The logical truth and reality of God's believing mind.

[Tercon]

You apply belief and knowing after the experiencing. It is almost instantaneous but still after.

Yes it is almost instantaneous, but still doesn't occur at the same time does it? Belief is necessary and must occur first before the truth is known to you.

Yes you did. But you are not experiencing the past now are you? All you can do now is experience your memory the past.

Remembering what I know and experienced from former days is still knowledge and an experience too. We live, have knowledge and experience the truth and reality in and with our believing minds and not our physical senses. You have yourself reduced to how animals live.

No you are only experiencing your expectation of the future based on past experience.

Strawman. No, we can know in the present or right NOW about what is going to occur. And this is based on our present beliefs.

How? What is the quality of that experience?

I believe the quality of the experience is perfect, because it is based on the logical truth and reality itself.
Since the truth and reality is ONLY knowable and experienceable in the same way and place we experience our belief and consciousness is known and experienced, then this implies that outside or without a believing mind the truth and reality cannot be known to exist nor occur. And QM indicates this as well, because all QM models require and entail "observation" or "measurement" and this implies a believing mind for WFC and entanglement to have a way and place to occur. If you take away a believing mind out of the QM models, then WFC and entanglement has no way or place to occur.
A matter of fact; a believing mind is the only way and mode by which the truth and reality can be known and experienced, because outside or without a believing mind the truth and reality is unknowable and unrealizable. There is a reason that the truth and reality can only be known and experienced in ONE way and mode, it is because the truth and reality is the product of a believing mind. So, the question becomes; in whose believing mind did the truth and reality first originate?

So your perception is coloured by your beliefs. That's not truth that is bias. You are seeing God because you are wearing God coloured glasses.

The first time I believed something was red in color, then after that everything I seen that was red in color I knew it was red. Belief is what makes this possible.
The first time someone showed me a tree and I believed it to be a tree, then after that I seen many trees that looked different than the first tree I seen, but I still knew they were trees despite of their different physical appearance, because a believing mind makes abstraction possible. This is the work of a believing mind, as sight told me nothing about abstraction. But rather our beliefs informs us of abstraction.

You are talking about a particular belief. Not belief in general.

Strawman and you are conflating belief and unbelief. I am not referring to or denoting "a particular belief". But your unbelief instead, because this is no ordinary unbelief. As if you disbelieve belief has the capacity to make the truth and reality known to you, then this a universal unbelief toward belief itself, because this unbelief pertains to belief itself. And this unbelief makes it impossible for you to see belief as necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to you. I doubt you can see this, because of your bias against belief and your bias for unbelief instead. But there it is regardless.

No it isn't. Again you are conflating necessary and sufficient.

Strawman and projection. How is saying belief is necessary in order to make to make the truth and reality known to everyone "conflating necessary and sufficient", when in reality belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to everyone including you?

What is this truth and reality?

The truth is that reality always existed and it always existed, because it is self-refuting to suggest that the truth or reality didn't always exist. And if it always existed and it could only be known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind, then the truth and reality always existed in and because of someone's believing mind. So, in whose believing mind did the truth and reality always exist?

No it is not belief based it s evidence based. I can believe or disbelieve the evidence but the evidence has to be there first.

But if you can't "disbelieve the evidence" and still know it as "evidence", then "evidence" too requires and implies belief in order to be known to be true and "evidence".

I have to be presented with something to believe and a reason to believe it. You cannot base belief on nothing.

A belief in reality is never based "on nothing", as there is always a good reason to have a belief in reality, because belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to exist and occur to begin with. The best reason to believe is because belief is necessary in order to make the truth known to you. So, you should be looking for reasons to believe rather than reason to disbelieve.

 

[Tiburon]

Yes it is almost instantaneous, but still doesn't occur at the same time does it? Belief is necessary and must occur first before the truth is known to you.

I'm not talking about knowing. I'm talking about perceiving.

Remembering what I know and experienced from former days is still knowledge and an experience too. We live, have knowledge and experience the truth and reality in and with our believing minds and not our physical senses. You have yourself reduced to how animals live.

Yes but you are not experiencing the past. You are experiencing your memory of the past.

Strawman. No, we can know in the present or right NOW about what is going to occur. And this is based on our present beliefs.

We cannot know what it going to occur. We can extrapolate likely scenarios based on previous experience but that is not the same as experiencing the future.

