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

Nouveau

Well-known member
If you aren't talking about something that doesn't require and entail a believing mind...
But I am talking about something that doesn't require or entail a mind. I'm talking about existence.

How do you know...
You screwed up again. Only four words in, and you're already talking about knowledge instead of existence.

Strawman. But misrepresenting my position is a form of disagreeing with me too silly.
But disagreeing with you is not a form of strawmanning. And no, that wasn't a strawman. Will you ever learn the difference?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
But I am talking about something that doesn't require or entail a mind. I'm talking about existence.

But how do you know what existence is without experiencing it or existence occurring in you silly? And that all entails and requires a believing mind.

You screwed up again. Only four words in, and you're already talking about knowledge instead of existence.

If you aren't talking "about knowledge" or something you know, then you are talking your ignorance of something you don't know silly. So, you don't know how existence occurs do you?

But disagreeing with you is not a form of strawmanning. And no, that wasn't a strawman. Will you ever learn the difference?

If in your disagreeing with my belief that existence requires and entails a believing mind and suggesting that existence doesn't require and entail a believing mind, then that is a strawman of my position and also misrepresentation of existence and what it is to exist, because nothing can even occur or exist including existence itself without a believing mind in order to exist and occur in and with.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
But how do you know...
There you go asking about knowledge again. The topic was existence. You just can't keep them separate, can you?

If you aren't talking "about knowledge" or something you know, then you are talking your ignorance of something you don't know silly. So, you don't know how existence occurs do you?
Of course I do. But that's not the topic. We were discussing existence, not knowledge. Again, can you show that existence (not knowledge) requires a mind, without getting confused and talking about knowledge instead?

If in your disagreeing with my belief that existence requires and entails a believing mind and suggesting that existence doesn't require and entail a believing mind, then that is a strawman of my position...
No it isn't. It's just called disagreeing with you. Please learn the difference.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
There you go asking about knowledge again. The topic was existence. You just can't keep them separate, can you?

There you go talking about nothing again, because if you aren't talking about knowledge or something that can be known, then what are you talking about silly?

Of course I do. But that's not the topic. We were discussing existence, not knowledge. Again, can you show that existence (not knowledge) requires a mind, without getting confused and talking about knowledge instead?

If we aren't talking about knowledge or something that is knowable, then what are you talking about silly?

No it isn't. It's just called disagreeing with you. Please learn the difference.

I know the difference between knowledge and nothing, do you?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
There you go talking about nothing again, because if you aren't talking about knowledge or something that can be known, then what are you talking about silly?

If we aren't talking about knowledge or something that is knowable, then what are you talking about silly?

I know the difference between knowledge and nothing, do you?
I'm talking about existence, and yes, of course existence is knowable. But our knowledge of existence is not the topic here. I'm asking you to explain why existence itself (NOT just our knowledge of it) requires a mind. Can you do that without getting confused and asking about knowledge instead?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
I'm talking about existence, and yes, of course existence is knowable.

ahh, so existence is knowledge after all?

But our knowledge of existence is not the topic here.

So, if "knowledge of existence is not the topic here" and we're not talking about "knowledge" or belief, then how do you know what you're talking about is true, when what you are talking about isn't made up of "knowledge" or belief silly?

I'm asking you to explain why existence itself (NOT just our knowledge of it) requires a mind. Can you do that without getting confused and asking about knowledge instead?

Projection. Actually what YOU need to explain is how you know anything about anything including existence is true without belief or knowledge silly? And just how do YOU do that without a believing mind or knowledge? Your unbelief has you terminally confused.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
ahh, so existence is knowledge after all?
No, I said existence is knowable.

So, if "knowledge of existence is not the topic here" and we're not talking about "knowledge" or belief, then how do you know...

Projection. Actually what YOU need to explain is how you know...
You're asking about knowledge again. I'm talking about existence.

Again, I'm asking you to explain why existence itself (NOT just our knowledge of it) requires a mind. Can you do that without getting confused and asking about knowledge instead?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
No, I said existence is knowable.
You're asking about knowledge again. I'm talking about existence.
Again, I'm asking you to explain why existence itself (NOT just our knowledge of it) requires a mind. Can you do that without getting confused and asking about knowledge instead?

But "knowable" entails and requires a believing mind silly.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
But "knowable" entails and requires a believing mind silly.
Incorrect. It means existence is the kind of thing that can be known if there is a mind around to do the knowing. Just like how salt is soluble regardless of whether or not you actually have any water around to prove it. But again, this is off-topic, as I'm asking you about existence, not knowledge.

I'm asking you to explain why existence itself (NOT just our knowledge of it) requires a mind. Can you do that without getting confused and asking about knowledge instead?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Incorrect. It means existence is the kind of thing that can be known if there is a mind around to do the knowing.

