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

Tercon

Well-known member
You think existence is a delusion?

Strawman. No, I think your assessment of "existence" not requiring and entailing a believing mind in order to exist and occur "is a delusion".

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?

So, does this mean that you have given up on "object permanence" as a means to make the unknowable known to you?
 

bigthinker

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,
How about your name, do you know your name? Is your name 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.
Existence is contrasted with non-existence. Things/objects exist in the physical world, ideas exist in the mind as concepts. An idea of an object exists in the mind, while the object exists in physically. Humans can think of and/or imagine things that exist only in the mind. These things include such things as unicorns, leprechauns, gods etc.
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.
Simply false. Belief is not necessary to deal with reality, existence etc. An unthinking mechanical robot can deal with things in physical (real) world.
You're wallowing around in the nothingness again silly.
Yes, YOUR nothingness, silly.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
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.
You create a contradiction. If the laws of logic are dependent on a mind, then they are contingent, so they can't be absolute and therefore laws.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
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.
You're not adressing my point.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Strawman. No, I think your assessment of "existence" not requiring and entailing a believing mind in order to exist and occur "is a delusion".
Then prove it by supporting your claim that existence (and not just knowledge of it) requires a mind. But you can't, can you? Whenever you try, you end up getting confused and talking about knowledge instead.

So, does this mean that you have given up on "object permanence" as a means to make the unknowable known to you?
No, it means you got confused and forgot which thread you were in.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
How about your name, do you know your name? Is your name knowable?

Yes. My name as well required and entails a believing mind in order to exist and occur.

Existence is contrasted with non-existence.

Actually if you are suggesting that "existence" is not a part of knowledge and can exist or occur without or outside of a believing mind and knowledge, then you have NOT "contrasted" "non-existence" and "existence". But you in fact are conflating "non-existence" and "existence", because, if existence isn't a part of knowledge, then it can't be a part of the truth and reality either, because the truth and reality are knowable. Understand?

Things/objects exist in the physical world, ideas exist in the mind as concepts.

Actually everything that exists and occurs "in the physical world" are ONLY knowable when they are reduced to beliefs and the spiritual realm are they ONLY known to exist and occur. And outside of the belief realm, they can't be known to exist or occur.

An idea of an object exists in the mind, while the object exists in physically.

Actually it is ONLY some humans that know they exist in reality. And the only reason they know they exist is because they believed the truth and reality that told them they exist. And outside of that belief, there is no knowledge of the truth and reality.

Humans can think of and/or imagine things that exist only in the mind. These things include such things as unicorns, leprechauns, gods etc.

Strawman. I don't believe "unicorns, leprechauns, gods" exist. I believe the truth and reality exists and they are the result of the Creator's believing mind. And the ONLY way and place humans can know anything to exist and occur is in and with our believing minds silly.


Simply false. Belief is not necessary to deal with reality, existence etc. An unthinking mechanical robot can deal with things in physical (real) world.

A believing mind is necessary to know and experience the truth and reality. " An unthinking mechanical robot" doesn't know or experience anything silly.

Yes, YOUR nothingness, silly.

Only in your "unthinking mechanical robot" unbelieving mind silly.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Then prove it by supporting your claim that existence (and not just knowledge of it) requires a mind. But you can't, can you? Whenever you try, you end up getting confused and talking about knowledge instead.

Strawman and projection. If you're not referring to any kind of "knowledge" and something that is knowable like the truth and reality is knowable in and with a believing mind, then just what are you denoting when you say "existence"? When the ONLY first hand knowledge we have and know about "existence" is our own silly, and that knowledge of existence definitely requires and entails a believing mind.

So, support your claim that "existence" can occur without a believing mind or any kind of knowledge making it occur. But you can't, can you? Whenever you try, you end up getting confused and talking about nothing instead.

No, it means you got confused and forgot which thread you were in.

No. It just means your desperate to keep the truth hidden from yourself. What difference does that make, when you've been talking about "object permanence" for weeks silly?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Strawman and projection. If you're not referring to any kind of "knowledge" and something that is knowable like the truth and reality is knowable in and with a believing mind, then just what are you denoting when you say "existence"? When the ONLY first hand knowledge we have and know about "existence" is our own silly, and that knowledge of existence definitely requires and entails a believing mind.

