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

You mean believed and entailed too at the same time, and ONLY in and with one way and place mind YOU silly?
No, I don't mean that. I meant you were obviously wrong to say you can't believe something without assuming it. Your beliefs may all be unwarranted assumptions, but the rest of us have beliefs that are evidence-based conclusions.

In reality it isn't "obvious" that all belief is "wrong". When ALL knowledge of the truth and reality is belief based (Justified True Belief) to begin with silly. Beliefs in reality and JTB aren't "wrong". You are projecting your unbelief of belief's capacity to make the truth and reality known to you. And that unbelief is sufficient to make the truth and reality unknowable to you.
You are strawmanning, as I never said all beliefs are wrong, but only that some are. This is enough to prove that belief alone is not sufficient for knowledge. Of course you deny this, which is proof of your unbelief in the JTB account of knowledge. You refuse to accept that the "J" and the "T" are equally necessary.

Then how and where is it known to exist and occur, if not in and with a believing mind silly?
How and where MIPUST is known to exist has no bearing whatsoever on it being mind-independent. You are just confusing existence and knowledge again.
 
Your god only exists in your head, as you've said.
Strawman and projection of your silly unbelieving mind.
Did you not say the following?

He can only be known to exist and occur where all truth and reality exists and occurs; and that's in and with a believing mind

Please, explain to the class how taking your words at face value is a straw man. We eagerly await the lulz...

ps. Atheism thanks you for your work in supporting our claims.
 
Evasion. Deal with what's being said to you instead of running away.

You are the one evading here, Tercon.

Repeat : Is the following in your *logic* correct?

Belief = Faith = Truth = Knowledge =Mind = God

Just simply answer "yes" or "no". Should not be too difficult.
 
Did you not say the following?

He can only be known to exist and occur where all truth and reality exists and occurs; and that's in and with a believing mind

Please, explain to the class how taking your words at face value is a straw man. We eagerly await the lulz...

ps. Atheism thanks you for your work in supporting our claims.
You are the one evading here, Tercon.
Repeat : Is the following in your *logic* correct?
Belief = Faith = Truth = Knowledge =Mind = God
Just simply answer "yes" or "no". Should not be too difficult.

It is a strawman EDIT Do not call any poster a liar. But in reality the truth can be known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind. Even QM supports this truth, because ALL QM models require a entail a believing mind in order for WFC and entanglement to occur.
And atheism makes people hate the truth and reality, atheists can't even face the truth that a believing mind must occur before the truth and reality is known to them. They are stuck in a causation loop that keeps them isolated from how the truth and reality manifests Itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is a strawman because you are previously edited pretending that the truth and reality can be known to exist or occur somewhere else other than in and with a believing mind.
That's not what a straw man is. Strike one.

But in reality the truth can be known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind.
So reality and thus your God only exists in a believing mind. Strike two.

Even QM supports this truth, because ALL QM models require a entail a believing mind in order for WFC and entanglement to occur.
You've been educated multiple times here that this is simply false. Strike three.

You're out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I don't mean that. I meant you were obviously wrong to say you can't believe something without assuming it. Your beliefs may all be unwarranted assumptions, but the rest of us have beliefs that are evidence-based conclusions.

How do you believe something without assuming it is true?

And if you don't have belief "based conclusions", then how do you know what you have concluded is true in reality?

You are strawmanning, as I never said all beliefs are wrong, but only that some are.

Strawman. I wasn't referring to "false beliefs" or unbelief when I use the word 'belief'.

This is enough to prove that belief alone is not sufficient for knowledge.

Actually if ALL knowledge of the truth and reality requires and entails a belief, then it is ONLY a belief that is capable of making the truth and reality known to you silly.

Of course you deny this, which is proof of your unbelief in the JTB account of knowledge. You refuse to accept that the "J" and the "T" are equally necessary.

Strawman. You the one here denying that belief is capable of making the truth known to you silly, as it is the unbeliever's projecting of their unbelief, because their unbelief is unable to support a logical truth.

How and where MIPUST is known to exist has no bearing whatsoever on it being mind-independent. You are just confusing existence and knowledge again.

If you can't say how and why "MIPUST is known to exist" or occur, then YOUR pet phantasm is a delusion silly.