I believe the quality of the experience is perfect, because it is based on the logical truth and reality itself.
Since the truth and reality is ONLY knowable and experienceable in the same way and place we experience our belief and consciousness is known and experienced, then this implies that outside or without a believing mind the truth and reality cannot be known to exist nor occur. And QM indicates this as well, because all QM models require and entail "observation" or "measurement" and this implies a believing mind for WFC and entanglement to have a way and place to occur. If you take away a believing mind out of the QM models, then WFC and entanglement has no way or place to occur.
A matter of fact; a believing mind is the only way and mode by which the truth and reality can be known and experienced, because outside or without a believing mind the truth and reality is unknowable and unrealizable. There is a reason that the truth and reality can only be known and experienced in ONE way and mode, it is because the truth and reality is the product of a believing mind. So, the question becomes; in whose believing mind did the truth and reality first originate?

I don't care what you believe. I want you to describe the experience.
QM models idea that observation is required have changed.
You are mistaking perception for propagation.

The first time I believed something was red in color, then after that everything I seen that was red in color I knew it was red. Belief is what makes this possible.
The first time someone showed me a tree and I believed it to be a tree, then after that I seen many trees that looked different than the first tree I seen, but I still knew they were trees despite of their different physical appearance, because a believing mind makes abstraction possible. This is the work of a believing mind, as sight told me nothing about abstraction. But rather our beliefs informs us of abstraction.

Trusting your perception makes this possible. That trust is built upon a history of perception incidents that yielded the same results.
Your ability to recognise different 'trees' is based upon the minds ability to apply a classification template of characteristics to perceived forms.

Strawman and you are conflating belief and unbelief. I am not referring to or denoting "a particular belief". But your unbelief instead, because this is no ordinary unbelief. As if you disbelieve belief has the capacity to make the truth and reality known to you, then this a universal unbelief toward belief itself, because this unbelief pertains to belief itself. And this unbelief makes it impossible for you to see belief as necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to you. I doubt you can see this, because of your bias against belief and your bias for unbelief instead. But there it is regardless.

You are talking about belief in God. That is a particular belief. You intimate that belief is necessary in order to know the truth and reality of God.
Knowledge is built of more than just belief. You seem to be saying that we can't see the evidence of God because we don't believe. That is not how it works.

Strawman and projection. How is saying belief is necessary in order to make to make the truth and reality known to everyone "conflating necessary and sufficient", when in reality belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to everyone including you?

You are saying that belief is ALL that is required to make the truth and reality known. That is what sufficient means. Belief is necessary but there needs to be more. There needs to be something to hang that belief on. Something to trigger that believing. You have yet to present that.

The truth is that reality always existed and it always existed, because it is self-refuting to suggest that the truth or reality didn't always exist. And if it always existed and it could only be known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind, then the truth and reality always existed in and because of someone's believing mind. So, in whose believing mind did the truth and reality always exist?

You haven't shown that reality could not exist without being 'known'.

But if you can't "disbelieve the evidence" and still know it as "evidence", then "evidence" too requires and implies belief in order to be known to be true and "evidence".

I can believe the reality of the evidence without believing that it supports the claim you think it supports.

A belief in reality is never based "on nothing", as there is always a good reason to have a belief in reality, because belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to exist and occur to begin with. The best reason to believe is because belief is necessary in order to make the truth known to you. So, you should be looking for reasons to believe rather than reason to disbelieve.

A belief in reality is never based "on nothing" but that is exactly what you are supplying as a basis for belief in God.
You're saying that because "knowledge" of reality requires a believing mind the "existence" of reality requires a believing mind and that mind is God. You haven't shown this to be the case.
I do look for reasons to believe but so far I haven't found them.

 

[Tercon]

I'm not talking about knowing. I'm talking about perceiving.

How can I or anyone tell you about perception without telling you about something I know or believe I (they) have perceived?

Yes but you are not experiencing the past. You are experiencing your memory of the past.

It is still something I know and experienced. And every time I think about what I believe and experienced from the past I can get to experience the same things and feelings I experienced before. It is only belief that gives us that ability.

We cannot know what it going to occur. We can extrapolate likely scenarios based on previous experience but that is not the same as experiencing the future.

Every time someone is correct in their belief about what will or does occur, they were and are ready for that occurrence and prepared accordingly, only belief makes that possible.

I don't care what you believe. I want you to describe the experience.

