What's reality?

Nouveau

Well-known member
And according to YOUR unbelief of my belief silly.
No, according to the objective meanings of your own words. They are inconsistent.

Strawman and projection. But I don't believe that God is just "an idea in" my "mind".
Rather I believe that God is reality and reality exists. And if the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist is in and by a believing mind, then reality must exist in God's believing mind or reality = God's mind.
Then you believe God exists beyond the confines of your own mind, making him unknowable to you, according to your own claim that you cannot know anything beyond your own mind. And if you can know of something existing beyond the confines of your own mind, then so can we - we can know of an objective reality existing beyond our own minds.

If YOUR "MIPUST" is mind-independent "and concerns existence, not existence"...
That's not what I said. Learn to read.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Firstly, how do you KNOW “knowledge of reality” and “reality” are two different things, when both require a believing mind (“conscious mind”) in order to be known to exist to begin with?
I'd say there must be at least some distinction as the former category can't encapsulate the latter without an infinite regress. For instance, let's say realty = X and knowledge of reality = Y, if Y = X, then you also need to include Y in X, so you would have Z (knowledge of knowledge of reality) = X and Y, and so on ad infinitum.
Strawman. I don't think “that everything is just part of” my “mind”. Rather I believe that God is reality and reality exists in God's believing mind and we are just along for the ride when we like Him believe in His truth and reality.
You can believe that but that's different from demonstrating it logically.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
I'd say there must be at least some distinction as the former category can't encapsulate the latter without an infinite regress.

Actually if they are one and the same, then there is no “former category” that must “encapsulate the latter”, and there is no “infinite regress” to begin with either.
Okay, if you are the one insisting that “there must be at least some distinction” between “knowledge of reality” and “reality”, then say what you KNOW that distinction is? And if you cannot, then your criticism is unwarranted.

For instance, let's say realty = X and knowledge of reality = Y, if Y = X, then you also need to include Y in X, so you would have Z (knowledge of knowledge of reality) = X and Y, and so on ad infinitum.

Strawman. That's isn't what I understand reality to be.

Firstly, not knowing something isn't something you can convey to me. I mean, you can try to attribute your misrepresentation of my position to me, but that's just strawmanning.

So, if you are responding to my post then you must have seen something in my post that you don't know or understand. And if you don't know or understand it, then don't pretend that you know that the other person doesn't know or understand it either. Always presume that the person you are talking to knows something you don't and they are just trying to articulate that something to you.
Actually this how I see it: If in reality X = truth and belief = Y, then in reality X + Y = Z reality and Y + X = reality still. What makes this type of reasoning confusing to some is that both X (truth), Y (belief) and Z reality can only be known and experienced in the one way and place and ONE way and place is a believing mind. And we are all supposed to be capable of a believing mind.

Therefore, if the only way and place that truth, belief and reality can be known and be experienced is a believing mind, then a believing mind is the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist as well. And I say this because; I don't know of another way or place outside of a believing mind that has the capacity to make the truth and reality known and experienced.

You can believe that but that's different from demonstrating it logically.

Actually you can disbelieve whatever you want, but until you believe the truth and reality is unknowable to you.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Actually if they are one and the same, then there is no “former category” that must “encapsulate the latter”, and there is no “infinite regress” to begin with either.
Okay, if you are the one insisting that “there must be at least some distinction” between “knowledge of reality” and “reality”, then say what you KNOW that distinction is? And if you cannot, then your criticism is unwarranted.
The distinction is based on knowing that X can be without one knowing that X is. For instance, my doctor might know of the existence of a blood clot in my brain (these forums tend to promote that kind of thing!) but choose not to inform me about it. Now, I don't know of the existence of such a blood clot but does it follow that the clot does not exist? If the response is: "Well, the doctor knows..." all we need to do is step back a little and see that prior to the doctor finding out about my clot, surely the clot must have existed for him to have been able to find out about it (unless his consciousness actually brought things into existence, which would make him God).
Strawman. That's isn't what I understand reality to be.
I know. But my point is that in knowing X there is a further item of knowledge: the knowledge of "knowing X", and this then creates a further item of knowledge: "the knowledge of the knowledge of knowing X", which would lead to an infinite regress and suggests knowing itself can't encapsulate being.
Firstly, not knowing something isn't something you can convey to me. I mean, you can try to attribute your misrepresentation of my position to me, but that's just strawmanning.

