever is knowable is ONLY knowable in and by a believing mind, because without or outside of a believing mind nothing is knowable in reality.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
And quote-mining is the same thing as lying, as 'I didn't agree that "it was true"...
I didn't quote-mine you and I didn't lie. I said that you don't believe in leprechauns, and you agreed that this is true. So it was obviously not a strawman.

When you compare my belief in God to your unbelief in leprechauns...
Again, no-one made that comparison, so you are strawmanning here.

And that's exactly why it's a conflation of belief and unbelief silly, one is a belief and the other an unbelief...
Here's what you were replying to: "I compared our lack of belief in God to your lack of belief in leprechauns". So which one of those is a belief?

It is completely relevant because it is true about what we are discussing. Again, everything we do including “learn”, we have to rely on our believing minds to do so. And you cannot show otherwise.
I'm not claiming otherwise. That's why it is not relevant.

You have conceded, as if “Knowledge of MIPUST depends on minds” to make it known to exist, then how do YOU know MIPUST exists without your own mind telling you so? Again, everything that exists in reality requires a believing mind in order to make it known to exist.
Again, this is not in dispute so it is not relevant. The point you are evading is that MIPUST does not require a mind in order TO EXIST.
 
Top