How can I tell you about anything I "experience" without telling you something about what I believe I experienced? It's like you are deliberately trying to dumb yourself down.

QM models idea that observation is required have changed.
You are mistaking perception for propagation.

All QM modeling requires and entails "observation" and "measurement", of which both imply a believing mind in order to have a way and place for WFC and entanglement to occur and exist. Show me one model that doesn't and explain how and why a mind isn't necessary in order to occur and exist, because I know of none that can do this.

Trusting your perception makes this possible. That trust is built upon a history of perception incidents that yielded the same results.
Your ability to recognise different 'trees' is based upon the minds ability to apply a classification template of characteristics to perceived forms.

You mean trusting what you believe about the past is true. Perception has no way or means to know or experience anything without a believing mind to believe what is true about what is being perceived and experienced.

You are talking about belief in God. That is a particular belief.

Strawman. I am referring to your unbelief (atheism) and what makes you ignorant of how and why the logical truth and reality works the way it does.

You intimate that belief is necessary in order to know the truth and reality of God.

Strawman and evasion. No, belief is necessary in order to make all truth and reality known without exception, that's not exclusive to belief in God, but all knowledge of the truth and reality require belief in order to make it known to you.

Knowledge is built of more than just belief.

ALL knowledge of the truth and reality requires belief to occur before it is made known to you, without exception.

You seem to be saying that we can't see the evidence of God because we don't believe. That is not how it works.

That's exactly how the truth and reality works. You can't know the truth or reality of anything without belief occurring first.

You are saying that belief is ALL that is required to make the truth and reality known. That is what sufficient means. Belief is necessary but there needs to be more. There needs to be something to hang that belief on. Something to trigger that believing. You have yet to present that.

That's exactly what I am saying, as if belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to everyone including you, then what does your opinion as to belief's capacity have to do with anything, when regardless belief must occur before the truth and reality is known to you? The truth and reality demands belief in order to give up its prize, so your opinion is irrelevant. And if anyone tells you any different, then they are lying to you, regardless if they know the difference or not.

You haven't shown that reality could not exist without being 'known'.

Strawman. My argument is that you can't know anything to exist or occur without believing it exists and occurred. And that includes the truth and reality itself as well.

I can believe the reality of the evidence without believing that it supports the claim you think it supports.

If even evidence implies and requires belief and a believing mind, then even evidence implies and require belief in order to exist or occur.

A belief in reality is never based "on nothing" but that is exactly what you are supplying as a basis for belief in God.

A belief in reality is always based on the truth. And my belief is based on the truth that reality always existed, because to suggest otherwise is self-refuting. And if the truth and reality can ONLY be known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind, then the truth and reality must have originated and occurred in and with a believing mind. And that first believing mind belongs to the Creator of everything including conscious beings.

You're saying that because "knowledge" of reality requires a believing mind the "existence" of reality requires a believing mind and that mind is God. You haven't shown this to be the case.

But I have shown that "knowledge of reality requires a believing mind" and "existence of reality requires a believing mind" as well? So, I have shown this to be the case correct?

I do look for reasons to believe but so far I haven't found them.

Here's a good reason for you to believe; if it is true that "knowledge of reality requires a believing mind" and "existence of reality requires a believing mind", then in what other way or place can the truth and reality be known to exist and occur but in and with a believing mind?

 

[J regia]

If the logical truth and reality exists and the only way and place that it can be known to exist and reside is in and with a believing mind, then the logical truth and reality must exist in God's believing mind.

How do you know that a god has a believing mind, and what is the relevance if the god has a believing mind or doesn't have a believing mind?

 

[Tercon]

How do you know that a god has a believing mind, and what is the relevance if the god has a believing mind or doesn't have a believing mind?

Because there is no other way or place outside of a believing mind that anything can be known to exist or occur, as everything requires and entails a believing mind in order to occur and exist. And outside of a believing mind nothing can be known to exist nor occur.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Because there is no other way or place outside of a believing mind that anything can be known to exist or occur, as everything requires and entails a believing mind in order to occur and exist. And outside of a believing mind nothing can be known to exist nor occur.

Ambiguous as always. There are two claims here. The first is that KNOWLEDGE of existing or occurring things requires a mind, which is true but trivial and irrelevant because this does nothing to show that any God exists. The second is that the existing or occurring things THEMSELVES require a mind in which to exist or occur, and this is the part you consistently fail to support in any way whatsoever.

