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

Nouveau

Well-known member
You are pretending I did
No, I am not. Saying that you've failed to show that the commonality establishes identity doesn't mean that I think you claimed to have done so, or even that you tried to do so. It just means you've failed to do it. As long as the commonality isn't identity, your argument fails. As long as knowledge and existence are not the same thing, locating the one does not mean the same thing as locating the other.

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.
"Experientable" isn't a word, Tercon. Again, so long as your commonality falls short of identity, knowledge and existence remain different things, meaning locating the one is different from locating the other. You have presented no evidence at all that all existence is the product of any mind. This isn't even possible, as the mind would have to predate all of existence in order to produce it, meaning that mind would not itself exist.

Your analogy is a strawman because it's not representative of my position.
How so? What was the analogy? How was it not analogous to your position? Lets' see if you're even following the discussion here.

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.
A mind is the only place the tree can be known, so knowledge-of-the-tree requires a mind. But a mind is not the only place the tree can EXIST (another place being my garden), so the tree's existence (i.e. the tree itself) does NOT require a mind. As always, you conflate knowledge and existence.

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.

Tell us all about what you know to exist and occur without a mind silly?
Again, we were discussing existence, not knowledge. As always, you continue to conflate the two.

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".
Get back to me when you can show that you understand what object permanence actually is, and are able to understand the difference between means and ends. Until then you can keep compaining that your car is inedible and therefore completely useless for getting you to the supermarket for food.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
No, I am not. Saying that you've failed to show that the commonality establishes identity doesn't mean that I think you claimed to have done so, or even that you tried to do so.

Sure you are silly. And what's more fundamental in establishing identity than a believing mind as well, because like knowledge and existence identity too requires and entails a believing mind in order to establish.

It just means you've failed to do it. As long as the commonality isn't identity, your argument fails. As long as knowledge and existence are not the same thing, locating the one does not mean the same thing as locating the other.

Identity, knowledge and existence are all entailed, required and the result of a believing mind silly.

"Experientable" isn't a word, Tercon.

Typo experienceable is the word I meant to use.

Again, so long as your commonality falls short of identity, knowledge and existence remain different things, meaning locating the one is different from locating the other. You have presented no evidence at all that all existence is the product of any mind. This isn't even possible, as the mind would have to predate all of existence in order to produce it, meaning that mind would not itself exist.

All you're doing is demonstrating that you don't know how to reason properly.

Lets' see if you're even following the discussion here.

Let's see if you know how and why identity, knowledge and existence are all only knowable. experienceable and the result of a believing mind silly?

A mind is the only place the tree can be known, so knowledge-of-the-tree requires a mind. But a mind is not the only place the tree can EXIST (another place being my garden), so the tree's existence (i.e. the tree itself) does NOT require a mind. As always, you conflate knowledge and existence.

How did your garden make a tree known to you, did your garden give you a way and place to believe and know it exists silly?

How do you define "existence", and did you require your mind in order to define it?

Again, we were discussing existence, not knowledge. As always, you continue to conflate the two.

How can you know anything to exist or anything about existence without a believing mind?

And how do you know anything about knowledge or existence without a believing mind silly?

Get back to me when you can show that you understand what object permanence actually is, and are able to understand the difference between means and ends. Until then you can keep compaining that your car is inedible and therefore completely useless for getting you to the supermarket for food.

Strawman. Get back to me when you learn how the truth and reality is known to you.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Sure you are silly. And what's more fundamental in establishing identity than a believing mind as well, because like knowledge and existence identity too requires and entails a believing mind in order to establish. Identity, knowledge and existence are all entailed, required and the result of a believing mind silly.
You're still not addressing the point that knowledge and existence are not identical so locating the one is not the same as locating the other.

All you're doing is demonstrating that you don't know how to reason properly.
You haven't shown this, or in fact made any attempt at all to address my point.

Let's see if you know how and why identity, knowledge and existence are all only knowable. experienceable and the result of a believing mind silly?
You said my analogy was a strawman, but you don't even know what analogy you were referring to. You're not actually following the discussion, are you?

How did your garden make a tree known to you, did your garden give you a way and place to believe and know it exists silly? How do you define "existence", and did you require your mind in order to define it?
You're asking about my beliefs, knowledge, and words. None of this is at all relevant to what the tree itself requires in order to exist.

