The logical truth and reality of God.

[Whatsisface]

Strawman. If all knowledge of the truth and reality requires a belief in reality, then it is ONLY a belief in reality that informs us of the truth and reality and not some delusional construct like unbelief (atheism) or time. Which neither possesses a object of belief that exists in reality, rather time is just the unbelief in and denial of eternity

No. It's more than belief alone that informs us of reality. It's facts that come first, then we either believe those facts or not, as a lot will not believe facts.

 

[Whateverman]

Strawman.

Lie

You said humans are able to construct things which do not exist in reality.

Sounds exactly like your god.

 

[Lighthearted Atheist]

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?

How does the Law of Non-Contradiction prove that truth and logic always existed? The Law of Non-Contradiction says that two contradictory things cannot be true (e.g. A is B and A is not B cannot both be true).

I do not see how this applies to the single statement 'logic and reality have always existed'.

 

[Tercon]

And I've already answered that too. It is stipulated. See the letters "MI" at the start of MIPUST? They stand for Mind-Independent". Can you give any argument at all for why MIPUST cannot be an alternative to the mind of God as a hosting location for reality?

Sure, because if "MIPUST" is true and is reality, then like all other truth and reality we know of it must necessarily require and logically imply a believing mind in order to be known to exist at least. And because you cannot explain how and why YOU KNOW "MIPUST" is true and is reality, because KNOWING any truth and reality requires a believing mind in order to be known? So, how do you know "MIPUST" is true and is reality, without a mind ("Mind-Independent"), when you yourself are completely dependent on your mind for everything you know? Explain

 

[Tetsugaku]

Sure, because if "MIPUST" is true and is reality, then like all other truth and reality we know of it must necessarily require and logically imply a believing mind in order to be known to exist at least. And because you cannot explain how and why YOU KNOW "MIPUST" is true and is reality, because KNOWING any truth and reality requires a believing mind in order to be known? So, how do you know "MIPUST" is true and is reality, without a mind ("Mind-Independent"), when you yourself are completely dependent on your mind for everything you know? Explain

I've already told you repeatedly that MIPUST is known by our minds. The point is that it EXISTS independently of minds. Why do you keep confusing existence and knowledge? Why do you keep repeating the same questions after they have been answered? You still have no actual argument against MIPUST as the answer to your OP question.

 

[5wize]

Don't worry the Reader isn't stupid they will see who is lying. You must be a Democrat.

Strawman. If all knowledge of the truth and reality requires a belief in reality, then it is ONLY a belief in reality that informs us of the truth and reality and not some delusional construct like unbelief (atheism) or time. Which neither possesses a object of belief that exists in reality, rather time is just the unbelief in and denial of eternity

I believe your god is a fable. That's not an unbelief in God. It's a belief in a fable like the statement I believe Little Red Riding Hood is a fable.

This is not a statement of unbelief. Do you discount all of these types of statements from being the truth of reality of a believing mind? Does my disbelief in Little Red Riding Hood as real mean I am deluded by unbelief or do I maintain an accurate grasp on reality when I say that.... silly.

 

[Tercon]

How does the Law of Non-Contradiction prove that truth and logic always existed?

Since to suggest otherwise is self-refuting and/or contradictory, as to suggest that the truth and reality didn't exist at any time is a self-refuting and/or contradictory statement and cannot be true in and of reality, because the logical truth always existed in reality.

The Law of Non-Contradiction says that two contradictory things cannot be true (e.g. A is B and A is not B cannot both be true).

I do not see how this applies to the single statement 'logic and reality have always existed'.

Because we cannot know otherwise and still know the truth in reality, since to suggest or claim "that the truth doesn't or didn't exist" at any time would make the statement "truth doesn't or didn't exist" contradictory and a self-defeating statement.
You cannot say that the truth or reality doesn't exist and be telling the truth at the same time. Understand?

