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

[Electric Skeptic]

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.'

Nouveau is right; it is ambiguous. I've never seen anybody apart from him argue the issue with you (I suspect few are brave enough to go down that particular rabbit hole; it's hard enough getting you to see even the most basic things; Nouveau must know that he's pushing it up hill to get you to see this ambiguity), but the ambiguity is real nonetheless. The rest of us have just assumed which of the ambiguous meanings you actually intend; who knows, we may be wrong and you mean the other one, which would put a different complexion on the whole debate. Kudos for Nouveau for trying to get you to see it.

It's a simply posted clarification, one that anybody else would be able to see instantly:

When you say that the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist is in and with a believing mind, do you mean:
a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist or
b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known?

The two are quite different. By the way, I've always assumed you mean (a), as I think everyone else does. It suddenly occurs to me that you may mean (b). If so, it would explain some of your claims, because if (b) is what you mean and if (b) is true (which is not in evidence and, I think, you cannot show), then you might actually have an argument that the truth and reality is a believing mind.

Reminds me of an old puzzle...how many different meanings can be ascribed to the sentence "Time flies like an arrow"? I think it's five. Maybe six. I'd have to think about it.

It's simpler with your sentence; there are only two.

 

[Nouveau]

Nouveau is right; it is ambiguous. I've never seen anybody apart from him argue the issue with you (I suspect few are brave enough to go down that particular rabbit hole; it's hard enough getting you to see even the most basic things; Nouveau must know that he's pushing it up hill to get you to see this ambiguity), but the ambiguity is real nonetheless. The rest of us have just assumed which of the ambiguous meanings you actually intend; who knows, we may be wrong and you mean the other one, which would put a different complexion on the whole debate. Kudos for Nouveau for trying to get you to see it.

I've tried the other approach, but the problem with that is whichever meaning you assume, Tercon will just proceed as if he always meant the other one. And he'll just do the opposite if you later assume the reverse. So the only way to pin him down is to call him out on his very deliberate ambiguity. That at least has been my experience.

 

[Tercon]

Because you fail to support it. Any claim needs reasons to believe it. A lack of reasons not to support it is not sufficient.

But it isn't its truthfulness enough for you to believe?

 

[Tercon]

I've tried the other approach, but the problem with that is whichever meaning you assume, Tercon will just proceed as if he always meant the other one. And he'll just do the opposite if you later assume the reverse. So the only way to pin him down is to call him out on his very deliberate ambiguity. That at least has been my experience.

Strawman. What "other one" silly?

 

[Nouveau]

Strawman. What "other one" silly?

I wasn't even talking to you. That was between me and ES. If you couldn't follow what I was saying then that's fine.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

But it isn't its truthfulness enough for you to believe?

You haven't demonstrated its truthfulness. Never mind that.

When you say that the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist is in and with a believing mind, do you mean:
a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist or
b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known?

 

[Tercon]

I wasn't even talking to you. That was between me and ES. If you couldn't follow what I was saying then that's fine.

Evasion. What "other one" silly?

 

[Tercon]

You haven't demonstrated its truthfulness. Never mind that.

Sure I have, because the truth and reality cannot be known to exist outside of a believing mind. And YOU have never been able to refute this truth, because nothing can be known to exist outside of a believing mind silly.

Here is a list of things that cannot be known to exist, be experienced or be realized outside of a believing mind:

• Truth
• Logic
• Morality
• Mathematics
• Reality
• Existence
• Consciousness
• Belief
• Love
• Patience
• QM Wave Function Collapse & Entanglement
• Science

So, if the only way and place that these things can be known to exist, realized, implemented and undertaken is in and with a believing mind, then these things must be the product of a believing mind.

When you say that the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist is in and with a believing mind, do you mean:
a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist or
b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known?

"a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist or

b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known?"