How can you know...? And how do you know...?
You're asking about knowledge again. We were talking about existence.

Strawman. Get back to me when you learn how the truth and reality is known to you.
Not a strawman. And you still don't know what object permanence is, or why it doesn't matter that it requires a mind.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
You're still not addressing the point that knowledge and existence are not identical so locating the one is not the same as locating the other.

Strawman. Didn't say that they were "identical", so your criticism is irreverent to the point I successfully made. And that being that both are ONLY knowable and experienceable in and with a believing mind. So, I have successfully showed that they are in fact similar in nature.

You're asking about my beliefs, knowledge, and words. None of this is at all relevant to what the tree itself requires in order to exist.

If existence like knowledge entails and requires a believing mind in order to be known and experienced, then existence is the product and the result of a believing mind too.

You're asking about knowledge again. We were talking about existence.

Strawman. I am talking about both knowledge and existence, and how and why both require and entail a believing mind in order to be known and experienced. And you're trying to yourself from this fact of reality.

Not a strawman. And you still don't know what object permanence is, or why it doesn't matter that it requires a mind.

I know what it is, but in reality it doesn't do what you think it does.
Rather because it too requires a believing mind in order to occur, then "object permanence" is a demonstration that everything requires and entails a believing mind in order to exist and occur in reality.

Your problem is that you don't know how to believe and thus know the truth and reality.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Strawman. Didn't say that they were "identical"...
My point does not require that you ever did, so it was not a strawman. My point is that so long as knowledge and existence are not identical - as you agree they are not - then locating the one is not the same as locating the other.

If existence like knowledge entails and requires a believing mind...
Existence does not entail or require a believing mind. You are starting from a false and question-begging premise.

Strawman. I am talking about both knowledge and existence, and how and why both require and entail a believing mind in order to be known and experienced. And you're trying to yourself from this fact of reality.
You're still talking about knowledge instead of existence.

I know what it is...
I don't believe you. I don't think you have the faintest idea what object permanence is. My evidence for this is that you keep making excuses and chickening out whenever I ask you to explain your understanding of it.

Rather because it too requires a believing mind in order to occur...
It is irrelevant that the means by which we learn there are unknown events itself requires a mind, just as it is irrelevant that the car which gets you to the supermarket for groceries is not itself edible.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
My point does not require that you ever did, so it was not a strawman. My point is that so long as knowledge and existence are not identical - as you agree they are not - then locating the one is not the same as locating the other.

But they are the same in the way that I said they are the same. Both knowledge and existence are both the result and the product of a believing mind. And you have said nothing to refute this.

Existence does not entail or require a believing mind. You are starting from a false and question-begging premise.

Strawman. Actually you're just conflating "question-begging" with necessity and entailment silly.

You're still talking about knowledge instead of existence.

Another strawman. Knowledge and existence both denote a believing mind silly, because neither is occurable outside or without a believing mind. And you are a walking talking demonstration of that insanity. All you are doing here is showing how and why your unbelieving mind makes you delusional. You think existence can occur without a way or place in order to occur in or with silly. When a believing mind is necessarily denoted and entailed in everything that exists and occurs, because outside of a believing mind nothing is able to be known to exist or occur. So, if the truth and reality exists and occurs, then both truth and reality necessarily entails and denotes a believing mind as a way and place to exist and occur, because without or outside of a believing mind nothing can be known to exist nor occur.

I don't believe you. I don't think you have the faintest idea what object permanence is. My evidence for this is that you keep making excuses and chickening out whenever I ask you to explain your understanding of it.

Who cares what you think, you have already shown that you can't see a connection between knowledge and existence. So, what do you have to offer anyone in the way of knowledge about either silly.

It is irrelevant that the means by which we learn there are unknown events itself requires a mind, just as it is irrelevant that the car which gets you to the supermarket for groceries is not itself edible.

Actually all you're doing is demonstrating for us in real-time how irrelevant your own mind is making the truth and reality known to you silly.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
But they are the same in the way that I said they are the same. Both knowledge and existence are both the result and the product of a believing mind. And you have said nothing to refute this.
You've said nothing to support it, nor is it relevant to my point. Again, they are not identical, so locating one is not the same as locating the other. I can safely predict that you will never address or acknowledge this point.