 

[Tercon]

I believe your god is a fable. That's not an unbelief in God. It's a belief in a fable like the statement I believe Little Red Riding Hood is a fable.
This is not a statement of unbelief. Do you discount all of these types of statements from being the truth of reality of a believing mind? Does my disbelief in Little Red Riding Hood as real mean I am deluded by unbelief or do I maintain an accurate grasp on reality when I say that.... silly.

No, that's just a conflation of belief and unbelief, because you cannot believe in something you do not believe to exist in reality silly. Come on, you're smarter than this.

 

[Tercon]

I've already told you repeatedly that MIPUST is known by our minds.

So it is dependent of a mind for its existence then.

The point is that it EXISTS independently of minds.

You didn't make your point because your two statement bolded in red above are contradictory.

Why do you keep confusing existence and knowledge? Why do you keep repeating the same questions after they have been answered? You still have no actual argument against MIPUST as the answer to your OP question.

I am not confusing them at all. But the truth is that you cannot know anything about existence and knowledge of the truth without a believing mind, so both existence and knowledge of the truth are the product a believing mind.

 

[Tetsugaku]

So it is dependent of a mind for its existence then.

No, it is not. Knowledge of MIPUST requires a mind, but MIPUST itself does not.

You didn't make your point because your two statement bolded in red above are contradictory.

You haven't shown any such contradiction. That something is known by a mind does not show that it must depend upon that mind in order to exist.

I am not confusing them at all. But the truth is that you cannot know anything about existence and knowledge of the truth without a believing mind, so both existence and knowledge of the truth are the product a believing mind.

You are constantly confusing knowledge and existence, and you've just done it again right here. Knowledge of existence requires a mind, because all knowledge does, but existence itself does not.

 

[Tercon]

No, it is not. Knowledge of MIPUST requires a mind, but MIPUST itself does not.

You haven't shown any such contradiction. That something is known by a mind does not show that it must depend upon that mind in order to exist.

Do you really believe that?

You are constantly confusing knowledge and existence, and you've just done it again right here.

There's no "confusing knowledge and existence", when you cannot have one with the other silly.

Knowledge of existence requires a mind, because all knowledge does, but existence itself does not.

What's the difference between "knowledge of existence" requiring a mind and "existence itself" requiring a mind in order to be known to exist as well silly?

 

[Tetsugaku]

Do you really believe that?

That's why I said it. Would you consider addressing it?

There's no "confusing knowledge and existence", when you cannot have one with the other silly.

Unsupported assertion. You have not shown that there cannot be one without the other.

What's the difference between "knowledge of existence" requiring a mind and "existence itself" requiring a mind...

The difference is obviously that one involves knowledge while the other does not, silly.

 

[Whatsisface]

Does it time slow for the one observing (and not traveling at the rate of speed) or just for the one traveling at the rate of speed?
Do strong gravitational fields just slow the rate of speed or slow down time?

I have already answered these questions. Why are you repeating them? Time slows down for the person or object moving fast.

A strong gravitational field will slow down the rate time passes for you or an object.

So, still no explanation from you how you know there is no such thing as time, and your questions betray a lack of knowledge about the subject.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I don't want to malign any of the Christians here I haven't discussed things with (or those I've just met within the last month or two), but @jonathan_hili immediately springs to mind.

Beyond that... Again, you're far more patient than I am on the usual subjects here, so it's entirely possible that I've missed some opportunities over the last year or two. With that disclaimer in mind, I don't come here for rational conversation.

ps. or rather, I don't come here expecting (or even hoping for) it.

edit: as a result, I'm almost irrationally happy when I find it.

If we can't discuss things rationally, we can't get the discussion off the ground. Just citing Bible verses means little if it isn't backed up by logical argumentation. I share your frustration.

 

[Whateverman]

If we can't discuss things rationally, we can't get the discussion off the ground. Just citing Bible verses means little if it isn't backed up by logical argumentation. I share your frustration.