 

[Tiburon]

How can I or anyone tell you about perception without telling you about something I know or believe I (they) have perceived?

But that's not what you are doing. You are not telling me the perception you 'believe' you had. You are telling me what you believe about the perception you believe you had. Your adding another layer of belief.

It is still something I know and experienced. And every time I think about what I believe and experienced from the past I can get to experience the same things and feelings I experienced before. It is only belief that gives us that ability.

No you can't. Studies have shown that every time you remember the past you are rewriting the memory. You may retrigger your feelings about the past but you are not there experiencing them as you did the first time.

Every time someone is correct in their belief about what will or does occur, they were and are ready for that occurrence and prepared accordingly, only belief makes that possible.

You are not experiencing the future. If you were you'd know the lottery numbers for next week.

How can I tell you about anything I "experience" without telling you something about what I believe I experienced? It's like you are deliberately trying to dumb yourself down.

Ok yes you need to believe it but what you're recounting is not the basic (believed) experience but an additional layer of evaluation and judgement.

You mean trusting what you believe about the past is true. Perception has no way or means to know or experience anything without a believing mind to believe what is true about what is being perceived and experienced.

You need a history of repeated experience in order to build a model to believe.
Do animals have believing minds?

Strawman. I am referring to your unbelief (atheism) and what makes you ignorant of how and why the logical truth and reality works the way it does.

No it doesn't and you have yet to show that it does.

Strawman and evasion. No, belief is necessary in order to make all truth and reality known without exception, that's not exclusive to belief in God, but all knowledge of the truth and reality require belief in order to make it known to you.

But you are saying that because I have one 'unbelief' I cannot know the truth and reality?

ALL knowledge of the truth and reality requires belief to occur before it is made known to you, without exception.

But that is not ALL that is required.

That's exactly how the truth and reality works. You can't know the truth or reality of anything without belief occurring first.

You can't believe without something to believe.

That's exactly what I am saying, as if belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to everyone including you, then what does your opinion as to belief's capacity have to do with anything, when regardless belief must occur before the truth and reality is known to you? The truth and reality demands belief in order to give up its prize, so your opinion is irrelevant. And if anyone tells you any different, then they are lying to you, regardless if they know the difference or not.

Nothing to do with my opinion.

Strawman. My argument is that you can't know anything to exist or occur without believing it exists and occurred. And that includes the truth and reality itself as well.

My argument is that belief on it's own is insufficient.

If even evidence implies and requires belief and a believing mind, then even evidence implies and require belief in order to exist or occur.

???

A belief in reality is always based on the truth. And my belief is based on the truth that reality always existed, because to suggest otherwise is self-refuting. And if the truth and reality can ONLY be known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind, then the truth and reality must have originated and occurred in and with a believing mind. And that first believing mind belongs to the Creator of everything including conscious beings.

A belief in reality is based on reality.
You still haven't shown that the truth and reality must have originated and occurred in and with a believing mind.

But I have shown that "knowledge of reality requires a believing mind" and "existence of reality requires a believing mind" as well? So, I have shown this to be the case correct?

No you have not shown that "existence of reality requires a believing mind".

Here's a good reason for you to believe; if it is true that "knowledge of reality requires a believing mind" and "existence of reality requires a believing mind", then in what other way or place can the truth and reality be known to exist and occur but in and with a believing mind?

Again you have not shown that "existence of reality requires a believing mind" only that that Knowledge of reality requires a believing mind.

 

[Tercon]

Ambiguous as always.

No ambiguity at all, the statement means and denotes the same thing. Rather your problem is that you are confalting your unbelief and ambiguity, because there is nothing ambiguous about the only way and place the truth and reality can be known to exist and occur.

There are two claims here. The first is that KNOWLEDGE of existing or occurring things requires a mind, which is true but trivial and irrelevant because this does nothing to show that any God exists.

How is it trivial when it is what I said and it supports what I said as well silly. Just because you said, "don't look here folks, because there is nothing to see". Not everyone is as ignorant of the truth and reality as unbelievers are.

The second is that the existing or occurring things THEMSELVES require a mind in which to exist or occur, and this is the part you consistently fail to support in any way whatsoever.

If "KNOWLEDGE of existing or occurring things requires a mind" and "existing or occurring things THEMSELVES" are things that exist and occur, then both require and imply a mind in order to exist in and to know it has occurred silly.

