What's reality?

Nouveau

Well-known member
Do you believe or disbelieve it is there?

No, you continue to know it exists because you believe it to exist silly.

You continue to know it exists just because you continue to believe it exists, as perception hasn't anything to do with what you know exists silly.
By splitting my post up you've managed to miss the entire point of what I was saying. You were also replying to a post from 3 months ago. My point was that we can know the rock continues to exist outside of our mind because this is the best explanation for the continuity of our perceptions.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Just because God shares his mind and nature with me, does not follow that I have the attributes of God.

Strawman, I didn't say that believers have "the attributes of God". I said God shares His Spirit with His children so believers can know and understand how and why He does what He does. And in knowing this believers have no fear of what there is to come, because we win. We can even watch and understand how He does it as well. So, IOW we are just along for the ride, but He does all the driving.

That sounds like a spirit of error, something is very wrong with what you are saying.

Strawmanning tends to lead to error.
 
Last edited:

Tercon

Well-known member
No-one recognizes Terconian logic, and you won't find it in any textbook.

It has precisely one practitioner in the known universe, and he doesn't answer questions.

You don't recognize logic but some do. If all QM models require and entail observation and measurement before WFC and entanglement can be known to occur, then that means that the ONLY way and place that physicality can be known to occur is in and with a believing mind.

By splitting my post up you've managed to miss the entire point of what I was saying. You were also replying to a post from 3 months ago. My point was that we can know the rock continues to exist outside of our mind because this is the best explanation for the continuity of our perceptions.

Actually if the only way and place "we can know the rock continues to exist" when we are not perceiving it is by believing it exists, and belief requires and entails a believing mind, then how can we "know the rock continues to exist outside of our mind", when belief entails and requires a mind silly? You need to stop pretending you know logic, because your words say otherwise.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Strawmanning tends to lead to error.

The accusation of strawman, can itself be a strawman, you know. It's an easy way to get out of the consequences of what you said to claim misrepresentation.

You literally said "And if He indwells you; then the Father withholds nothing from you."

That is simply untrue. God has things I do not. His "believing mind" will always know things that my "believing mind" does not know.

The things you are saying seem unbiblical to me, Tercon, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You don't recognize logic but some do.
Unsupported. I recognize actual logic. No-one on the planet but you recognizes Terconian logic.

If all QM models require and entail observation and measurement before WFC and entanglement can be known to occur, then that means that the ONLY way and place that physicality can be known to occur is in and with a believing mind.
Again, this is not what actual physicists say.

Actually if the only way and place "we can know the rock continues to exist" when we are not perceiving it is by believing it exists, and belief requires and entails a believing mind, then how can we "know the rock continues to exist outside of our mind", when belief entails and requires a mind silly? You need to stop pretending you know logic, because your words say otherwise.
Again, this doesn't address my point that we can know the rock continues to exist outside of our mind because this is the best explanation for the continuity of our perceptions.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
The accusation of strawman, can itself be a strawman, you know. It's an easy way to get out of the consequences of what you said to claim misrepresentation.

Not in this case, in this case you are strawmanning, I didn't say that believers have "the attributes of God", nor did I imply it.

This is what I said: God shares His Spirit with His children so believers can know and understand how and why He does what He does. And in knowing this believers have no fear of what there is to come, because we win. We can even watch and understand how He does it as well. So, IOW we are just along for the ride, but He does all the driving.

You literally said "And if He indwells you; then the Father withholds nothing from you."

Yes, 'the Father withholds nothing from' us in regards to the gifts of the Spirit that He has for us. You are the one who is suggesting that I meant "the attributes of God" like omniscience. But I didn't mean that at all.

That is simply untrue. God has things I do not. His "believing mind" will always know things that my "believing mind" does not know.

More strawmanning, I didn't say nor imply that God does not have His own "believing mind". And He does know things that our believing minds will not know. Rather He shares His Spirit with us and His Spirit shares the things that are for us.

The things you are saying seem unbiblical to me, Tercon, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

Your strawman is certainly unbiblical, but what I said and meant isn't.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Unsupported. I recognize actual logic. No-one on the planet but you recognizes Terconian logic.

No you don't. And below is a good example of you doing just that.

Again, this is not what actual physicists say.

The problem that you and physicist have is that you cannot show otherwise. The logical truth exposes the atheist folly.

If all QM models require and entail observation and measurement before WFC and entanglement can be known to occur, then that means that the ONLY way and place that physicality can be known to occur is in and with a believing mind.

Explain how you now that "observation and measurement" isn't necessarily entailed in WFC and entanglement to occur.

Again, this doesn't address my point that we can know the rock continues to exist outside of our mind because this is the best explanation for the continuity of our perceptions.

Sure it does, because you can't show or know anything including QM models without a believing mind, belief is necessarily entailed in everything we know to occur. And because the ONLY things you know about rocks are what you believe about them entails a believing mind. And your perceptions tell you nothing about the truth and reality, only a believing mind is capable of that.

Actually if the only way and place "we can know the rock continues to exist" when we are not perceiving it is by believing it exists, and belief requires and entails a believing mind, then how can we "know the rock continues to exist outside of our mind", when belief entails and requires a mind silly? You need to stop pretending you know logic, because your words say otherwise.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
No you don't. And below is a good example of you doing just that.
Of course I don't understand Terconian logic. No-one does, and you just seem to make it up as you go along.