To be clear, it's not even about scripture.

It's about trying to have a discussion in good faith; being interested in an exchange of ideas in which both sides consider what the other says. That can entail scripture or logic or plain ol' opinion. Everything's on the table when people both want to understand and be understood.

Most times, one or both sides of the conversation aren't interested in considering what the other says - which in a discussion forum seems pretty weird.

 

[jonathan_hili]

To be clear, it's not even about scripture.

It's about trying to have a discussion in good faith; being interested in an exchange of ideas in which both sides consider what the other says. That can entail scripture or logic or plain ol' opinion. Everything's on the table when people both want to understand and be understood.

Most times, one or both sides of the conversation aren't interested in considering what the other says - which in a discussion forum seems pretty weird.

Agreed. The truth is, it's really unlikely that this kind of discussion is going to change anyone's beliefs in a radical way but it should at least be an opportunity to learn more, if not about oneself, than about others.

 

[Tercon]

That's why I said it. Would you consider addressing it?

Thanks You.

Unsupported assertion. You have not shown that there cannot be one without the other.

How can you know about anything's existence including existence itself to exist in realty without the benefit of a belief and knowledge, of which both require and imply a believing mind in order to occur in realty? You cannot.

The difference is obviously that one involves knowledge while the other does not, silly.

So, if existence occurs in reality, then existence itself must be a form of belief and knowledge, because if existence is knowable and experienceable in reality, then in reality existence like the truth, logic, morality and consciousness too is the product of a believing mind. And you have said nothing to refute this.

 

[Lighthearted Atheist]

Since to suggest otherwise is self-refuting and/or contradictory, as to suggest that the truth and reality didn't exist at any time is a self-refuting and/or contradictory statement and cannot be true in and of reality, because the logical truth always existed in reality.

This is very wrong. First, it is not an example of the Law of Non-Contradiction. You do not have two contradictory statements. Secondly saying that reality did not exist is not self refuting or contradictory.

It may be difficult for humans to conceive of a time when our reality of time and space dis not exist. That does not mean it is impossible or self refuting.

I can say, "it is possible that before the Big Bang our concept of reality did not exist." That is not a contradiction, it is not self refuting, and it is very possible. You are trying to apply logic that is designed to explain reality to explain things beyond our reality. It simply does not work since we have no idea what is possible or impossible outside this reality.

Because we cannot know otherwise and still know the truth in reality, since to suggest or claim "that the truth doesn't or didn't exist" at any time would make the statement "truth doesn't or didn't exist" contradictory and a self-defeating statement.
You cannot say that the truth or reality doesn't exist and be telling the truth at the same time. Understand?

"Truth did not exist before our reality was created in the Big Bang" is not a contradiction or self refuting or inherently false.

I'm afraid you logic does not flow on this one.

 

[Tercon]

I have already answered these questions. Why are you repeating them? Time slows down for the person or object moving fast.

A strong gravitational field will slow down the rate time passes for you or an object.

But not for the person just observing the "object moving fast" right. So, who is participating and experiencing reality here, is it the person observing and conducting the experiment or the "the person or object moving fast"?

So, still no explanation from you how you know there is no such thing as time, and your questions betray a lack of knowledge about the subject.

Because time doesn't have any ontological existence, nor a object of belief in reality. Rather time isn't like the truth, logic, morality, consciousness, existence or belief, as these things are non-physical and abstract in nature but are knowable in being products of reality. But time doesn't fall into this category. If the truth and reality is the product of a believing mind and the truth and reality aren't subject to time or space, then in reality a believing mind isn't subject to time and space either.
The unbeliever's problem is that they don't have a believing mind, so their minds are subject to and subjects of the material world, and thus time and space.

 

[Whateverman]

time doesn't have any ontological existence

Your ability to watch a clock's second hand tick, let alone to post drivel to a discussion forum, proves you laughably wrong