Like I have asked you so many times before: if a believing mind is the ONLY way and place that can make the truth and reality known to occur, then what other way or place is there outside of a believing mind that possesses the capacity of belief as a mind does to make the truth known and also to give a place to occur? There is none silly.

 

[Tetsugaku]

No ambiguity at all, the statement means and denotes the same thing.

Knowledge and existence do not mean or denote the same thing. That is your ambiguity. Locating the one is not the same as locating the other.

How is it trivial when it is what I said and it supports what I said as well silly.

It is trivial because no-one disputes it, and it doesn't do anything to show that any God exists.

If "KNOWLEDGE of existing or occurring things requires a mind" and "existing or occurring things THEMSELVES" are things that exist and occur, then both require and imply a mind in order to exist in and to know it has occurred silly.

Unsupported that existing or occurring things themselves require a mind in order to exist or occur.

Like I have asked you so many times before: if a believing mind is the ONLY way and place that can make the truth and reality known to occur, then what other way or place is there outside of a believing mind that possesses the capacity of belief as a mind does to make the truth known and also to give a place to occur? There is none silly.

As I have answered so many times before, minds are where things are known, and mind-independent physical reality is where things exist and occur.

 

[Whateverman]

Belief is based upon an evaluation of experience.

More fundamentally: experience always precedes belief. Since you gain knowledge through experience, belief isn't necessary for knowledge.

Touch your hand accidentally to a hot wood stove, and you'll know "OUCH!" long before you believe it. You may eventually come to believe "that wood stove is hot", but that comes after the knowledge that you should not touch it again with your bare hand.

Since experience precedes belief, Durrcon's entire shtick crumbles into the pile of word salad from when it rose...

 

[Tercon]

More fundamentally: experience always precedes belief. Since you gain knowledge through experience, belief isn't necessary for knowledge.

How do you determine what you are experiencing without a believing mind? Our physical senses are meaningless without a believing mind in order to determine content and context.
And if you can't gain knowledge of the truth and reality without a believing mind, then belief is necessary for knowledge.

Touch your hand accidentally to a hot wood stove, and you'll know "OUCH!" long before you believe it. You may eventually come to believe "that wood stove is hot", but that comes after the knowledge that you should not touch it again with your bare hand.

One's knowledge of hot burns and cold freezes comes from believing someone that told to you as much, because we don't have to burn or freeze anything but just believe what we were told about the hot and cold in order to have such knowledge.

Since experience precedes belief, Durrcon's entire shtick crumbles into the pile of word salad from when it rose...

If "experience precedes belief", then just what do you believe you are experiencing silly?

 

[Whateverman]

How do you determine what you are experiencing without a believing mind?

Sense perception. Duh.

No belief is required to know that you're in pain (et al).

 

[Tercon]

Knowledge and existence do not mean or denote the same thing. That is your ambiguity. Locating the one is not the same as locating the other.

Strawman. Deal with what's being said to you. If the only way and place that both "knowledge and existence" can be experienced or occur is in and with a believing mind, then both must be the product of a believing mind. Both "knowledge and existence" share this commonality. And you have not said anything to refute this.

It is trivial because no-one disputes it, and it doesn't do anything to show that any God exists.

It isn't trivial just because you can't disputes it silly. And if it's true, then it does support what I have said about God.

Unsupported that existing or occurring things themselves require a mind in order to exist or occur.

What do you know of that exists or occurs in reality that doesn't require or entail a believing mind in order to exist or occur silly?

As I have answered so many times before, minds are where things are known, and mind-independent physical reality is where things exist and occur.

If believing minds are necessary and the ONLY way and place "where things are known" to exist and occur, then how is your "physical reality" known how to "exist and occur" without a believing mind silly?

 

[Tercon]

Sense perception. Duh.

What's "sense perception" silly?

No belief is required to know that you're in pain (et al).

So, when "you're in pain" you disbelieve "you're in pain" silly?

 

[Tetsugaku]

Strawman. Deal with what's being said to you. If the only way and place that both "knowledge and existence" can be experienced or occur is in and with a believing mind, then both must be the product of a believing mind. Both "knowledge and existence" share this commonality. And you have not said anything to refute this.

Nope, no strawman here. You don't seem able to recognize when someone has directly dealt with what you are saying. Regardless of what commonalities you seek to establish between them, knowledge and existence do not mean or denote the same thing, so locating the one is not the same as locating the other. Knowledge requires a mind, but existence/occurrences do not always require a mind, nor do they need to be the product of one. Please note how I am not strawmanning you, and have directly addressed what you've said.

