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

HouOz

Active 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.
? Truth and reality exists therefor so does god?
Prove god exists.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
? Truth and reality exists therefor so does god?
Prove god exists.

Not only does the truth and reality exist, but it can ONLY be known to exist in and with a believing mind. A matter of fact; nothing can be known to exist or occur without a believing mind. And that First Believing Mind is the cause of all other believing minds and occurrences.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Not only does the truth and reality exist, but it can ONLY be known to exist in and with a believing mind. A matter of fact; nothing can be known to exist or occur without a believing mind. And that First Believing Mind is the cause of all other believing minds and occurrences.
Given your final sentence, it appears that by your second sentence you mean:

- the truth and reality exist within a believing mind, which fact can be known.

The response to that is, of course - unsupported and undemonstrated.
 

HouOz

Active member
Not only does the truth and reality exist, but it can ONLY be known to exist in and with a believing mind. A matter of fact; nothing can be known to exist or occur without a believing mind. And that First Believing Mind is the cause of all other believing minds and occurrences.
You are merely repeating your idea - not offering proof.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
You are merely repeating your idea - not offering proof.
Actually I am also just repeating the truth. And if it were false or illogical you would have refuted it by now. But because you have not and cannot, then your inability to do so is just more evidence that it is true.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Given your final sentence, it appears that by your second sentence you mean:

- the truth and reality exist within a believing mind, which fact can be known.

The response to that is, of course - unsupported and undemonstrated.

Actually if it is "of course", then I have supported and demonstrated" it, because the truth and reality cannot be known to exist outside of a believing mind silly.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
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.
This is because he's a troll. Regardless of what he writes, he's writing it for reasons that have nothing to do with what he's saying; he doesn't actually believe what he's posting.

Sorry, I wont harp on this further.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
This is because he's a troll. Regardless of what he writes, he's writing it for reasons that have nothing to do with what he's saying; he doesn't actually believe what he's posting.

Sorry, I wont harp on this further.
I think that to categorize a mind as either sincere or trolling requires a level of coherence and comprehension that cannot always be safely assumed. For instance, a magic 8-ball can give you answers, but those answers cannot be sincere or sarcastic as the system giving them has no idea what it is actually saying.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
I think that to categorize a mind as either sincere or trolling requires a level of coherence and comprehension that cannot always be safely assumed. For instance, a magic 8-ball can give you answers, but those answers cannot be sincere or sarcastic as the system giving them has no idea what it is actually saying.
I'm not sure I understand the implication. Regardless of what you and I each thinks about tercon's motivations, neither of us thinks he's a magic 8-ball. Nor a bot / posting-algorithm.

Sure, I'd be wrong if I assumed a magic 8-ball posting here was a troll. Still, we know more about Tercon than we know about a magic 8-ball: his posting habits, online mannerisms, and some of the ideas that he regurgitates like a cow chewing cud. You don't think these things are a reasonable basis upon which to conclude "troll"?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
I'm not sure I understand the implication. Regardless of what you and I each thinks about tercon's motivations, neither of us thinks he's a magic 8-ball. Nor a bot / posting-algorithm.

Sure, I'd be wrong if I assumed a magic 8-ball posting here was a troll. Still, we know more about Tercon than we know about a magic 8-ball: his posting habits, online mannerisms, and some of the ideas that he regurgitates like a cow chewing cud. You don't think these things are a reasonable basis upon which to conclude "troll"?
He may be a troll. I'm just saying it's not obvious, as trolling requires a certain level of comprehension and sanity. Obviously he is not a bot or 8-ball. But he may have something in common with them, in terms of lacking the prerequisites required for trolling. A troll posts with intentionality, trying to be provocative for the sake of provoking a reaction. By contrast, a broken mind may post out of compulsion without understanding what is going on well enough to even have properly intentional behaviour.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
He may be a troll. I'm just saying it's not obvious, as trolling requires a certain level of comprehension and sanity. Obviously he is not a bot or 8-ball. But he may have something in common with them, in terms of lacking the prerequisites required for trolling. A troll posts with intentionality, trying to be provocative for the sake of provoking a reaction. By contrast, a broken mind may post out of compulsion without understanding what is going on well enough to even have properly intentional behaviour.
I think this is unrealistically forgiving. There's no need to give him this much benefit of the doubt.

Yes, this is simply my opinion, and it's not one I'm inclined to fight (to advocate) here. If you believe this person may possibly be suffering as you've implied, then I have no qualms with leaving the discussion sans retort.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
I think this is unrealistically forgiving. There's no need to give him this much benefit of the doubt.

Yes, this is simply my opinion, and it's not one I'm inclined to fight (to advocate) here. If you believe this person may possibly be suffering as you've implied, then I have no qualms with leaving the discussion sans retort.
I don't think it's a matter of being forgiving. I'll add two more data points. Firstly, there is Tercon's clear and persistent predilection for projecting his faults onto others (strawman, etc). Secondly, he spent a lot of time accusing people of schizophrenia when he first arrived. Conclude from that what you will.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
I don't think it's a matter of being forgiving. I'll add two more data points. Firstly, there is Tercon's clear and persistent predilection for projecting his faults onto others (strawman, etc). Secondly, he spent a lot of time accusing people of schizophrenia when he first arrived. Conclude from that what you will.
I've arguably seen as many of his posts as any of the other regulars here, and I honestly don't remember the schizophrenia angle.