Why do you think it is ambiguous that the truth and reality can only be known to exist in and with a believing mind? When it is true and there is no ambiguity as to the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist, because outside of a believing mind and say in and with a unbelieving mind the truth and reality is unknowable. What you are doing is conflating "ambiguity" and your unbelief and unbelieving mind. And pretending your unbelief is "ambiguity", rather than what it really is, just your unbelief and ignorance of how and why the truth and reality is known to you. You are conducting a campaign of willful ignorance in order to cover up your depravity and lack of truth and reality.

 

[Nouveau]

Evasion. What "other one" silly?

The other of your two ambiguous meanings. Try replying to the posts actually addressed to you instead of the ones addressed to others and which you do not understand.

 

[Nouveau]

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?

Bump for Tercon.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Sure I have

No, you have not, as has been repeatedly shown.

because the truth and reality cannot be known to exist outside of a believing mind. And YOU have never been able to refute this truth, because nothing can be known to exist outside of a believing mind silly.

Here is a list of things that cannot be known to exist, be experienced or be realized outside of a believing mind:

• Truth
• Logic
• Morality
• Mathematics
• Reality
• Existence
• Consciousness
• Belief
• Love
• Patience
• QM Wave Function Collapse & Entanglement
• Science

So, if the only way and place that these things can be known to exist, realized, implemented and undertaken is in and with a believing mind, then these things must be the product of a believing mind.



"a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist or

b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known?"

Why do you think it is ambiguous that the truth and reality can only be known to exist in and with a believing mind? When it is true and there is no ambiguity as to the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist, because outside of a believing mind and say in and with a unbelieving mind the truth and reality is unknowable. What you are doing is conflating "ambiguity" and your unbelief and unbelieving mind. And pretending your unbelief is "ambiguity", rather than what it really is, just your unbelief and ignorance of how and why the truth and reality is known to you. You are conducting a campaign of willful ignorance in order to cover up your depravity and lack of truth and reality.

I'm not even addressing the above. Answer my simple question:

When you say that the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist is in and with a believing mind, do you mean:
a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist or
b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known?

We can start even more simply, if you like. Do you understand that:

Only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist.

and

The truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known.

are different sentences, with different meanings? Yes or no.

 

[Tercon]

No, you have not, as has been repeatedly shown. I'm not even addressing the above. Answer my simple question:

Evasion.

When you say that the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist is in and with a believing mind, do you mean:
a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist or
b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known?

We can start even more simply, if you like. Do you understand that:

Only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist.

and

The truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known.

are different sentences, with different meanings? Yes or no.

Why are you trying to hide from yourself the fact that the ONLY way and place the truth and reality can be known to exist is in and with a believing mind?
Do you understand that because it is ONLY a believing mind that can make the truth and reality known, then there is ONLY ONE way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist, do you know this?

 

[Tercon]

The other of your two ambiguous meanings. Try replying to the posts actually addressed to you instead of the ones addressed to others and which you do not understand.

Bump for Tercon.

Try addressing the truth and reality and stop wallowing around in your self-imposed nonsense. There is nothing ambiguous about the OP, you just don't want to deal with the truth and reality. And since your atheist worldview comes from nothing and nowhere, because it is unbelief based and not belief based, then that's why you disbelieve "consciousness" and a believing mind is necessary and entailed in all occurrences, including physical events.

 

[Nouveau]

Try addressing the truth and reality and stop wallowing around in your self-imposed nonsense. There is nothing ambiguous about the OP, you just don't want to deal with the truth and reality. And since your atheist worldview comes from nothing and nowhere, because it is unbelief based and not belief based, then that's why you disbelieve "consciousness" and a believing mind is necessary and entailed in all occurrences, including physical events.