It isn't trivial just because you can't disputes it silly. And if it's true, then it does support what I have said about God.

It is trivial to point out that knowledge requires a mind, because no-one has ever denied this, no-one even wants to be able to dispute it, and it does absolutely nothing to support any of your claims about God.

What do you know of that exists or occurs in reality that doesn't require or entail a believing mind in order to exist or occur silly?

Basically anything that isn't a mind, part of a mind, or the product of a human or animal mind. For example, there is a tree outside my window that, as far as I can tell, doesn't require me or anyone else to believe in it in order to exist. Of course you will disagree, but we both know you won't be able to support your view in any way.

If believing minds are necessary and the ONLY way and place "where things are known" to exist and occur, then how is your "physical reality" known how to "exist and occur" without a believing mind silly?

I just explained that minds are NOT the only place where things can exist or occur, so you are arguing from a false premise. Again, minds are where things are known, while mind-independent physical reality is where things exist and occur.

 

[Tercon]

Nope, no strawman here. You don't seem able to recognize when someone has directly dealt with what you are saying. Regardless of what commonalities you seek to establish between them, knowledge and existence do not mean or denote the same thing, so locating the one is not the same as locating the other. Knowledge requires a mind, but existence/occurrences do not always require a mind, nor do they need to be the product of one. Please note how I am not strawmanning you, and have directly addressed what you've said.

You are strawmanning because you are pretending that the commonality that I have established between the two isn't fundamental. I have linked the two with a commonality that both inherently share and this commonality that I did established between them denotes their fundamental and inherent likeness in that both can ONLY be known and experienced in and with a believing mind.

It is trivial to point out that knowledge requires a mind, because no-one has ever denied this, no-one even wants to be able to dispute it, and it does absolutely nothing to support any of your claims about God.

Because you can't silly.

Basically anything that isn't a mind, part of a mind, or the product of a human or animal mind. For example, there is a tree outside my window that, as far as I can tell, doesn't require me or anyone else to believe in it in order to exist. Of course you will disagree, but we both know you won't be able to support your view in any way.

Reality: do you believe or disbelieve that "there is a tree outside" your "window"? Because if you believe "there is a tree outside" your "window", then that a demonstration that a mind was required and entailed in order for that to occur. And not a demonstration that a mind isn't necessary and entailed for it to occur.

I just explained that minds are NOT the only place where things can exist or occur, so you are arguing from a false premise. Again, minds are where things are known, while mind-independent physical reality is where things exist and occur.

No you didn't, rather you demonstrated that even "object permanence" requires a believing mind in order to occur silly.

 

[Tetsugaku]

You are strawmanning because you are pretending that the commonality that I have established between the two isn't fundamental. I have linked the two with a commonality that both inherently share and this commonality that I did established between them denotes their fundamental and inherent likeness in that both can ONLY be known and experienced in and with a believing mind.

Your commonality does not establish that knowledge and existence are identical, mean the same thing, or must be located in the same place, and it is therefore completely irrelevant to my point.

Because you can't silly.

Sure, just as you can't prove that the sky is green or that grass is blue. Not really relevant to anything though, is it?

Reality: do you believe or disbelieve that "there is a tree outside" your "window"? Because if you believe "there is a tree outside" your "window", then that a demonstration that a mind was required and entailed in order for that to occur. And not a demonstration that a mind isn't necessary and entailed for it to occur.

I believe it, but that doesn't show that my belief was necessary in order for the tree to exist. Stand on your head and say 'potato'. Does doing that prove that standing on your head was necessary for you to say potato? Or are you just committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? Again, you've given no reason at all to think that a mind or belief is necessary for the tree to exist.

No you didn't, rather you demonstrated that even "object permanence" requires a believing mind in order to occur silly.

I didn't even mention object permanence in that post, which is a good thing given that you still have no idea at all of what it is. Again, minds are where things are known, while mind-independent physical reality is where things exist and occur.

 

[Tercon]

Your commonality does not establish that knowledge and existence are identical, mean the same thing, or must be located in the same place, and it is therefore completely irrelevant to my point.

Strawman. I didn't say that they "are identical". What I said is that if they are both only knowable and experienceable in and with ONE way and place and that's in and with a believing mind, then both must be the product of a believing mind.

Sure, just as you can't prove that the sky is green or that grass is blue. Not really relevant to anything though, is it?