Regardless, I'm not arguing. You've got your perspective on what might be motivating him, and I've got mine. I'll try not to bother you with mine, from here on.

ps. that last sentence is from my own perspective; I've been thinking I really should stop trying to convince people here that this person isn't worth taking seriously. I don't think he is, but other people get to make their own determinations on this...
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Actually I am also just repeating the truth. And if it were false or illogical you would have refuted it by now. But because you have not and cannot, then your inability to do so is just more evidence that it is true.
Wrong yet again. The failure to refute X does not prove X. Ever. No matter what X is.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Actually if it is "of course", then I have supported and demonstrated" it, because the truth and reality cannot be known to exist outside of a believing mind silly.
No, you've neither supported or demonstrated it.

Your final statement is, as always, ambiguous. Answer my question.

Why are you so afraid of answering? Why is greater understanding something you don't want?

Do you understand that the following two statements mean two very different things?

a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist.
b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
No, you've neither supported or demonstrated it.

Your final statement is, as always, ambiguous. Answer my question.

Why are you so afraid of answering? Why is greater understanding something you don't want?

Do you understand that the following two statements mean two very different things?

a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist.
b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known.

Evasion. Sure I have. Can the truth or reality be known to exist outside of a believing mind?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
? Truth and reality exists therefor so does god?
Prove god exists.

The truth, reality, logic, morality, consciousness and existence itself can ONLY be known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind. So, if it is the case that these things absolutely exist and the ONLY way and place that these things can be known to exist and occur is in and with a believing mind. And it is only beings that have and use a believing mind, then the truth, reality, logic, morality, consciousness and existence itself must be the product of a First Believing Mind or a First Cause. And that First Cause and Believing Mind must be where all belief and occurrence originally take place.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
This is because he's a troll. Regardless of what he writes, he's writing it for reasons that have nothing to do with what he's saying; he doesn't actually believe what he's posting.

Sorry, I wont harp on this further.
I think that to categorize a mind as either sincere or trolling requires a level of coherence and comprehension that cannot always be safely assumed. For instance, a magic 8-ball can give you answers, but those answers cannot be sincere or sarcastic as the system giving them has no idea what it is actually saying.
I've arguably seen as many of his posts as any of the other regulars here, and I honestly don't remember the schizophrenia angle.

Regardless, I'm not arguing. You've got your perspective on what might be motivating him, and I've got mine. I'll try not to bother you with mine, from here on.

ps. that last sentence is from my own perspective; I've been thinking I really should stop trying to convince people here that this person isn't worth taking seriously. I don't think he is, but other people get to make their own determinations on this...

awww the patients are uniting to discredit the person (ad hominem), rather than refute the argument, how original.

The level of grandness unbelievers give their unbelief (atheism) does resemble some kind of mental illness. I mean believing that your unbelief (atheism) exists in reality when unbelief is just the lack of belief and doesn't indicate, refer or denote anything that can be known to exist or occur in reality. And arguing with strangers for years over something they don't even believe exists is delusional to say the least.
So yes, I do think that atheism is a very strong delusion that does prevent the unbeliever from being able to experience the truth and reality. There is a reason that the Christian world got built up while the rest of the world floundered in the dark ages. It is because of Christianity and its ability to make its believers face the truth and reality of their predicament they find themselves in. Believers are forced to deal with their own shortcomings and depravity by embracing the truth and reality's absolute existence in order guide them. Unbelievers have no such guide, but must settle with riding on the coattails of believers in order to move forward. But it really is time to cut them loose.

Also, whereas atheism is just unbelief and cannot support a real position or worldview, so atheists require constant attention and maintenance in order to sustain its stronghold and stranglehold on its adherents. That's why atheists are so militant in their delusional grandeur, when unbelief doesn't even exist or occur in reality. After all unbelief (atheism) is just the lack of something that MUST necessarily occur in reality and if it doesn't, then the truth and reality is unknowable to them. Unbelievers have nothing to offer anyone, other than their own crazed and self induced ignorance of the truth and reality.
 
Last edited:

Whateverman

Well-known member
No, you've neither supported or demonstrated it.

Your final statement is, as always, ambiguous. Answer my question.

Why are you so afraid of answering? Why is greater understanding something you don't want?

Do you understand that the following two statements mean two very different things?

a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist.
b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known.
Evasion.
Your post.

Run away again, Tercon :)
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Evasion. Sure I have.
No, you have not.
Can the truth or reality be known to exist outside of a believing mind?
Evasion. Answer the question.

Why are you so afraid of answering? Why is greater understanding something you don't want?

Do you understand that the following two statements mean two very different things?

a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist.
b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known.
 
Top