What's reality?

[Nouveau]

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

Good thing I have a believing mind then. Again, if you can know of a reality 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.

See above. I have a believing mind that believes in a reality (MIPUST) beyond my own mind, just as you have a believing mind that believes in a reality (God's mind) that exists beyond your own mind. Yet clearly one of us believes wrongly, so belief alone does not guarantee truth.

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.

Unsupported that only minds can exist. Besides, we both believe in something existing independently of our own minds, so mind-independence in this specific sense cannot be impossible.

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.

Unsupported that the existence of anything requires a mind. And you are misrepresenting me in order to accuse me of strawmanning. I never said that you think reality exists beyond all minds - I said, quite correctly, that you think reality exists beyond and independently of YOUR mind.

So, "MIPUST" is mind dependent after all then?

No, that's not what I said. You are again 'forgetting' that mind-independence concerns existence, not knowledge. That knowledge of a thing requires a mind shows only that knowledge is mind-dependent, and says nothing about the dependence or independence of the thing known upon any mind.

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 understand that this is exactly what I just said you believe, so that would be the exact opposite of a strawman. Again, you believe in something that exists independently of your own mind, so if you can do that for God then we can do the same for MIPUST.

 

[Tercon]

Good thing I have a believing mind then. Again, if you can know of a reality beyond your own mind then so can we.

If you are an atheist, then you have a unbelieving mind in regards to the truth and reality. And whereas a believing mind is ALWAYS necessary in order to make the truth and reality know to us, then sorry bub, but you're just left with your ignorant unbelief (atheism).

See above. I have a believing mind that believes in a reality (MIPUST) beyond my own mind, just as you have a believing mind that believes in a reality (God's mind) that exists beyond your own mind. Yet clearly one of us believes wrongly, so belief alone does not guarantee truth.

How do you know any of that is truth or reality without depending on a believing mind to make it known to you silly?

Unsupported that only minds can exist. Besides, we both believe in something existing independently of our own minds, so mind-independence in this specific sense cannot be impossible.

ONLY believing minds can be known to exist. Name just one other thing besides a believing mind that is capable of contemplating and experiencing its own existence? You know why that is? Because the reality is a believing mind.

Unsupported that the existence of anything requires a mind. And you are misrepresenting me in order to accuse me of strawmanning. I never said that you think reality exists beyond all minds - I said, quite correctly, that you think reality exists beyond and independently of YOUR mind.

At no time have I said that "reality exists beyond and independently of" believing minds.

I understand that this is exactly what I just said you believe, so that would be the exact opposite of a strawman. Again, you believe in something that exists independently of your own mind, so if you can do that for God then we can do the same for MIPUST.

How do you know any of that is true or reality without depending on a believing mind to make it known to you silly?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

If you are an atheist, then you have a unbelieving mind in regards to the truth and reality. And whereas a believing mind is ALWAYS necessary in order to make the truth and reality know to us, then sorry bub, but you're just left with your ignorant unbelief (atheism).

If you have a disbelief in leprechauns, then you have a unbelieving mind in regards to the truth and reality. And whereas a believing mind is ALWAYS necessary in order to make the truth and reality know to us, then sorry bub, but you're just left with your ignorant unbelief (in leprechauns).

When will you realise that everything you claim about our unbelief equally applies to your unbelief?

How do you know any of that is truth or reality without depending on a believing mind to make it known to you silly?

Nobody claims you can do so; your usual error is in thinking that someone not believing something means that they do not believe other things. In reality, atheists believe infinitely many things, and thus know truth and reality.

At no time have I said that "reality exists beyond and independently of" believing minds.

Yes, you have. You have previously admitted that radium existed, independent of any believing mind, before Marie Curie discovered it.

 

[Nouveau]

If you are an atheist, then you have a unbelieving mind in regards to the truth and reality.

Unsupported nonsense that God is truth and reality. Truth is a correspondence relation and reality is MIPUST, so your unbelief in them makes you ignorant of reality.

How do you know any of that is truth or reality without depending on a believing mind to make it known to you silly?

Strawman. I am not claiming that my knowledge doesn't require a mind. Try again: I have a believing mind that believes in a reality (MIPUST) beyond my own mind, just as you have a believing mind that believes in a reality (God's mind) that exists beyond your own mind. Yet clearly one of us believes wrongly, so belief alone does not guarantee truth.

ONLY believing minds can be known to exist. Name just one other thing besides a believing mind that is capable of contemplating and experiencing its own existence?

