What believers in God refers to and denotes.

Tercon

Well-known member
Actually, it is illogical and dishonest to say the word "belief" always correlates-with and corresponds-to reality.

Actually, it is delusional and illogical to think your "belief" doesn't correlate-with and corresponds-to reality, when in reality belief is still necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to you to begin with.

No dictionary ever says this. That's because everyone knows real beliefs can be false.

A dictionary isn't a book for showing how and why the truth and reality is known to you silly.

But the Bible is. And for the most part I think QM is supposed to be doing that as well. But if not, then what is the purpose of QM?
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
You're just kicking the can down the road so you don't have to deal with the truth and reality. As if you believe those "facts and evidence" to be true as well, then those "facts and evidence" are also beliefs too.
But you said that beliefs make the truth and reality known to you. That's the wrong way round. Facts and evidence become known to us, then we believe them as true.
Strawman. But do "false beliefs" make the truth and reality known to anyone?
Strawman. You said beliefs make the truth and reality known to us. You didn't say only true beliefs make the truth and reality known to us. In any case, beliefs don't make truth and reality known, evidence and facts make truth and reality known.
 
Last edited:

Tercon

Well-known member
But you said that beliefs make the truth and reality known to you. That's the wrong way round. Facts and evidence become known to us, then we believe them as true.

How is it possible for "Facts and evidence" to "become known to us" when a belief in reality is necessary for knowledge of those "Facts and evidence"?

Strawman. You said beliefs make the truth and reality known to us. You didn't say only true beliefs make the truth and reality known to us. In any case, beliefs don't make truth and reality known, evidence and facts make truth and reality known.

Actually, when I say belief is necessary for knowledge, then why would think that I am referring to anything less than a belief in reality? When you refer to your beliefs; are you denoting "false beliefs"?
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
How is it possible for "Facts and evidence" to "become known to us" when a belief in reality is necessary for knowledge of those "Facts and evidence"?
Please provide an argument in syllogistic form for exactly what you mean here. That would make what you're saying clearer.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Please provide an argument in syllogistic form for exactly what you mean here. That would make what you're saying clearer.

If belief is necessary for all knowledge; including knowledge of "Facts and evidence" , then how are those "Facts and evidence" known to you without believing them?
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
If belief is necessary for all knowledge; including knowledge of "Facts and evidence" , then how are those "Facts and evidence" known to you without believing them?
This is ambiguous so not clear. Can you please write it out in premise and conclusion form. For example.

Premise 1
Premise 2

Conclusion.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
This is ambiguous so not clear. Can you please write it out in premise and conclusion form. For example.

Premise 1
Premise 2

Conclusion.
If belief is necessary for all knowledge; including knowledge of "Facts and evidence" , then how are those "Facts and evidence" known to you without believing them?

Why don't you stop running and just deal with what is being said to you.
 
Last edited:

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Why don't you stop running and just deal with what is being said to you.
"If belief is necessary for all knowledge; including knowledge of "Facts and evidence" ,"

Yes, If. The above needs support.

" then how are those "Facts and evidence" known to you without believing them?"

Because belief doesn't necessarily come first, understanding does, then belief follows, of course.
 

FCP

Member
then beliefs must be both necessary and sufficient in order to make the truth and reality known.

No, you continue to fail ! Belief is NECESSARY, but NOT SUFFICIENT to be knowledge. Your assumption that belief is both makes your whole argument useless.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Last edited:

Tiburon

Well-known member
So, in reality "Belief is NECESSARY" BEFORE the truth and reality is known to you, right?

Strawman. Actually it is my belief that makes my argument known to be true in reality. And that's 100% supported by the Bible.
Not a strawman as no-one is claiming that you are arguing something that you are not.
It is not your belief that makes your argument "known" to be true in reality because your argument is not true in reality.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Not a strawman as no-one is claiming that you are arguing something that you are not.

Another strawman. Actually you are arguing that my claim is false without being able to show how and why it is false.

It is not your belief that makes your argument "known" to be true in reality because your argument is not true in reality.

Well how come you can't explain how and why it false?

1. I claim that belief is necessary before the truth and reality is known to you. And if you disagree, then another way that the truth and reality can be made known to you that doesn't involving belief or a belief in reality?

2. I claim that the truth, reality, morality, existence, consciousness and belief can ONLY be known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind. And outside of a believing mind none of these things can be known to exist or occur. And if you disagree, then name one other way or place that can make these things known to you without or outside of a believing mind?

3. And the Bible is the only religious text that promotes belief and a believing mind exclusively in order to make the truth, reality, morality, existence, consciousness and belief known to exist and occur. And if you disagree, then name another religious text that does?
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
Another strawman. Actually you are arguing that my claim is false without being able to show how and why it is false.



Well how come you can't explain how and why it false?

1. I claim that belief is necessary before the truth and reality is known to you. And if you disagree, then another way that the truth and reality can be made known to you that doesn't involving belief or a belief in reality?

2. I claim that the truth, reality, morality, existence, consciousness and belief can ONLY be known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind. And outside of a believing mind none of these things can be known to exist or occur. And if you disagree, then name one other way or place that can make these things known to you without or outside of a believing mind?

3. And the Bible is the only religious text that promotes belief and a believing mind exclusively in order to make the truth, reality, morality, existence, consciousness and belief known to exist and occur. And if you disagree, then name another religious text that does?
Again you fail to understand the meaning of "Strawman".

You continue to claim that belief is all that is necessary for knowledge. That is why your claim is false.