So, if you are responding to my post then you must have seen something in my post that you don't know or understand. And if you don't know or understand it, then don't pretend that you know that the other person doesn't know or understand it either. Always presume that the person you are talking to knows something you don't and they are just trying to articulate that something to you.
Maybe but I still think it's wrong. However, if that's a general principle: always assume someone you are talking with knows something you don't, then it undermines any attempt at debate or disagreement, since I'd have to just accept my own ignorance based on that principle rather than think I understand what is being discussed but disagree with it.
Actually this how I see it: If in reality X = truth and belief = Y, then in reality X + Y = Z reality and Y + X = reality still. What makes this type of reasoning confusing to some is that both X (truth), Y (belief) and Z reality can only be known and experienced in the one way and place and ONE way and place is a believing mind. And we are all supposed to be capable of a believing mind.
But this still leaves things at the level of epistemology and not of metaphysics. X (truth) and Y (belief) are mental phenomena. I don't see how you can take two mental phenomena to equal the metaphysical world, which can be devoid of mental phenomena.
Therefore, if the only way and place that truth, belief and reality can be known and be experienced is a believing mind, then a believing mind is the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist as well. And I say this because; I don't know of another way or place outside of a believing mind that has the capacity to make the truth and reality known and experienced.
But even if reality can't be "known and experienced" in a conscious way, it doesn't follow that reality doesn't exist. I mean, 3 billion years ago, there were no conscious minds on earth. So, does it follow that there was no planet?
Actually you can disbelieve whatever you want, but until you believe the truth and reality is unknowable to you.
Unknowable, maybe. I'm not saying you to know X you must believe X - that seems evidently true. I'm saying that if you don't know X it doesn't follow that X doesn't exist.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
No, according to the objective meanings of your own words. They are inconsistent.

Strawman and you are projecting your unbelief.

Then you believe God exists beyond the confines of your own mind, making him unknowable to you, according to your own claim that you cannot know anything beyond your own mind. And if you can know of something existing beyond the confines of your own mind, then so can we - we can know of an objective reality existing beyond our own minds.

Actually you can disbelieve whatever you want, but until you believe the truth and reality is unknowable to you.

And if I believe God is reality and reality exists in God's mind, then I know the truth and reality of God can be known to exist in my mind as well as in His too. And if the truth and reality can ONLY be known to exist in and by a believing mind, then in reality I can still know that the truth and reality can be known to exist in my own mind and in God's mind at the same time as well. And if the only thing that is capable of knowing about its own existence is a believing mind, then outside of a believing mind nothing can be known to exist including our own existence. Therefore, it is ONLY in believing in God's believing mind that can make His reality known to us.

That's not what I said. Learn to read.
Strawman, I know you didn't say it, rather I said; if YOUR "MIPUST" is mind-independent and it doesn't "concerns existence", then how do YOU KNOW "MIPUST" exists in reality silly?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Strawman and you are projecting your unbelief.
Not a strawman. I have quoted your exact words.

And if I believe God is reality and reality exists in God's mind, then I know the truth and reality of God can be known to exist in my mind as well as in His too.
If God's mind exists anywhere other than inside your own mind, then according to you He is unknowable to you. And if he is knowable to you, then God must exist only as an idea in your mind. The only way out of this is to acknowledge that it is possible to know things that exist beyond the confines of one's own mind - but then your whole argument against reality falls apart.

Strawman, I know you didn't say it...
You put words in quotation marks that I never said.

...rather I said; if YOUR "MIPUST" is mind-independent and it doesn't "concerns existence"...
Mind-independence DOES concern existence. What mind-independence doesn't require is knowledge without a mind.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
If God's mind exists anywhere other than inside your own mind, then according to you He is unknowable to you. And if he is knowable to you, then God must exist only as an idea in your mind. The only way out of this is to acknowledge that it is possible to know things that exist beyond the confines of one's own mind - but then your whole argument against reality falls apart.

Strawman and you are projecting your unbelief. If God is reality, then reality must exist in God's mind. Why? Because a believing mind is the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist. My statement just means that God's truth and reality can only be KNOWN to exist in His believing mind and also in and by other believing minds. It doesn't mean that the truth and reality can't be known to exist in other believing minds. Unless of course in the case of unbelievers, because they disbelieve belief is capable of making the truth and reality known to them, but this is because of their unbelieving minds, in that case the truth and reality is unknowable to unbelievers.

Mind-independence DOES concern existence. What mind-independence doesn't require is knowledge without a mind.