Unsupported that only minds can be known to exist. And I am not claiming that things other than minds can contemplate anything, nor is contemplation a requirement for existence. Again, we both believe in something existing independently of our own minds, so mind-independence in this specific sense cannot be impossible.

At no time have I said that "reality exists beyond and independently of" believing minds.

At no time have I said that is what you think. Rather, I correctly said that you think reality exists beyond and independently of YOUR mind.

How do you know any of that is true or reality without depending on a believing mind to make it known to you silly?

Strawman. Again, I am not claiming that my knowledge doesn't require a mind. Try addressing what I said: You believe in something that exists independently of your own mind, so if you can do that for God then we can do the same for MIPUST.

 

[Tercon]

Unsupported nonsense that God is truth and reality. Truth is a correspondence relation and reality is MIPUST, so your unbelief in them makes you ignorant of reality.

Nonsense, as if the truth and reality cannot be known to exist anywhere else outside of a believing mind, then reality must exist in a believing mind.

Does the "Truth" and its "correspondence relation and reality" knowable with a believing mind? NO!

So your "MIPUST" is just the product of a YOUR unbelieving mind.

Strawman. I am not claiming that my knowledge doesn't require a mind. Try again: I have a believing mind that believes in a reality (MIPUST) beyond my own mind, just as you have a believing mind that believes in a reality (God's mind) that exists beyond your own mind.

How is YOUR "(MIPUST) beyond" YOUR "own mind", when you just said that YOU "have a believing mind that believes in a reality (MIPUST)". So, how is YOUR "(MIPUST) beyond" YOUR "own mind" or "mind-independent", when YOUR "(MIPUST)" is still dependent on YOUR "believing mind that believes" it for its existence silly?

Do you even think before you write this nonsense?

Yet clearly one of us believes wrongly, so belief alone does not guarantee truth.

Strawman. Actually you just disbelieve the truth and I believe it.

Unsupported that only minds can be known to exist. And I am not claiming that things other than minds can contemplate anything, nor is contemplation a requirement for existence. Again, we both believe in something existing independently of our own minds, so mind-independence in this specific sense cannot be impossible.

Strawman and projection.

You are contradicting yourself here, as if YOU are "claiming that" NO other "things other than minds can contemplate anything" and YOUR "anything" means and includes everything, including "existence" itself and its "contemplation", then YOUR claims contradict one another. As if "contemplation" is "a requirement for" contemplating anything's and everything's "existence", then "existence" itself requires contemplation too. And if it doesn't, then explain how you know it doesn't without using your mind and its capacity to contemplate silly? haha have fun.

At no time have I said that is what you think. Rather, I correctly said that you think reality exists beyond and independently of YOUR mind.

Strawman and you're projecting YOUR atheism (unbelief).

Actually what I have stated is that nothing can be known to exist beyond a believing minds, as everything that exists is only known in and because of a believing mind and it is only believing minds that are knowable and have the capacity to know and share the truth and reality. And outside of a believing mind this isn't possible.

Strawman. Again, I am not claiming that my knowledge doesn't require a mind. Try addressing what I said: You believe in something that exists independently of your own mind, so if you can do that for God then we can do the same for MIPUST.

Strawman, that is not what I believe at all, a matter of fact it is the opposite of that nonsense that I believe.

Actually what I believe is that nothing can be known to exist beyond believing minds, as everything that exists is only known in and because of a believing mind and it is only believing minds that are knowable and have the capacity to know and share the truth and reality. And outside of believing minds this isn't possible. So, to suggest that I "believe in something that exists independently of" or without MY "own mind" is a outright lie.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Nonsense, as if the truth and reality cannot be known to exist anywhere else outside of a believing mind, then reality must exist in a believing mind.

This is (still) unsupported. You continue to confuse knowledge of something with that thing. That reality can only be known by a mind does not mean that reality is a mind or that it exists in a mind.

 

[Tercon]

This is (still) unsupported. You continue to confuse knowledge of something with that thing. That reality can only be known by a mind does not mean that reality is a mind or that it exists in a mind.

Sure it is supported, because you are incapable of showing any other way or place outside of a believing mind that is capable of making the truth and reality known to exist. If you could have named another way or place, you would of said so long ago. But that's how deceived your atheism makes you, you can even disbelieve that your own believing mind is incapable of making the truth known to you.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Sure it is supported, because you are incapable of showing any other way or place outside of a believing mind that is capable of making the truth and reality known to exist.