You mean "if there is a mind around to" believe "it", because all knowledge requires and entails belief, remember? And nothing can be known to exist or occur without a believing mind, including existence itself. You can't know anything without a believing mind, including your own existence.

Just like how salt is soluble regardless of whether or not you actually have any water around to prove it. But again, this is off-topic, as I'm asking you about existence, not knowledge.

How do YOU KNOW "salt is soluble regardless of" having "any water around to prove it" silly? YOU KNOW that in and because of your believing mind right?

I'm asking you to explain why existence itself (NOT just our knowledge of it) requires a mind. Can you do that without getting confused and asking about knowledge instead?

Can YOU KNOW or explain anything without a believing mind silly? You have a terminal confusion called a lack of belief AKA atheism.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You mean "if there is a mind around to" believe "it", because all knowledge requires and entails belief, remember? And nothing can be known to exist or occur without a believing mind, including existence itself. You can't know anything without a believing mind, including your own existence.

How do YOU KNOW "salt is soluble regardless of" having "any water around to prove it" silly? YOU KNOW that in and because of your believing mind right?

Can YOU KNOW or explain anything without a believing mind silly? You have a terminal confusion called a lack of belief AKA atheism.
You're asking about knowledge again. I was asking about EXISTENCE. I was asking you to explain why existence itself (NOT just our knowledge of it) requires a mind. Can you do that without getting confused and asking about knowledge instead?
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
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.
What about God's left foot?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
You're asking about knowledge again. I was asking about EXISTENCE.

If you are not referring to and denoting some kind of knowledge and something that can be known; like existence is knowable, then what are you referring to and denoting when you say "EXISTENCE" silly? You're denoting nothing., because if it isn't knowledge and something that is knowable, then you are denoting nothing.

I was asking you to explain why existence itself (NOT just our knowledge of it) requires a mind. Can you do that without getting confused and asking about knowledge instead?

The only thing that can deal with existence and denote it is a believing mind, because it is ONLY a believing mind that knows and experiences existence. You're wallowing around in the nothingness again silly.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
If you are not referring to and denoting some kind of knowledge and something that can be known; like existence is knowable, then what are you referring to and denoting when you say "EXISTENCE" silly? You're denoting nothing., because if it isn't knowledge and something that is knowable, then you are denoting nothing.

The only thing that can deal with existence and denote it is a believing mind, because it is ONLY a believing mind that knows and experiences existence. You're wallowing around in the nothingness again silly.
Of course existence can be known. But that doesn't explain why you keep getting confused and start talking about knowledge every single time I ask you about existence. Again, can you explain why you think existence itself (and not just our knowledge of it) require a mind? And can you do that without getting confused and talking about knowledge instead?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Of course existence can be known. But that doesn't explain why you keep getting confused and start talking about knowledge every single time I ask you about existence. Again, can you explain why you think existence itself (and not just our knowledge of it) require a mind? And can you do that without getting confused and talking about knowledge instead?

It's because if you aren't referring to some kind of knowledge and something that is knowable when you say "existence", then you are NOT denoting the truth or reality, but denoting and wallowing in a delusion silly.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
It's because if you aren't referring to some kind of knowledge and something that is knowable when you say "existence", then you are NOT denoting the truth or reality, but denoting and wallowing in a delusion silly.
I'm not referring to knowledge, but I am referring to something knowable. Are you denying that things exist? If not, then please explain why you think existence requires a mind - and do so without getting confused and talking about knowledge instead.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
I'm not referring to knowledge,

Of course you're "not referring to knowledge", because you are referring to and denoting your delusion instead silly.

but I am referring to something knowable. Are you denying that things exist? If not, then please explain why you think existence requires a mind - and do so without getting confused and talking about knowledge instead.

If YOUR "object permanence" doesn't refer to or point to "existence" as some kind of knowledge, then "object permanence" must be some kind of delusion instead silly.
 
Last edited:

Tercon

Well-known member
If the laws of logic are absolute, they can't be contingent on anything, including a god, and would pertain no matter the worldview.

If the ONLY way and place that the laws of logic can be known to exist and occur is in and with a believing mind, then even the laws of logic are absolutely dependent on a believing mind for its existence and occurrence. A matter of fact; everything's existence and occurrence including physicality depends on a believing mind for its existence and occurrence.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Of course you're not, because you are referring to and denoting your delusion instead silly.
You think existence is a delusion?

If YOUR "object permanence" doesn't refer to or point to "existence" as some kind of knowledge, then "object permanence" must be some kind of delusion instead silly.
Who said anything about object permanence? Are you confusing different threads? I asked you to explain why you think existence requires a mind. Why can't you ever do that without getting confused and talking about knowledge instead?
 
Top