Strawman and projection, it is you and not me that can't show that a believing mind isn't required and entailed in everything; including "object permanence" silly.

I believe it, but that doesn't show that my belief was necessary in order for the tree to exist.

But it does show how in reality we know that belief is necessary in order to make that tree known to exist silly.

Stand on your head and say 'potato'. Does doing that prove that standing on your head was necessary for you to say potato? Or are you just committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? Again, you've given no reason at all to think that a mind or belief is necessary for the tree to exist.

But again; it does show how in reality we know that belief is necessary in order to make everything known to exist and occur silly.

I didn't even mention object permanence in that post, which is a good thing given that you still have no idea at all of what it is. Again, minds are where things are known, while mind-independent physical reality is where things exist and occur.

Strawman and projection, it is you and not me that can't show that a believing mind isn't required and entailed in everything's existence and occurrence; including "object permanence" silly.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Strawman. I didn't say that they "are identical".

Not a strawman, as I never said you did. The fact that they are not identical is why your claimed commonality is irrelevant. What matters is that knowledge and existence are not the same thing, so locating one is not the same as locating the other.

Strawman and projection, it is you and not me that can't show that a believing mind isn't required and entailed in everything; including "object permanence" silly.

It was an analogy, not a strawman. And you are still conflating means and ends. Are you ever going to learn what object permanence is?

But it does show how in reality we know that belief is necessary in order to make that tree known to exist silly.

Which is irrelevant, as we were discussing the tree's existence, not our knowledge of it. You haven't given any reason for thinking that a mind is needed in order for the tree to exist.

But again; it does show how in reality we know that belief is necessary in order to make everything known to exist and occur silly.

Another conflation of knowledge and existence. No-one is denying that tree-knowledge requires a mind. That says nothing at all about what the tree itself requires in order to exist.

Strawman and projection, it is you and not me that can't show that a believing mind isn't required and entailed in everything's existence and occurrence; including "object permanence" silly.

You're the one who can't show that a mind is required for every existence and occurrence. Most people learn the opposite through object permanence as an infant. Did your psychological development somehow miss this normal step?

 

[Tercon]

Not a strawman, as I never said you did.

You are pretending I did:

Your commonality does not establish that knowledge and existence are identical

The fact that they are not identical is why your claimed commonality is irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant if it is true that they share a commonality that both are ONLY knowable and experientable in and with a believing mind? The fact that they do share this commonality is evidence that both knowledge and existence are the result of a believing mind. You'd have to be willfully ignorant to suggest otherwise.

What matters is that knowledge and existence are not the same thing, so locating one is not the same as locating the other.

Sure it is, as if it is true that both knowledge and existence are both only knowable in and with a believing mind, then that means that both knowledge and existence are the product of a believing mind.

And just how would them sharing this commonality be evidence that they aren't the result of a believing mind silly?

It was an analogy, not a strawman. And you are still conflating means and ends. Are you ever going to learn what object permanence is?

Your analogy is a strawman because it's not representative of my position. Are you ever going to learn how to know the truth?

Which is irrelevant, as we were discussing the tree's existence, not our knowledge of it.

Again, if a believing mind is the ONLY way and place that can know and experience both the existence and knowledge of that tree, then that tree cannot be known to exist or occur without a believing mind making it possible.

You haven't given any reason for thinking that a mind is needed in order for the tree to exist.

You haven't given any reason to think that anything can be known to exist and occur outside of a believing mind.

Another conflation of knowledge and existence. No-one is denying that tree-knowledge requires a mind. That says nothing at all about what the tree itself requires in order to exist.

Strawman. Actually you are pretending that things can be known to exist and occur without or outside of a believing mind.

And if the ONLY way and place that knowledge and existence can be known and experienced is in and with a believing mind, then both knowledge and existence must be the result of a believing mind. And there must be a correlation between knowledge and existence.

You're the one who can't show that a mind is required for every existence and occurrence.

Tell us all about what you know to exist and occur without a mind silly?

Most people learn the opposite through object permanence as an infant. Did your psychological development somehow miss this normal step?

If "object permanence" entails and requires a believing mind in order to occur, then "object permanence" isn't a demonstration of how or why things can exist without being known to exist silly. As if "object permanence" entails and requires a believing mind too, then "object permanence" is a demonstration of how and why a believing mind is required and entailed in order for everything to exist and occur; including "object permanence".