No, it's not, and this is your usual response, dealt with a thousand times.

Nobody disputes that a believing mind is necessary to make the truth and reality be known.

If you could have named another way or place, you would of said so long ago.

I don't believe that and have never claimed it.

But that's how deceived your atheism makes you, you can even disbelieve that your own believing mind is incapable of making the truth known to you.

Strawman. Nobody has claimed what you say.

You are doing the same thing you always do - attack a strawman.

Everybody agrees that a believing mind is necessary to make the truth and reality be known, so don't argue that. Don't tell me I can't show another place or any of that nonsense, because that's not in contention.

The problem is (as always) your next step, where you say that a believing mind is necessary to make the truth and reality be known (which everybody agrees), then reality IS a believing mind. That step is completely unsupported.

 

[Nouveau]

Nonsense, as if the truth and reality cannot be known to exist anywhere else outside of a believing mind, then reality must exist in a believing mind.

Does the "Truth" and its "correspondence relation and reality" knowable with a believing mind? NO!

So your "MIPUST" is just the product of a YOUR unbelieving mind.

This is the same ambiguous and invalid argument you've been making for the last decade. You are still conflating knowledge and existence. Again, you haven't shown that God is truth and reality. Again, truth is a correspondence relation and reality is MIPUST, so your unbelief in them makes you ignorant of reality. Your God is the product of your unbelieving mind.

How is YOUR "(MIPUST) beyond" YOUR "own mind", when you just said that YOU "have a believing mind that believes in a reality (MIPUST)". So, how is YOUR "(MIPUST) beyond" YOUR "own mind" or "mind-independent", when YOUR "(MIPUST)" is still dependent on YOUR "believing mind that believes" it for its existence silly?

Do you even think before you write this nonsense?

Did you even read my post before declaring it to be nonsense? Because I never said that MIPUST depends upon my mind for its existence. It obviously does not. You're again conflating knowledge and existence. Again, I have a believing mind that believes in a reality (MIPUST) beyond my own mind, just as you have a believing mind that believes in a reality (God's mind) that exists beyond your own mind.

Strawman. Actually you just disbelieve the truth and I believe it.

Where's the strawman? I said that I believe in MIPUST while you believe in God, so at least one of us believes wrongly, proving that belief alone does not guarantee truth. The only part of this that says anything about your position is where I said you believe in God. Was that a strawman?

Strawman and projection. You are contradicting yourself here, as if YOU are "claiming that" NO other "things other than minds can contemplate anything" and YOUR "anything" means and includes everything, including "existence" itself and its "contemplation", then YOUR claims contradict one another. As if "contemplation" is "a requirement for" contemplating anything's and everything's "existence", then "existence" itself requires contemplation too. And if it doesn't, then explain how you know it doesn't without using your mind and its capacity to contemplate silly? haha have fun.

This makes no sense at all. Where's the strawman? Where's the contradiction? Yes, contemplation of existence requires a contemplating mind. But existence itself does not. Again, we both believe in something existing independently of our own minds - MIPUST for me, God's mind for you - so mind-independence in this specific sense cannot be impossible.

Strawman and you're projecting YOUR atheism (unbelief). Actually what I have stated is that nothing can be known to exist beyond a believing minds, as everything that exists is only known in and because of a believing mind and it is only believing minds that are knowable and have the capacity to know and share the truth and reality. And outside of a believing mind this isn't possible.

Again, where is the strawman? All I said was that you think reality (as God's mind) exists beyond and independently of YOUR mind. Do you no longer believe that?

Strawman, that is not what I believe at all, a matter of fact it is the opposite of that nonsense that I believe. So, to suggest that I "believe in something that exists independently of" or without MY "own mind" is a outright lie.

No, it's not a lie. It's exactly what you told me when I asked:

Nouveau: "Does your God's existence depend upon your mind? If you were to cease to exist, would God thereby also cease to exist?"
Tercon: "No, His mind is reality"

That is where you told me you believe in something that exists beyond and independently of your own mind. Has your position on this changed? If it has, then you are back to God existing only as a concept in your own mind. If it hasn't changed then you do believe in something existing independently of your own mind, and if you can do that for God then we can do the same for MIPUST.

 

[Tercon]

The problem is (as always) your next step, where you say that a believing mind is necessary to make the truth and reality be known (which everybody agrees), then reality IS a believing mind. That step is completely unsupported.