I didn't bump the post just so you could ignore it again. Please try addressing what is said to you. The OP is indeed ambiguous. The ambiguity is something I've identified and explained for you countless times now, including in the bumped post you just ignored. You've also given no reason whatsoever to think that consciousness/minds/belief is entailed in all events, physical or otherwise. I'm going to reproduce the content of the bumped post you ignored below:

I just explained the ambiguity to you. I've explained it dozens of times now. It's the very obvious grammatical ambiguity of locating "known to exist" without specifying whether this is locating the knowledge or the existence. You still haven't addressed the ambiguity. 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?

 

[Tercon]

I didn't bump the post just so you could ignore it again. Please try addressing what is said to you. The OP is indeed ambiguous. The ambiguity is something I've identified and explained for you countless times now, including in the bumped post you just ignored. You've also given no reason whatsoever to think that consciousness/minds/belief is entailed in all events, physical or otherwise. I'm going to reproduce the content of the bumped post you ignored below:

I just explained the ambiguity to you. I've explained it dozens of times now. It's the very obvious grammatical ambiguity of locating "known to exist" without specifying whether this is locating the knowledge or the existence. You still haven't addressed the ambiguity. 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?

Strawman and evasion.

I am sure that I am right because the truth and reality can't be known to exist in any other way and/or in any other place but i and with a believing mind and you can't show otherwise. That's why I am so confident about what I am saying. As there is NO other way or place outside of a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known to exist, because there is no other place like a believing mind, since it is ONLY a mind that can believe to begin with. What don't you understand about this?

 

[Nouveau]

Strawman and evasion.

Is your modus operandi.

I am sure that I am right because the truth and reality can't be known to exist in any other way and/or in any other place but i and with a believing mind and you can't show otherwise. That's why I am so confident about what I am saying. As there is NO other way or place outside of a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known to exist, because there is no other place like a believing mind, since it is ONLY a mind that can believe to begin with. What don't you understand about this?

What I don't understand is why you keep using ambiguous language and conflating knowledge and existence, even after this has been pointed out and demonstrated hundreds of times. I don't understand how you can be so confident in your position when no-one believes you and you have zero understanding of the reasons people give you for disagreeing. Your complete inability to process and comprehend other people's responses should be a sign to you that you are in no position to be sure that they are wrong.

 

[Tercon]

Is your modus operandi.


What I don't understand is why you keep using ambiguous language and conflating knowledge and existence, even after this has been pointed out and demonstrated hundreds of times. I don't understand how you can be so confident in your position when no-one believes you and you have zero understanding of the reasons people give you for disagreeing. Your complete inability to process and comprehend other people's responses should be a sign to you that you are in no position to be sure that they are wrong.

If everything requires and entails "consciousness" and a believing mind in order to occur, then without or outside of "consciousness" and a believing mind nothing can be known to occur. Therefore, this supports the claim that everything is the product of "consciousness" and a believing mind. And the cherry on top is YOUR inability to show otherwise.

 

[Nouveau]

If everything requires and entails "consciousness" and a believing mind in order to occur...

It doesn't, so that renders the rest of your post completely worthless.

Therefore, this supports the claim...

A false premise doesn't support anything. You might has well have started your post with "If bananas could fly..."

And you still haven't addressed or resolved the ambiguity problem that continues to cripple your arguments.

 

[Tercon]

It doesn't, so that renders the rest of your post completely worthless.

Yes it does, and how do you know silly?

A false premise doesn't support anything. You might has well have started your post with "If bananas could fly..."

And you still haven't addressed or resolved the ambiguity problem that continues to cripple your arguments.

If everything YOU know requires and entails a believing mind and "consciousness" in order for it to occur, then without or outside of "consciousness" and a believing mind nothing can be known to occur. Therefore, this supports the claim that everything is the product of "consciousness" and a believing mind. And the cherry on top is YOUR inability to show otherwise.

 

[Nouveau]

Yes it does...

Unsupported. You need to show this to be true before using it as a premise to support other claims.

If everything YOU know requires and entails a believing mind and "consciousness" in order for it to occur...

Again, it doesn't. So you have failed again.