I understand that while A entails A, this still doesn't get you any closer to proving or even supporting A. And no, belief alone does not entail either truth or knowledge - for the very obvious reason that beliefs can be wrong.

A = reality
B = a believing mind
C = the truth
D = knowledge or known

If A requires and entails B in order to make C and D exist and occur, then C must require and entail B in order to make A D to exist and occur.

And if ALL knowledge of the truth and reality is belief based knowledge and it is ONLY belief based knowledge that can make the truth and reality known to exist and occur, then a believing mind MUST be the basis of ALL knowledge of the truth and reality.
 
That's not what a straw man is. Strike one.

Sure it is, you are strawmanning when you lie and pretend that my argument doesn't represent how the truth and reality is known to exist and occur. If I say it is ONLY belief that can make the truth and reality known to us. And you seem to think it isn't. Well you need to explain how you know knowledge of the truth and reality isn't belief based silly? Ball one.

So reality and thus your God only exists in a believing mind. Strike two.

You are misrepresenting me, the truth and reality here silly. If everything that is known to exist and occur (including the truth and reality) is ONLY known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind, then everything that is known to exist and occur (including the truth and reality) MUST be the result of a Believing Mind. Why? Because in reality the truth is that everything that is known to exist and occur is ONLY known to exist and occur in and with a Believing Mind. And outside of that Believing Mind, nothing can be known to exist or occur. Ball two.

You've been educated multiple times here that this is simply false. Strike three.

You have shown me nothing in regards to how and why the truth and reality is known to you. But I have. Ball three.

You're out.

EDIT making insult about lying Ball four. You just walked me silly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How do you believe something without assuming it is true?
By concluding that it is true. Conclusions are not assumptions.

And if you don't have belief "based conclusions", then how do you know what you have concluded is true in reality?
Evidence.

Strawman. I wasn't referring to "false beliefs" or unbelief when I use the word 'belief'.
And yet not all beliefs are true, which is all it takes to prove that belief alone is not sufficient for knowledge.

Strawman. You the one here denying that belief is capable of making the truth known to you silly, as it is the unbeliever's projecting of their unbelief, because their unbelief is unable to support a logical truth.
Not a strawman. You are the one here denying the JTB account of knowledge, yet you offer no alternative in its place.

If you can't say how and why "MIPUST is known to exist" or occur, then YOUR pet phantasm is a delusion silly.
I have said how MIPUST is known. But that remains irrelevant to it being mind-independent and a legitimate alternative to a believing mind as the place where truth and reality can exist.

A = reality
B = a believing mind

If A requires and entails B...
It doesn't. You're again reasoning from a false and unsupported premise.
 
By concluding that it is true. Conclusions are not assumptions.

"By concluding something it is true" entails it is believed to be true too silly.

Evidence.

If you have concluded that "evidence" "is true", then it too is believed to be true too silly.

And yet not all beliefs are true, which is all it takes to prove that belief alone is not sufficient for knowledge.

Strawman. I didn't say that "all beliefs are true". But if justified true beliefs are beliefs too, then it is always and without exception a belief that makes the truth and reality known. And you can't show otherwise.


Not a strawman. You are the one here denying the JTB account of knowledge, yet you offer no alternative in its place.

Strawman.

And
if justified true beliefs are beliefs too, then it is always and without exception a belief that makes the truth and reality known. And you can't show otherwise.

I have said how MIPUST is known. But that remains irrelevant to it being mind-independent and a legitimate alternative to a believing mind as the place where truth and reality can exist.

No you have not silly. And if it isn't known in and with a believing mind like all truth and reality is known to us, then how can it be a part of the truth and reality silly?

It doesn't. You're again reasoning from a false and unsupported premise.

If in reality belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to us, then how is it possible that reality doesn't require and entail belief or a believing mind in order to know the truth in reality silly?

A = reality
B = a believing mind
C = the truth
D = knowledge or known

If A requires and entails B in order to make C and D exist and occur, then C must require and entail B in order to make A D to exist and occur.


And if ALL knowledge of the truth and reality is belief based knowledge and it is ONLY belief based knowledge that can make the truth and reality known to exist and occur, then a believing mind MUST be the basis of ALL knowledge of the truth and reality.
 