Strawman. Actually you're just conflating "question-begging" with necessity and entailment silly.
You can't just call "strawman" and "conflation" in response to every point you don't understand and expect to be taken seriously.

Another strawman. Knowledge and existence both denote a believing mind silly, because neither is occurable outside or without a believing mind. And you are a walking talking demonstration of that insanity. All you are doing here is showing how and why your unbelieving mind makes you delusional. You think existence can occur without a way or place in order to occur in or with silly. When a believing mind is necessarily denoted and entailed in everything that exists and occurs, because outside of a believing mind nothing is able to be known to exist or occur. So, if the truth and reality exists and occurs, then both truth and reality necessarily entails and denotes a believing mind as a way and place to exist and occur, because without or outside of a believing mind nothing can be known to exist nor occur.
No part of this insult-laden rant establishes that existence requires a mind. You're again just asserting what you need to prove.

Who cares what you think, you have already shown that you can't see a connection between knowledge and existence. So, what do you have to offer anyone in the way of knowledge about either silly.
You're chickening out again. You have no idea what object permanence is, do you?

Actually all you're doing is demonstrating for us in real-time how irrelevant your own mind is making the truth and reality known to you silly.
Actually, I was pointing out the difference between means and ends. But I realize analogies are not your strong suit.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
You've said nothing to support it, nor is it relevant to my point. Again, they are not identical, so locating one is not the same as locating the other. I can safely predict that you will never address or acknowledge this point.

Sure I have.

And nothing is relevant to your "point" anyway, because you haven't made one yet silly.

But I on the other hand I have shown a connection between knowledge and existence; that both are only knowable and experienceable in and by a believing mind. And that connection demonstrates that both knowledge and existence have only one way and place in order to be known and experienced; and that's in and with a believing mind. And you say that this connection is irrelevant? Willful ignorance is just lie wrapped up in stupidity.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
The logical truth and reality of god's believing mind is that Tercon claims it only exists in his head. Pretty much what atheists have been saying for decades.

Atheists: 1
Tercon: 0

Actually if the only way and place that anything can be known to exist and occur is in and with a believing mind, and atheists disbelieve belief is capable of making the truth and reality known to them, then the atheist unbelieving mind keeps the truth and reality unknown to them.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Sure I have.

And nothing is relevant to your "point" anyway, because you haven't made one yet silly.

But I on the other hand I have shown a connection between knowledge and existence; that both are only knowable and experienceable in and by a believing mind. And that connection demonstrates that both knowledge and existence have only one way and place in order to be known and experienced; and that's in and with a believing mind. And you say that this connection is irrelevant? Willful ignorance is just lie wrapped up in stupidity.
Thank you for confirming my prediction. You will never address my point that knowledge and existence are not identical, meaning locating the one is not the same as locating the other. You keep conflating where existence can be located vs where it can be known or experienced. Object permanence proves you wrong, and you keep refusing to even learn what it is.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Thank you for confirming my prediction. You will never address my point that knowledge and existence are not identical, meaning locating the one is not the same as locating the other.

Strawman and projection. Already dealt with and knowledge and existence are both the result of a believing mind, because neither can be known nor be experienced outside of a believing mind.

You keep conflating where existence can be located vs where it can be known or experienced. Object permanence proves you wrong, and you keep refusing to even learn what it is.

If "object permanence" entails and requires a believing mind in order to exist or occur, then "object permanence" is just another demonstration as to how and why a believing mind is necessary and entailed in everything's existence and occurrence. And if "object permanence" is just another demonstration of a believing mind's necessity and entailment in everything's existence and occurrence, then "object permanence" doesn't do what you say it does. Rather, "object permanence" is just another figment of your silly unbelieving mind.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Strawman and projection. Already dealt with and knowledge and existence are both the result of a believing mind, because neither can be known nor be experienced outside of a believing mind.
That doesn't address my point at all. I'm not talking about where existence can be experienced or known. That's still just locating knowledge. I'm talking about where things themselves can exist. Given that existence and knowledge are not identical, things need not exist in the same place as they are known.