If it is ONLY in and with a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known to exist, then reality must be a believing mind. Why? Because it cannot be known to exist anywhere else, there is nothing with the capability that a believing mind has that can make the truth and reality known and experienced and also make it known to exist, it is ONLY a believing mind that possesses this capacity. And you have not and cannot show otherwise.

So, why should anyone join you in your unbelief (atheism), when belief and a believing mind is necessary to make the truth and reality known to begin with?

 

[Tercon]

Again, where is the strawman? All I said was that you think reality (as God's mind) exists beyond and independently of YOUR mind. Do you no longer believe that?

No, it's not a lie. It's exactly what you told me when I asked:

Nouveau: "Does your God's existence depend upon your mind? If you were to cease to exist, would God thereby also cease to exist?"
Tercon: "No, His mind is reality"

That is where you told me you believe in something that exists beyond and independently of your own mind. Has your position on this changed? If it has, then you are back to God existing only as a concept in your own mind. If it hasn't changed then you do believe in something existing independently of your own mind, and if you can do that for God then we can do the same for MIPUST.

Strawman and projection.

Firstly, if in reality I believe that there will never be a time that I "cease to exist", because that is a part of the Christian faith, then there will never be a time that God nor I will ever "cease to exist" in reality together.

You obviously misinterpreted or you are misrepresenting my response. I will let you pick which one.

 

[Nouveau]

Strawman and projection.

Where? Or is this rather the title of your post?

Firstly, if in reality I believe that there will never be a time that I "cease to exist", because that is a part of the Christian faith, then there will never be a time that God nor I will ever "cease to exist" in reality together.

Do you not understand the concept of a counterfactual? For example, even though I will never fly the space shuttle, it is still true that doing so would make me an astronaut. This is about the relations of ideas, and not about whether or not it would actually happen.

You obviously misinterpreted or you are misrepresenting my response. I will let you pick which one.

It looks like you misunderstood the question, and are now trying to backtrack on your answer. But that's fine. You are welcome to provide a new answer:

Does God's existence depend upon your mind? [Yes or no]

 

[Tercon]

Where? Or is this rather the title of your post?

Do you not understand the concept of a counterfactual? For example, even though I will never fly the space shuttle, it is still true that doing so would make me an astronaut. This is about the relations of ideas, and not about whether or not it would actually happen.

Strawman and projections. You are not referring to and representing my claim nor its implications, but your own. strawman.

My argument doesn't depend on nor refer to examples or counterfactuals. Rather my claim is based on my experience of the truth and reality of God and how and why His truth and reality are known to us. And not on things that I am not doing or experiencing in reality.

And it isn't true nor reality that not being something in reality like "an astronaut" doesn't "make" you "an astronaut" silly. As hypotheticals are NOT examples of the truth nor reality.

And the relationship between ideas and the fact that they are not actually happening is an indication that you are not dealing with the truth nor reality.

It looks like you misunderstood the question, and are now trying to backtrack on your answer. But that's fine. You are welcome to provide a new answer:

Does God's existence depend upon your mind? [Yes or no]

Actually if God is the truth and reality, then my mind depends on God's believing mind for my existence.

 

[Nouveau]

Strawman and projections. You are not referring to and representing my claim nor its implications, but your own. strawman.

I was explaining your misunderstanding of my question.

My argument doesn't depend on nor refer to examples or counterfactuals. Rather my claim is based on my experience of the truth and reality of God and how and why His truth and reality are known to us. And not on things that I am not doing or experiencing in reality.
And it isn't true nor reality that not being something in reality like "an astronaut" doesn't "make" you "an astronaut" silly. As hypotheticals are NOT examples of the truth nor reality.

And the relationship between ideas and the fact that they are not actually happening is an indication that you are not dealing with the truth nor reality.

So you don't understand counterfactuals. Got it.

Actually if God is the truth and reality, then my mind depends on God's believing mind for my existence.

I don't think you understand what 'depends' means. Dependence is a counterfactual relation. And you didn't answer my question. Try again:

Does God's existence depend upon your mind? [Yes or no]

 

[Tercon]

I was explaining your misunderstanding of my question.

So you don't understand counterfactuals. Got it.

I don't think you understand what 'depends' means. Dependence is a counterfactual relation.

I don't see any argument against my claim, only a half baked attempt to hide yourself in ambiguity.

And you didn't answer my question. Try again:

Does God's existence depend upon your mind? [Yes or no]

Actually if God is the truth and reality, then believers depend on God's believing mind for our existence and knowledge of His truth and reality..

