What's reality?

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?
 

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?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Of course you're evading. Repeatedly not answering an asked question is evading.

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.


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

Well that's my point, and because it is true then that is evidence that what I am saying true silly. That's the way the truth and reality works; you say something true and then you support. And that's what I have done here.

If both statements are true, and they are, then this supports what I have claimed and that's just more evidence of what I originally said to be true. It doesn't support your position that what I said is false or illogical, because you have not shown what I have said to be false or illogical to begin with.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Well that's my point, and because it is true then that is evidence that what I am saying true silly. That's the way the truth and reality works; you say something true and then you support. And that's what I have done here.

If both statements are true, and they are, then this supports what I have claimed and that's just more evidence of what I originally said to be true. It doesn't support your position that what I said is false or illogical, because you have not shown what I have said to be false or illogical to begin with.
You're still not answering his question.

Why is that?
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Well that's my point, and because it is true then that is evidence that what I am saying true silly. That's the way the truth and reality works; you say something true and then you support. And that's what I have done here.

If both statements are true, and they are, then this supports what I have claimed and that's just more evidence of what I originally said to be true. It doesn't support your position that what I said is false or illogical, because you have not shown what I have said to be false or illogical to begin with.
None of this is a response to my statement. Why will you not answer? Why would you - or anybody - not want to clarify a debate? What are you trying to hide?

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
None of this is a response to my statement. Why will you not answer? Why would you - or anybody - not want to clarify a debate? What are you trying to hide?

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 cowardice bluffing.

Well that's my point, and because it is true then this truth is evidence of what I am saying true silly. That's the way the truth and reality works; you say something true and then you support it. And that's what I have done here.

If both statements are true, and they are, then this supports what I have claimed and that's just more evidence of what I originally said to be true. It doesn't support your position that what I said is false or illogical, because you have not shown what I have said to be false or illogical to begin with.

And if it is "only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist", then "the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known" silly.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Evasion and cowardice bluffing.
There can be no evasion since I'm not addressing anything but this question. I've no idea what 'bluffing' you imagine, nor how asking you to answer a question shows cowardice.
Well that's my point, and because it is true then this truth is evidence of what I am saying true silly. That's the way the truth and reality works; you say something true and then you support it. And that's what I have done here.
That's nonsense. My post asked you a question; that's all. There's no 'point' being made. A question is being asked. Why will you not answer it?
If both statements are true, and they are, then this supports what I have claimed and that's just more evidence of what I originally said to be true. It doesn't support your position that what I said is false or illogical, because you have not shown what I have said to be false or illogical to begin with.

And if it is "only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist", then "the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known" silly.
None of this is a response to my statement. Why will you not answer? Why would you - or anybody - not want to clarify a debate? What are you trying to hide?

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
There can be no evasion since I'm not addressing anything but this question. I've no idea what 'bluffing' you imagine, nor how asking you to answer a question shows cowardice.

That's nonsense. My post asked you a question; that's all. There's no 'point' being made. A question is being asked. Why will you not answer it?

None of this is a response to my statement. Why will you not answer? Why would you - or anybody - not want to clarify a debate? What are you trying to hide?

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.

If both statements are true, and they are, then this supports what I have claimed and that's just more evidence of what I originally said to be true. It doesn't support your position that what I said; is false or illogical, because you have not shown what I have said to be false or illogical to begin with.

And if it is "only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist", then "the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known". How does what you said here refute what I have said silly?
 
Top