So, support your claim that "existence" can occur without a believing mind or any kind of knowledge making it occur. But you can't, can you? Whenever you try, you end up getting confused and talking about nothing instead.
Why aren't you supporting your claim? You were supposed to be explaining why you think existence requires a mind.

No. It just means your desperate to keep the truth hidden from yourself. What difference does that make, when you've been talking about "object permanence" for weeks silly?
We weren't talking about that in this thread. And you haven't been talking about it at all, as you still don't have the faintest idea what object permanence even is.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Why aren't you supporting your claim? You were supposed to be explaining why you think existence requires a mind.

I have supported my claim, because you can't refute anything I am claiming about the necessity and the entailment of a believing mind in order to know the truth and reality. Who in their right mind can't believe that a believing mind is required and entailed in everything's existence and occurrence, when nothing can be known to exist or occur without a believing mind. You are wallowing around in your silly unbelieving mind and trying to get others to join you in your illusion.

We weren't talking about that in this thread. And you haven't been talking about it at all, as you still don't have the faintest idea what object permanence even is.

I know it's a delusion that you find trying yourself deceived by, because nothing can be known to exist or occur without a believing mind.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
I have supported my claim, because you can't refute anything I am claiming about the necessity and the entailment of a believing mind in order to know the truth and reality. Who in their right mind can't believe that a believing mind is required and entailed in everything's existence and occurrence, when nothing can be known to exist or occur without a believing mind. You are wallowing around in your silly unbelieving mind and trying to get others to join you in your illusion silly.

I know it's a delusion that you find trying yourself deceived by, because nothing can be known to exist or occur without a believing mind.
All you're doing is repeating your assertion. At no point have you done anything whatsoever to support it.

Again, why do you think existence itself (and not merely our knowledge of it) requires a mind?

You have absolutely no answer to this question.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
All you're doing is repeating your assertion. At no point have you done anything whatsoever to support it.

Not just any assertion, but I am repeating a assertion that you have NOT and cannot refuted silly.

Again, why do you think existence itself (and not merely our knowledge of it) requires a mind?

Because everything including our existence requires and entails a believing mind in order to have a way and place to occur. And QM indicates this, because "observation" and "measurement" is required and entailed in all QM models.

You have absolutely no answer to this question.

Sure I do, see above. You just got NO refutation for the answer.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Not just any assertion, but I am repeating a assertion...
Repeating a claim isn't the same as supporting it. Why can't you support it?

Because everything including our existence requires and entails a believing mind in order to have a way and place to occur.
That's not an answer to what I asked. All you've done is repeat your claim. I asked you to support it. Obviously you can't support it at all.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Repeating a claim isn't the same as supporting it. Why can't you support it?

The claim stands because you can't refute it silly. Why would I stop repeating a claim that you have not and can't refute.

That's not an answer to what I asked. All you've done is repeat your claim. I asked you to support it. Obviously you can't support it at all.

That's not a refutation of what I said silly. Try again.

Here is is again: If everything including our "existence" requires and entails a believing mind in order to have a way and place to exist and occur, then there is no way and place for existence to occur without a believing mind in order to occur in and with.

And QM indicates this, because "observation" and "measurement" is required and entailed in all QM models and it is ONLY a believing mind that can observe and measure. Or in other words a way and place in order to occur in and with.

See the words purple bold print above, that is a logically true argument that you need to say how and why is false or illogical in order to refute it. And you have never done that.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
You create a contradiction. If the laws of logic are dependent on a mind, then they are contingent, so they can't be absolute and therefore laws.

You're strawmanning and projecting. And there is no contradiction on my end whatsoever. It's on your end.

Read for comprehension: if "the laws of logic are dependent on" God's believing mind for their existence and occurrence, then that's how and why they are absolute, because "the laws of logic" are the result of God's believing mind. It is ONLY contradiction to unbelievers because they disbelieve everything is the result of God's believing mind. But whereas believers believe that everything including "the laws of logic are dependent on" God's believing mind for their existence, then there is NO contradiction. Understand?

You're not adressing my point.

