The logical truth and reality of God's believing mind.
- Thread starter Tercon
- Start date
Whateverman
Well-known member
Your second premise is fatally flawed, and obviously so.
Nouveau
Well-known member
You posted the exact same thread in the atheism section, and I've answered you there. You also have another thread in this section on the exact same topic, where you have ceased responding.
Whateverman
Well-known member
If repeating the same failed argument for the last decade here doesn't count as spam, nothing does...
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
The same nonsense you've been posting for years without ever addressing the flaws.
Once again, the fact that "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" does not mean (or even imply) that "the logical truth and reality must exist in God's believing mind".
And don't bother to make your usual strawman of "then show a place other than a believing mind which can know the truth and reality", because that isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is the second part, that truth and reality must be or exist in God's believing mind. It does not follow.
But it does "imply" that if the only way and place that the logical truth and reality can be known to exist is in and with a believing mind, then the truth and reality must be a believing mind. Why? Because it cannot be known to exist anywhere else. Understand?
What do we call your inability to deal with the argument then silly?
Nouveau
Well-known member
Everyone has dealt with your fallacious argument. You just never deal with the rebuttals.
Nouveau
Well-known member
This is still just as ambiguous and invalid as it was the last thousand times you posted it. The premise is ambiguous because you fail to distinguish between placing the knowledge of reality and placing reality itself. And it is invalid because being in a mind isn't the same thing as being a mind, and it is also completely incoherent to speak of placing all of reality in something else, as that something else then wouldn't be real. All of this has been patiently explained to you hundreds of times over the last decade that you've been endlessly reposting the exact same nonsense.
More nonsense.
Actually reality exists in a way and place that is equipped to inform of knowledge and be knowledge at the same time, and there is only way and place that is equipped with this capacity and function and that is a believing mind. And outside or without a believing mind the truth and reality is unknowable.
Being in a mind and being a mind still takes place in a mind silly,
Seeing as though reality can't be known to exist or be experienced anywhere else but in and with a believing mind, then reality being a believing mind isn't moving or "placing all of reality in something else", but firmly planted in the ONLY way and place that it was always known to exist. Unbelievers don't know that the truth and reality is a believing mind because that too requires a believing mind. But believers have always known that the truth and reality can only be known to exist in and with a believing mind.
You have never shown NOT once how and why the truth and reality isn't a believing mind. All anyone has done here is give the Reader a real-time demonstration of how atheism makes unbelievers completely incoherent when it comes to what the truth and reality is and how and why it is known to exist.
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Nobody has to do that. YOU need to show that it is. The onus is on YOU; it's YOUR claim. You've never shown any support for the claim.
Sure I have, because you have never brought forward a valid or logical critique of my claim to begin with. All one has to do is look up the meaning of the word 'only' and they know that the truth and reality can 'only' be known to exist in and with a believing mind. And your inability to come up with another way or place that is not a believing that could make the truth and reality known to you reinforces my claim silly. Nouveau tried, but he failed miserably too.
The only thing that the Readers can conclude from this discussion is how terribly compromised unbelief in the truth and reality of God makes people like you.
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
No you haven't. Whether we have brought forward a valid or logical critique of your claim is irrelevant; you have not supported it. You don't to declare it true because nobody can prove it false; you need to prove it true. You haven't even attempted to do so.
Not at issue. Everybody agrees with this.
No, it doesn't. Try to understand this. Nobody disagrees with the above. Nobody has. Nobody does. It's true. We all agree.
But that does not make your claim that the truth and reality IS a believing mind true. It is THAT which you have not supported.
No, he didn't. You just failed - again - to understand his critiques.
Yet no reader ever, ever, agrees with you. Not one person on the planet agrees with you.
If I say something that is true (which I have) and no-one including you can dispute it, then how and why is it false silly?
Nouveau
Well-known member
This doesn't address the ambiguity of your premise. As usual, you just post a denial and then launch into more word salad. The point is that saying "X is known to exist in Y" can mean either (i) the knowledge of X exists in Y; or (ii) it is known that X itself exists in Y. You consistently fail to change your language to resolve this ambiguity, no matter how many times it is pointed out.
And yet they are two completely DIFFERENT claims that you fail to distinguish between. Which one are you claiming for reality? I've explained why it is impossible for reality to be IN a mind, and you've given no reason at all for thinking that reality must BE a mind.
And you've become famous here for your inability to recognize when you've been refuted. Your inability to answer simple questions, convince anybody, or explain the reasons why people disagree with you should tell you something.
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Truth or falsehood is unrelated to whether or not someone can dispute it. You still need to prove your claims.
There is no ambiguity in the statement that 'the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist is in and with a believing mind.'
What you are calling "ambiguity" is nothing more than the contradiction that your unbelieving mind causes you, because you disbelieve belief and a believing mind is even capable of making the truth and reality known to you to begin with.
Strawman.
Actually I just believe X = X, because if the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist is in and with a believing mind, then a believe mind (X) is the truth and reality (X) or the truth and reality is a believing mind (X = X). They are one and the same thing and not two separate things.
Sure I have, it is because the truth and reality cannot be known to exist outside or without a believing mind. So, a believing is reality, they are one and the same thing, because one cannot be known to exist without the other. But if you know how to separate the truth and reality from a believing mind and the truth and reality still remain known to you, then please explain how that is doable?
Actually a bunch of unbelievers that disbelieve belief is even capable of making the truth and reality known to them doesn't hold much weight in reality silly.
But if you don't and can't even "dispute it", then why don't you believe it silly?
Nouveau
Well-known member
Yes there is. I just explained the ambiguity to you. I've explained it dozens of times now.
No, it's the very obvious grammatical ambiguity of locating "known to exist" without specifying whether this is locating the knowledge or the existence.
No strawman at all. I was explaining the ambiguity, and you're just refusing to even try to understand.
So you don't understand how variables work, and you still haven't addressed the ambiguity.
The same ambiguity yet again. This is why your reasoning fails.
When you have no idea why people disagree with you, how can you be sure they're not right?
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Because you fail to support it. Any claim needs reasons to believe it. A lack of reasons not to support it is not sufficient.