But “mind-independence” means “knowledge without a mind” silly. How do you know something is true or exists in reality without a belief and a mind that the belief can take place in? As if you cannot know the truth and reality with a believing mind, then the truth and reality must be depend believing mind for its existences and a mind must depend on belief for its existence.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Strawman and you are projecting your unbelief. If God is reality, then reality must exist in God's mind. Why? Because a believing mind is the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist. My statement just means that God's truth and reality can only be KNOWN to exist in His believing mind and also in and by other believing minds. It doesn't mean that the truth and reality can't be known to exist in other believing minds. Unless of course in the case of unbelievers, because they disbelieve belief is capable of making the truth and reality known to them, but this is because of their unbelieving minds, in that case the truth and reality is unknowable to unbelievers.
If you're claiming to know a reality that exists beyond the confines of your own mind, then we can do so too. And then there is no longer any need for that which is known (as opposed to the knowledge itself) to be located in any mind at all.

But “mind-independence” means “knowledge without a mind” silly.
No, Tercon. That is NOT what it means.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
If you're claiming to know a reality that exists beyond the confines of your own mind, then we can do so too.
How do you know about things beyond "your own mind" silly? You really don't think that do you?
And then there is no longer any need for that which is known (as opposed to the knowledge itself) to be located in any mind at all.


No, Tercon. That is NOT what it means.
Well how do you get “mind-independence” when everything you know you depend on your mind to know it?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
How do you know about things beyond "your own mind" silly? You really don't think that do you?
If you can do it then so can we.

Well how do you get “mind-independence” when everything you know you depend on your mind to know it?
Again, mind-independence isn't about knowledge. Does your God's existence depend upon your mind? If you were to cease to exist, would God thereby also cease to exist?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
If you can do it then so can we.
No you can't.
Again, mind-independence isn't about knowledge.

What is it about then?

Does your God's existence depend upon your mind?

No, His mind is reality, so I depend on His believing mind in order to know the truth and reality.

If you were to cease to exist, would God thereby also cease to exist?

I will never "cease to exist", because I don't depend on myself in order to know God's reality. Rather I depend on His believing mind in order to make me exist in His eternal reality = His Kingdom.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
No you can't.
Then neither can you. If I can't know of MIPUST existing beyond my own mind, then you can't know of God existing beyond your own mind.

What is it about then?
Existence.

No, His mind is reality, so I depend on His believing mind in order to know the truth and reality.
How can you know that God doesn't depend upon your mind for his existence? If you can know God to exist independently of your mind, then I can know MIPUST to exist independently of my mind.

There's no getting around this. Everything you claim for God - that he exists beyond your mind and does not depend upon your mind in order to exist, is exactly what the rest of us claim - and what you refuse to allow - for the physical universe. You are being inconsistent and applying a double standard.

How can we know MIPUST if it exists beyond our minds? The same way you know God despite him existing beyond your own mind.

How can we know MIPUST to be mind-independent? The same way you know God to exist independently of your mind.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Then neither can you.
Sure I can.

If I can't know of MIPUST existing beyond my own mind, then you can't know of God existing beyond your own mind.

Strawman and projection. You are conflating belief and unbelief.
Because God's mind is reality and it is only believing minds that can know and experience reality. I am not the one here pretending I can know something beyond a believing mind and in their unbelief (atheism); that would be you silly. My claim is that God's reality exists in His mind and believing minds are knowable the same way that the truth and reality is knowable.
Existence.

Nothing is knowable without a believing mind,; including the word "existence" silly.

How can you know that God doesn't depend upon your mind for his existence?

Because the truth and reality can only be known in and by a believing mind and outside of a believing mind the truth and reality is unknowable. And I know that I depend on my own believing mind for my own existence and God depends on His own believing mind for His existence. If a mind can know itself because of belief, then a mind can know another mind because they share the same belief.

If you can know God to exist independently of your mind, then I can know MIPUST to exist independently of my mind. There's no getting around this. Everything you claim for God - that he exists beyond your mind and does not depend upon your mind in order to exist, is exactly what the rest of us claim - and what you refuse to allow - for the physical universe. You are being inconsistent and applying a double standard. How can we know MIPUST to be mind-independent? The same way you know God to exist independently of your mind.
Strawman and projection.
I didn't say nor suggest that I "can know God to exist independently of" my "mind". Rather that's YOU who thinks YOU "can know MIPUST to exist independently of" YOUR "mind" silly.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Sure I can.
Then so can I.