You made no point, but rather you're just projecting instead. If believers believe that the ONLY way and place that the laws of logic can be known to exist and occur is in and with God's 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, because outside of a believing mind nothing can be known to exist or occur. And that believing mind that it all occurred is God's.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
The claim stands because you can't refute it silly. Why would I stop repeating a claim that you have not and can't refute.

That's not a refutation of what I said silly. Try again.

Here is is again: If everything including our "existence" requires and entails a believing mind in order to have a way and place to exist and occur, then there is no way and place for existence to occur without a believing mind in order to occur in and with.

And QM indicates this, because "observation" and "measurement" is required and entailed in all QM models and it is ONLY a believing mind that can observe and measure. Or in other words a way and place in order to occur in and with.

See the words purple bold print above, that is a logically true argument that you need to say how and why is false or illogical in order to refute it. And you have never done that.
Firstly, your claim has been refuted, repeatedly.

Secondly, whether or not your claim has been refuted by others has nothing to do with whether or not YOU have managed to SUPPORT it yourself.

Why can't you support your claim?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Firstly, your claim has been refuted, repeatedly.

Secondly, whether or not your claim has been refuted by others has nothing to do with whether or not YOU have managed to SUPPORT it yourself.

Why can't you support your claim?

Evasion. How come you didn't post the refutation then silly?

Try again.

Here is is again: If everything including our "existence" requires and entails a believing mind in order to have a way and place to exist and occur, then there is no way and place for existence to occur without a believing mind in order to occur in and with.

And QM indicates this, because "observation" and "measurement" is required and entailed in all QM models and it is ONLY a believing mind that can observe and measure. Or in other words a way and place in order to occur in and with.

See the words purple bold print above, that is a logically true argument that you need to say how and why is false or illogical in order to refute it. And you have never done that.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
You're strawmanning and projecting.
You say this in just about every reply to everyone for it to mean much.
And there is no contradiction on my end whatsoever. It's on your end.

Read for comprehension: if "the laws of logic are dependent on" God's believing mind for their existence and occurrence, then that's how and why they are absolute,
That's the contradiction, if they are dependant they can't be absolute therfore laws of logic.
because "the laws of logic" are the result of God's believing mind. It is ONLY contradiction to unbelievers because they disbelieve everything is the result of God's believing mind. But whereas believers believe that everything including "the laws of logic are dependent on" God's believing mind for their existence, then there is NO contradiction. Understand?
That doesn't follow. Understand? You haven't explained how the laws of logic could be dependant on God's mind, you've just said believers believe this is so.
You made no point, but rather you're just projecting instead. If believers believe that the ONLY way and place that the laws of logic can be known to exist and occur is in and with God's 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, because outside of a believing mind nothing can be known to exist or occur. And that believing mind that it all occurred is God's.
Sorry, but can God create a square circle? If so then I concede the point, if not then God is subject to the laws of logic and cannot be the author of them.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Evasion. How come you didn't post the refutation then silly?

Try again.

Here is is again: If everything including our "existence" requires and entails a believing mind in order to have a way and place to exist and occur, then there is no way and place for existence to occur without a believing mind in order to occur in and with.

And QM indicates this, because "observation" and "measurement" is required and entailed in all QM models and it is ONLY a believing mind that can observe and measure. Or in other words a way and place in order to occur in and with.

See the words purple bold print above, that is a logically true argument that you need to say how and why is false or illogical in order to refute it. And you have never done that.
Again, you're not supporting your claim. You're just repeating it. Why can't you support your claim? You've given no reason at all for thinking that existence requires a mind.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Again, you're not supporting your claim. You're just repeating it. Why can't you support your claim?

Again, you have not refuted my claim, all you doing is pretending you have. When are you going to do that, because you have said nothing that I have to defend against.

You've given no reason at all for thinking that existence requires a mind.

How about you can't know anything to exist and occur without a believing mind silly?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Again, you have not refuted my claim, all you doing is pretending you have. When are you going to do that, because you have said nothing that I have to defend against.

How about you can't know anything to exist and occur without a believing mind silly?
You're talking about knowledge again. You were supposed to be supporting your claim about existence. Why do you keep getting so confused?
 
Top