The problem that you and physicist have is that you cannot show otherwise. The logical truth exposes the atheist folly.

If all QM models require and entail observation and measurement before WFC and entanglement can be known to occur, then that means that the ONLY way and place that physicality can be known to occur is in and with a believing mind.

Explain how you now that "observation and measurement" isn't necessarily entailed in WFC and entanglement to occur.
I've already quoted physicists explaining how and why you are wrong about QM. Your only response has been to declare that you know physics better than actual physicists on account of your personal religious beliefs.

Sure it does, because you can't show or know anything including QM models without a believing mind, belief is necessarily entailed in everything we know to occur. And because the ONLY things you know about rocks are what you believe about them entails a believing mind. And your perceptions tell you nothing about the truth and reality, only a believing mind is capable of that.

Actually if the only way and place "we can know the rock continues to exist" when we are not perceiving it is by believing it exists, and belief requires and entails a believing mind, then how can we "know the rock continues to exist outside of our mind", when belief entails and requires a mind silly? You need to stop pretending you know logic, because your words say otherwise.
What do you think my point was that this response supposedly addresses? Do you know? Can you explain it to me in your own words? Because you don't seem to be engaging with my point at all.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
The things you are saying seem unbiblical to me, Tercon, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
I've generally watched Christians dismiss his ideas in the Christian sections of this forum. It's pretty clear those ideas get very little support anywhere - and this is reinforced by the fact that he refuses to answer questions. He's been restating the same stuff for a decade now...
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Your strawman is certainly unbiblical, but what I said and meant isn't.

I sincerely apologize if you feel I misrepresented your view; I didn't intend to do that, and you speak in a very difficult to understand way.

I would suggest that if a lot of people misunderstand you, it might be a good idea to try to think how to state your ideas more clearly.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
I sincerely apologize if you feel I misrepresented your view; I didn't intend to do that, and you speak in a very difficult to understand way.

It has nothing to do with the way I feel at all, I didn't say anything about believers possessing God's attributes period.

I said God shares His Spirit with His children so believers can know and understand how and why He does what He does. And in knowing this believers have no fear of what there is to come, because we win. We can even watch and understand how He does it as well. So, IOW we are just along for the ride, but He does all the driving.

I would suggest that if a lot of people misunderstand you, it might be a good idea to try to think how to state your ideas more clearly.

Why is the above hard to understand and why is it unbiblical?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
I've generally watched Christians dismiss his ideas in the Christian sections of this forum. It's pretty clear those ideas get very little support anywhere - and this is reinforced by the fact that he refuses to answer questions. He's been restating the same stuff for a decade now...

There are two kinds of unbelievers; there's your kind and then there's the religious variety. It is no surprise that the religious variety would reject God's ordained means of making Himself known to His children, they have a religion, when God is just the truth and reality.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Of course I don't understand Terconian logic. No-one does, and you just seem to make it up as you go along.

I've already quoted physicists explaining how and why you are wrong about QM. Your only response has been to declare that you know physics better than actual physicists on account of your personal religious beliefs.

Show me where you explained away the requirement for observation and measurement for WFC and entanglement and its logical consequences silly?
If you understand the logical truth, then how come you can't see the logical consequences of the necessity of observation and measurement for WFC and entanglement to occur?

What do you think my point was that this response supposedly addresses? Do you know? Can you explain it to me in your own words? Because you don't seem to be engaging with my point at all.

You didn't make a point, so what are you talking about?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Show me where you explained away the requirement for observation and measurement for WFC and entanglement and its logical consequences silly?
If you understand the logical truth, then how come you can't see the logical consequences of the necessity of observation and measurement for WFC and entanglement to occur?
You haven't established any such requirement or necessity. You just keep making absurdly uninformed and unsupported claims about QM that no physicist supports.

You didn't make a point, so what are you talking about?
Which is it? Did your previous reply address my point, or did I not make one? It can hardly be both. Or are you just completely failing to follow the thread of the discussion here?
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
It has nothing to do with the way I feel at all, I didn't say anything about believers possessing God's attributes period.

I think you did say something about that. That means that I think you were not clear.

I said God shares His Spirit with His children so believers can know and understand how and why He does what He does.

Why is the above hard to understand and why is it unbiblical?

You are changing the exact wording you used. I don't agree that those are the exact words you used.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
I think you did say something about that. That means that I think you were not clear.

You are changing the exact wording you used. I don't agree that those are the exact words you used.

Actually I am just making it more "clear", so you won't have to strawman anymore.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Actually I am just making it more "clear", so you won't have to strawman anymore.
Why do you continue evading? Why will you not answer the question?

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.

Why would any person not want to participate in clarifying the discussion? What do you have to hide?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Why do you continue evading? Why will you not answer the question?

Not evading anything. The truth and reality can ONLY be known you exist and occur in and with a believing mind and in and with NO other way and place can the truth and reality be known to exist or occur. What is ambiguous about this?

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.

So what?

Both statements are true.

Why would any person not want to participate in clarifying the discussion? What do you have to hide?

Evasion and projection.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Not evading anything.
Of course you're evading. Repeatedly not answering an asked question is evading.
Both statements are true.
That is not the question.

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 and projection.
Neither. You are avoiding clarifying the discussion. Why would anybody do that?
 
Top