 

[Nouveau]

I don't see any argument against my claim, only a half baked attempt to hide yourself in ambiguity.

You're the one who loves being ambiguous. My argument is that you are contradicting yourself by claiming dependence of believers upon God, while rejecting and denying counterfactuals. This is a contradiction because dependence is a counterfactual relation. It means that if God did not exist then neither would believers.

Actually if God is the truth and reality, then believers depend on God's believing mind for our existence and knowledge of His truth and reality.

That's still not what I asked. It was a simple Yes or No question. Please make an effort to actually answer:

Does God's existence depend upon your mind? [Yes or no]

 

[Electric Skeptic]

If it is ONLY in and with a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known to exist, then reality must be a believing mind. Why?

Unsupported.

Because it cannot be known to exist anywhere else, there is nothing with the capability that a believing mind has that can make the truth and reality known and experienced and also make it known to exist, it is ONLY a believing mind that possesses this capacity. And you have not and cannot show otherwise.

You are just repeating the same claim that everybody agrees with - that a believing mind is the only thing that can make the truth and reality be known to exist. That does not get to the claim that the truth and reality ARE a believing mind. That is a logical leap you can never support.

So, why should anyone join you in your unbelief (atheism), when belief and a believing mind is necessary to make the truth and reality known to begin with?

This sentence doesn't even make sense. Why should anyone join you in your unbelief (in leprechauns) when belief and a believing mind is necessary to make the truth and reality known to begin with?

The fact that a believing mind is necessary to make the truth and reality known has nothing to do with whether people should or shouldn't "join [me] in my unbelief (atheism)" or should or shouldn't "join you in your unbelief (in leprechauns)". As always, you ignore the fact that everything you say about my unbelief is equally true of your unbelief.

 

[Tercon]

Unsupported.

Sure it is supported, because you can't tell me of another way or place outside of a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known to reside and exist. So, your inability to provide refutation or another alternative to my truth claim isn't a point for you silly, it's just further evidence that my claim is true.

You are just repeating the same claim that everybody agrees with - that a believing mind is the only thing that can make the truth and reality be known to exist. That does not get to the claim that the truth and reality ARE a believing mind. That is a logical leap you can never support.

Yes, because you are pretending you believe it, when you don't.

If the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to reside and exist is in and with a believing mind, then a believing mind must be the only way and place it can be known to reside and exist. As if it can't be known to reside or exist anywhere else, then it must exist where it resides.

This sentence doesn't even make sense. Why should anyone join you in your unbelief (in leprechauns) when belief and a believing mind is necessary to make the truth and reality known to begin with?

Because a believing mind is always and without exception necessary before the truth and reality is known to you.

The fact that a believing mind is necessary to make the truth and reality known has nothing to do with whether people should or shouldn't "join [me] in my unbelief (atheism)" or should or shouldn't "join you in your unbelief (in leprechauns)". As always, you ignore the fact that everything you say about my unbelief is equally true of your unbelief.

You're conflating belief and unbelief again. There is no truth to be found in unbelief, as the truth is only found in and with a belief in reality.

 

[Whateverman]

Does God's existence depend upon your mind? [Yes or no]

I just wanted to pipe in to give this question the recognition it deserves.

It destroys Durrcon's worldview (as he's expressed it here), and this is precisely why he wont answer it.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Sure it is supported, because you can't tell me of another way or place outside of a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known to reside and exist. So, your inability to provide refutation or another alternative to my truth claim isn't a point for you silly, it's just further evidence that my claim is true.

No, it's not supported. For the umpteenth time, the fact that there is no nother way or place outside of a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known to reside and exist does not support your claim that reality is a believing mind.

Yes, because you are pretending you believe it, when you don't.

Do not try to tell me what I believe.

If the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to reside and exist is in and with a believing mind, then a believing mind must be the only way and place it can be known to reside and exist.

You are confusing belief in something and the thing itself again. The truth and reality can only be known with a believing mind; that says nothing about where truth and reality "reside and exist".

As if it can't be known to reside or exist anywhere else, then it must exist where it resides.

You've not established anything about where it "reside or exists".

Because a believing mind is always and without exception necessary before the truth and reality is known to you.

Nobody ever disputes this.

You're conflating belief and unbelief again. There is no truth to be found in unbelief, as the truth is only found in and with a belief in reality.

Great, then you can't know anything about the truth or reality, because you have a number of unbeliefs.