The Bible promotes belief. Most religious texts do that.
It does not say a believing mind exclusively will make the truth, reality, morality, existence, consciousness and belief known to exist and occur.
If you disagree, tell me where in the Bible it tells us this?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Again you fail to understand the meaning of "Strawman".

"you fail to" show that I misunderstand "the meaning of Strawman". What don't I understand about it?

You continue to claim that belief is all that is necessary for knowledge. That is why your claim is false.

What knowledge of the truth and reality do you have that isn't based on something you believe to be true in reality?

The Bible promotes belief. Most religious texts do that. It does not say a believing mind exclusively will make the truth, reality, morality, existence, consciousness and belief known to exist and occur.
If you disagree, tell me where in the Bible it tells us this?

Actually the Bible promotes the truth, morality, existence, consciousness and the reality of God. And the mode by which all of these things are experienced in reality is in and with a believing mind.

Jesus, therefore, said unto the Jews who believed in him, `If ye may remain in my word, truly my disciples ye are, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' John 8:31-32
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
"you fail to" show that I misunderstand "the meaning of Strawman". What don't I understand about it?
A Strawman argument is when someone sets up an easily destroyed argument in place of what you are actually claiming.
It is not someone simply saying your argument is wrong.

What knowledge of the truth and reality do you have that isn't based on something you believe to be true in reality?
The point is that you claim things to be knowledge because you believe in them. You fail to show them to be true in reality. If you cannot show them to be true then you cannot claim them to be knowledge.

Actually the Bible promotes the truth, morality, existence, consciousness and the reality of God. And the mode by which all of these things are experienced in reality is in and with a believing mind.

Jesus, therefore, said unto the Jews who believed in him, `If ye may remain in my word, truly my disciples ye are, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' John 8:31-32
The bible claims the truth, morality, existence, consciousness and the reality of God. It asks us to believe that claim.
It doesn't prove the truth of that claim it merely asserts that it is true.
It also never mentions a "believing mind".
 

Tercon

Well-known member
A Strawman argument is when someone sets up an easily destroyed argument in place of what you are actually claiming.
It is not someone simply saying your argument is wrong.

And "someone simply saying your argument is wrong" isn't refuting my argument.

And you saying that I "fail to understand the meaning of Strawman" is a misrepresentation of my position, because I do in fact know and understand what a strawman means. So, because you can't refute my claim you misrepresent my argument in order to cover up your inability to refute my claim.

The point is that you claim things to be knowledge because you believe in them. You fail to show them to be true in reality. If you cannot show them to be true then you cannot claim them to be knowledge.

Strawman. My claim is that belief and a believing mind is necessary in order for the truth and reality to occur in a person.

And you can't show otherwise.

The bible claims the truth, morality, existence, consciousness and the reality of God. It asks us to believe that claim.

If it is the case that we can't know the truth, morality, existence, consciousness and reality exists or occurs without the benefit of a believing mind, then the truth, morality, existence, consciousness and reality must be the product of a believing mind, because all of these things require a believing mind as a way and place to occur. And if all of these things exist and occur in reality, and it wasn't in OUR believing minds that the truth, morality, existence, consciousness and reality originated, then these thing must have originated in and with God's believing mind.

It doesn't prove the truth of that claim it merely asserts that it is true.

Actually I am describing how, why and by what means the truth and reality is known to us and you have not been able refute it. A matter of fact; all you are doing is demonstrating that you don't know the how, why the truth and reality is known to you.

It also never mentions a "believing mind".

Irrelevant, because belief and believing logically entails a believing mind without exception. So, to suggest that the Bible doesn't promote a believing mind as the only means by which the truth, morality, existence, consciousness and reality is known to exist and occur is fallacious.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
And "someone simply saying your argument is wrong" isn't refuting my argument.

And you saying that I "fail to understand the meaning of Strawman" is a misrepresentation of my position, because I do in fact know and understand what a strawman means. So, because you can't refute my claim you misrepresent my argument in order to cover up your inability to refute my claim.
So tell me what argument is being presented as yours when it is not? What is the "strawman"?

Strawman. My claim is that belief and a believing mind is necessary in order for the truth and reality to occur in a person.
And you can't show otherwise.
What does it even mean for truth and reality to "occur in a person."?
Is a "believing mind" one that already holds to a particular belief or simply has the mental capacity to form a belief?


If it is the case that we can't know the truth, morality, existence, consciousness and reality exists or occurs without the benefit of a believing mind, then the truth, morality, existence, consciousness and reality must be the product of a believing mind, because all of these things require a believing mind as a way and place to occur. And if all of these things exist and occur in reality, and it wasn't in OUR believing minds that the truth, morality, existence, consciousness and reality originated, then these thing must have originated in and with God's believing mind.
If truth, morality, existence, consciousness and reality must be the product of a believing mind does that mean there is no real world basis for these ideas? Are they all just mental constructs?

Actually I am describing how, why and by what means the truth and reality is known to us and you have not been able refute it. A matter of fact; all you are doing is demonstrating that you don't know the how, why the truth and reality is known to you.
You are describing how you think the truth and reality is known to us. I don't have to refute it as you have yet to provide any real support for your idea.

Irrelevant, because belief and believing logically entails a believing mind without exception. So, to suggest that the Bible doesn't promote a believing mind as the only means by which the truth, morality, existence, consciousness and reality is known to exist and occur is fallacious.
No. It is not irrelevant as you claimed that the Bible expressly tells us that the truth, morality, existence, consciousness and reality requite a "believing mind". If it doesn't then you are simply inserting your ideas into the Bible purely because it uses the word "believe".
 
Top