If "object permanence" entails and requires a believing mind in order to exist or occur, then "object permanence" is just another demonstration as to how and why a believing mind is necessary and entailed in everything's existence and occurrence. And if "object permanence" is just another demonstration of a believing mind's necessity and entailment in everything's existence and occurrence, then "object permanence" doesn't do what you say it does. Rather, "object permanence" is just another figment of your silly unbelieving mind.
You need to start by learning what object permanence is. You've lied twice now, claiming to know, but you clearly don't. Go read the link. Then come back when you're ready to discuss it.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
That doesn't address my point at all. I'm not talking about where existence can be experienced or known. That's still just locating knowledge. I'm talking about where things themselves can exist. Given that existence and knowledge are not identical, things need not exist in the same place as they are known.

Sure it is addressing it, because nothing can be known to exist or occur without or outside of a believing mind silly. Your unbelief is in overdrive and you are projecting it everywhere. And given that existence and knowledge are the same in that they are both the result and the domain of a believing mind exclusively, then that makes them similar in the way that I have identified. And you have not even begun to deal with this yet.

You need to start by learning what object permanence is. You've lied twice now, claiming to know, but you clearly don't. Go read the link. Then come back when you're ready to discuss it.

Strawman and projection. The only one here lying is you, and you can't help yourself because the truth and reality isn't in you. You don't even know how and why the truth and reality ONLY works in and with a believing minds.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Sure it is addressing it, because nothing can be known...
There you go talking about knowledge again. This does not address my point about existence.

And given that existence and knowledge are the same...
Existence and knowledge are not the same, so locating the one is not the same as locating the other.

The only one here lying is you...
Projection. You lied twice, claiming to know what object permanence is. You still don't have the faintest idea.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
There you go talking about knowledge again. This does not address my point about existence.

Tell me what you know about existence without knowledge and a believing mind silly.

Existence and knowledge are not the same, so locating the one is not the same as locating the other.

If the only way and place that both knowledge and existence can be known to exist and occur is in and with a believing mind, then existence like knowledge must entail and be the result of a believing mind.

Projection. You lied twice, claiming to know what object permanence is. You still don't have the faintest idea.

More lies.

You lie every time you pretend that existence can occur somewhere other than in and with a believing mind silly.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Tell me what you know...
There you go asking about knowledge again. My point concerns existence, not knowledge.

If the only way and place that both knowledge and existence can be known...
There you go talking about knowledge again. My point concerns existence, not knowledge.

More lies. You lie every time you pretend that existence can occur somewhere other than in and with a believing mind silly.
I did not lie to you. Disagreement is not lying. Maybe you should stop lying about knowing what object permanence is. You clearly have no idea. Did you even read the link I gave you?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
There you go asking about knowledge again. My point concerns existence, not knowledge.
There you go talking about knowledge again. My point concerns existence, not knowledge.

There you go talking about your delusions again and trying to get the rest of us to join you. My point concerns the truth and reality and how it is known to us. And you're still stuck talking about something that you deludedly think doesn't entail and require a believing mind in order to be known to occur silly.

I did not lie to you. Disagreement is not lying. Maybe you should stop lying about knowing what object permanence is. You clearly have no idea. Did you even read the link I gave you?

Misrepresenting someone's position (strawmanning) is lying about what they believe and represent.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
There you go talking about your delusions again and trying to get the rest of us to join you. My point concerns the truth and reality and how it is known to us. And you're still stuck talking about something that you deludedly think doesn't entail and require a believing mind in order to be known to occur silly.
I'm talking about existence. Can you show that existence requires a mind - without getting confused and talking about knowledge instead?

Misrepresenting someone's position (strawmanning) is lying about what they believe and represent.
And disagreeing with you isn't strawmanning. Do you think you could learn to tell the difference?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
I'm talking about existence.

If you aren't talking about something that doesn't require and entail a believing mind to be known to you or occur, then you are talking about and denoting nothing silly. Because everything that is an occurrence requires and entails a believing mind in order for that occurrence to have a way and place to occur. And without a believing mind occurrences have no way or place to occur. And QM indicates just that reality.

Can you show that existence requires a mind - without getting confused and talking about knowledge instead?

How do you know anything about anything including "existence" without a believing mind silly? Get a grip man.

And disagreeing with you isn't strawmanning. Do you think you could learn to tell the difference?

Strawman. But misrepresenting my position is a form of disagreeing with me too silly.
 
Top