Strawman and projection. You are conflating belief and unbelief.
Because God's mind is reality and it is only believing minds that can know and experience reality. I am not the one here pretending I can know something beyond a believing mind and in their unbelief (atheism); that would be you silly. My claim is that God's reality exists in His mind and believing minds are knowable the same way that the truth and reality is knowable.
None of this gibberish even tries to address the point. Again, if you are able to know the existence of something beyond your own mind then so can we.

Nothing is knowable without a believing mind,; including the word "existence" silly.
Not in dispute and not relevant to the point, which is that mind-independence concerns existence, NOT knowledge.

Because the truth and reality can only be known in and by a believing mind and outside of a believing mind the truth and reality is unknowable. And I know that I depend on my own believing mind for my own existence and God depends on His own believing mind for His existence. If a mind can know itself because of belief, then a mind can know another mind because they share the same belief.
But how can you know that you are sharing the same belief, when you are talking about something existing beyond your own mind? If you can know God's mind by having a belief corresponding with his, then we can know MIPUST by having a belief corresponding with how MIPUST happens to be.

I didn't say nor suggest that I "can know God to exist independently of" my "mind".
Yes you did. That is exactly what you said. I asked if God's existence depends upon your mind, and you said 'No'. And if God can exist independently of your mind then so can MIPUST.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
which reality?

His or the satanic realm's (as described in hieroglyphs?)

His is utterly gorgeous, created by the Word which He spoke.

The satanic one, where this earth is situated is but a shadow of that..caused by Adam and yes being 'reality' but not the only one.
Sadly neither of those are reality.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Then so can I.


None of this gibberish even tries to address the point. Again, if you are able to know the existence of something beyond your own mind then so can we.


Not in dispute and not relevant to the point, which is that mind-independence concerns existence, NOT knowledge.


But how can you know that you are sharing the same belief, when you are talking about something existing beyond your own mind? If you can know God's mind by having a belief corresponding with his, then we can know MIPUST by having a belief corresponding with how MIPUST happens to be.


Yes you did. That is exactly what you said. I asked if God's existence depends upon your mind, and you said 'No'. And if God can exist independently of your mind then so can MIPUST.
You can't know anything about the truth and reality without a believing mind in order to make it known to you silly, no matter how hard you try.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
You can't know anything about the truth and reality without a believing mind in order to make it known to you silly, no matter how hard you try.
Good to see that you're still desperately dodging the point when your repeated falsehoods are demonstrated for all to see.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You can't know anything about the truth and reality without a believing mind in order to make it known to you silly, no matter how hard you try.
Completely irrelevant to everything I said in the post you just quoted.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
which reality?

His or the satanic realm's (as described in hieroglyphs?)

His is utterly gorgeous, created by the Word which He spoke.

The satanic one, where this earth is situated is but a shadow of that..caused by Adam and yes being 'reality' but not the only one.
God's reality, as there is only one reality.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Then so can I.

Not without depending on a believing mind to make it known to you you can't.

None of this gibberish even tries to address the point. Again, if you are able to know the existence of something beyond your own mind then so can we.

Strawman. Not without a believing mind you can't, as we can know the truth, reality and other believing minds by believing what they too believe. But without a believing mind NO truth, reality or other believing mind are knowable to you.

Not in dispute and not relevant to the point, which is that mind-independence concerns existence, NOT knowledge.

Irrelevant, because if it is everything involves knowledge or existence, then you still must have a believing mind in order to know it exists. There is no such thing as "being mind-independent", that's a oxymoronic phrase, being is something only a mind is capable of in reality.

But how can you know that you are sharing the same belief, when you are talking about something existing beyond your own mind?

Strawman and projection, as I didn't say that the truth, reality and other minds are beyond a believing mind. That's you who is arguing has that position remember, you are covering up the fact that if something exists or involves knowledge, then it requires a believing mind to exist.

If you can know God's mind by having a belief corresponding with his, then we can know MIPUST by having a belief corresponding with how MIPUST happens to be.

So, "MIPUST" is mind dependent after all then? We are believing mind dependent, the truth and reality are believing mind dependent and all who believe in the reality of God are dependent on His believing mind to make the truth and reality known to us.

Yes you did. That is exactly what you said. I asked if God's existence depends upon your mind, and you said 'No'. And if God can exist independently of your mind then so can MIPUST.

Strawman. If God is reality and reality exists in God's mind, then God has His own believing mind and doesn't depend on ours for His existence. Understand?
I have already shown that the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist is in and by a believing mind. And this is because the truth and reality cannot be known to exist anywhere else other than in a believing mind, as it is only a believing mind that possesses the capacity to host the truth and reality. And you haven't shown otherwise.
 
Top