No, according to the objective meanings of your own words. They are inconsistent.
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.
That's not what I said. Learn to read.
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.
You can believe that but that's different from demonstrating it logically.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Not a strawman. I have quoted your exact words.
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.
You put words in quotation marks that I never said.
Mind-independence DOES concern existence. What mind-independence doesn't require is knowledge without a mind.
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.
No, Tercon. That is NOT what it means.
How do you know about things beyond "your own mind" silly? You really don't think that do you?
Well how do you get “mind-independence” when everything you know you depend on your mind to know it?
If you can do it then so can we.
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?
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.
Existence.
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.
Sure I can.
Strawman and projection.
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.
Sadly neither of those are reality.
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.
Completely irrelevant to everything I said in the post you just quoted.
God's reality, as there is only one reality.