"By concluding something it is true" entails it is believed to be true too silly.
Not in dispute. What I was correcting was your false claim that you can't believe something without assuming it. Conclusions are believed but not assumed.

If you have concluded that "evidence" "is true", then it too is believed to be true too silly.
Also not in dispute. The point was that conclusions are known to be true when based on evidence.

Strawman. I didn't say that "all beliefs are true". But if justified true beliefs are beliefs too, then it is always and without exception a belief that makes the truth and reality known. And you can't show otherwise.
Not a strawman. Again, not all beliefs are true, which is all it takes to prove that belief alone is not sufficient for knowledge.

Strawman. And [/I]if justified true beliefs are beliefs too, then it is always and without exception a belief that makes the truth and reality known. And you can't show otherwise.
Also not a strawman. Again, you are the one here denying the JTB account of knowledge, yet you offer no alternative in its place.

No you have not silly. And if it isn't known in and with a believing mind...
Yes I have, silly. And I never denied that it is known in minds. My point was that how and where MIPUST is known has no bearing on where it EXISTS or on the fact that it is mind-independent.

A = reality
B = a believing mind

If A requires and entails B...
Again, it doesn't. Your premise is false.
 
Not in dispute. What I was correcting was your false claim that you can't believe something without assuming it. Conclusions are believed but not assumed.

Sure you are disputing it, you're just pretending you're not. "By concluding something it is true" entails it is believed to be true too silly. And if one believes something is true, then that belief entails an assumption of its truthfulness too.

Also not in dispute. The point was that conclusions are known to be true when based on evidence.

Well if all "evidence" is believed to be true too, then that supports my position and not yours silly.

Not a strawman. Again, not all beliefs are true, which is all it takes to prove that belief alone is not sufficient for knowledge.

You are misrepresenting my position and how and why the truth and reality is known ONLY the one believing it and to no-one else is it known including this unbeliever. If all justified true beliefs are beliefs too, then it is always and without exception a belief that makes the truth and reality known. And you can't show otherwise.

Also not a strawman. Again, you are the one here denying the JTB account of knowledge, yet you offer no alternative in its place.

More strawmanning by pretending that I am "denying the JTB account", as if Justified True Beliefs are still beliefs then how is that "denying the JTB account" when Justified True Beliefs are beliefs?

The self-deception with these unbelievers is that they are trying to hide the fact that Justified True Beliefs are still beliefs too.

Yes I have, silly. And I never denied that it is known in minds. My point was that how and where MIPUST is known has no bearing on where it EXISTS or on the fact that it is mind-independent.

How can it be it be "mind-independent" when it must too depend on a believing mind in order to make it known to you silly?

Again, it doesn't. Your premise is false.

You can start by showing how and why the "premise is false" silly.
 
Sure you are disputing it, you're just pretending you're not. "By concluding something it is true" entails it is believed to be true too silly. And if one believes something is true, then that belief entails an assumption of its truthfulness too.
I was not disputing that a believed conclusion is believed. I was disputing your false claim that all beliefs must be assumed. Do you accept now that this was incorrect? Conclusions are not assumptions.

Well if all "evidence" is believed to be true too, then that supports my position and not yours silly.
The point was that beliefs should be based upon evidence. Is that consistent with your position?

You are misrepresenting my position and how and why the truth and reality is known ONLY the one believing it and to no-one else is it known including this unbeliever. If all justified true beliefs are beliefs too, then it is always and without exception a belief that makes the truth and reality known. And you can't show otherwise.
Where did I misrepresent your position? Again, if beliefs can be false then belief alone cannot be sufficient for knowledge. As per the JTB definition, truth and justification are also required in addition to belief before knowledge is possible.

More strawmanning by pretending that I am "denying the JTB account", as if Justified True Beliefs are still beliefs then how is that "denying the JTB account" when Justified True Beliefs are beliefs?

The self-deception with these unbelievers is that they are trying to hide the fact that Justified True Beliefs are still beliefs too.
Not in dispute. Obviously JTBs are beliefs. But they are also justified and true. When a belief is either not true or not justified then it is not a JTB and is therefore not knowledge. That is the JTB account. Do you agree with this account or do you still reject it?

How can it be it be "mind-independent" when it must too depend on a believing mind in order to make it known to you silly?
Because knowledge requiring a mind has nothing to do with MIPUST itself requiring a mind. As has been explained to you literally hundreds of times already, mind-independence concerns existence, not knowledge. MIPUST is mind-independent because it does not depend upon any mind in order to EXIST, and how it is known has no bearing or relevance on that fact.

You can start by showing how and why the "premise is false" silly.
It is false because reality does not require or entail any mind, and you have never been able to show otherwise.
 
I was not disputing that a believed conclusion is believed.

Strawman. Because "By concluding something it is true" entails it is believed to be true too silly. And if one believes something is true, then that belief entails an assumption of its truthfulness too. You have refuted nothing.

I was disputing your false claim that all beliefs must be assumed. Do you accept now that this was incorrect? Conclusions are not assumptions.

How can be a "false claim", when "all beliefs" are assumed to be true in reality silly?

The point was that beliefs should be based upon evidence. Is that consistent with your position?


Where did I misrepresent your position? Again, if beliefs can be false then belief alone cannot be sufficient for knowledge. As per the JTB definition, truth and justification are also required in addition to belief before knowledge is possible.


Not in dispute. Obviously JTBs are beliefs. But they are also justified and true. When a belief is either not true or not justified then it is not a JTB and is therefore not knowledge. That is the JTB account. Do you agree with this account or do you still reject it?


Because knowledge requiring a mind has nothing to do with MIPUST itself requiring a mind. As has been explained to you literally hundreds of times already, mind-independence concerns existence, not knowledge. MIPUST is mind-independent because it does not depend upon any mind in order to EXIST, and how it is known has no bearing or relevance on that fact.


It is false because reality does not require or entail any mind, and you have never been able to show otherwise.
How do you know "reality does not require or entail any mind", when all truth and reality requires and entails a believing mind in order to make the truth and reality known to you silly?
 
Strawman.
How can my statement of what I was not disputing be a strawman? Please at least try to use that term correctly for once.

Because "By concluding something it is true" entails it is believed to be true too silly.
Again, that was never in dispute. What I was correcting was your false claim that all beliefs must be assumed.

How can be a "false claim"...?
It was a false claim because beliefs can be conclusions rather than assumptions.

How do you know "reality does not require or entail any mind"...?
Because reality is MIPUST, and MIPUST is mind-independent. I notice you conveniently skipped over the part where I asked you to confirm or correct your rejection of the JTB definition of knowledge.
 
How can my statement of what I was not disputing be a strawman? Please at least try to use that term correctly for once.

Because that's not all that I said.

Strawman. Because "By concluding something it is true" entails it is believed to be true too silly. And if one believes something is true, then that belief entails an assumption of its truthfulness too. You have refuted nothing.


Again, that was never in dispute. What I was correcting was your false claim that all beliefs must be assumed.

Deal with what's being said to you instead of pretending it wasn't said.

It was a false claim because beliefs can be conclusions rather than assumptions.

If one believes something is true, then that belief entails an assumption of its truthfulness too.

Because reality is MIPUST, and MIPUST is mind-independent. I notice you conveniently skipped over the part where I asked you to confirm or correct your rejection of the JTB definition of knowledge.

How do you know it is "mind-independent" when you can't know anything to exist or occur without a believing mind? Stop evading the truth and deal with it.
 
Because that's not all that I said.
That doesn't make my previous comment a strawman.

Deal with what's being said to you
I did.

If one believes something is true, then that belief entails an assumption of its truthfulness too.
No it doesn't. Again, it's truthfulness can be concluded rather than assumed. Conclusions are not assumptions.

How do you know it is "mind-independent"...
There you go with the knowledge questions again. I already answered this above, and it still isn't relevant to the mind-independence of MIPUST.
 
That doesn't make my previous comment a strawman.
I did.
No it doesn't. Again, it's truthfulness can be concluded rather than assumed. Conclusions are not assumptions.

What makes the conclusion known to you?

There you go with the knowledge questions again. I already answered this above, and it still isn't relevant to the mind-independence of MIPUST.

Well if you are not referring to some kind of "knowledge" or IOW something that is knowable, then just what are you denoting?
 
Back
Top