What's reality?

Tercon

Well-known member
Unsupported.

Sure it is, do you know what "only" means? It means that the truth and reality cannot be known to exist or reside anywhere else but in and with a believing mind and outside of a believing mind the truth and reality are unknowable. What don't you understand about this?


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.

If what you were saying is true, then you must know of some other way or place outside of a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known to exist and reside? And if can't tell me of another way or place outside of a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known to exist, then the truth and reality must be the product of a believing mind. Because you and I both know of NO other way or place that the truth and reality can be known to exist.

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?

Sure it does, your problem is that your unbelief has made you ignorant of how and why the truth and reality is known to you, 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.

If people want to know the truth and reality, then they too will have to have a believing mind in order to make it known to be true to them in reality.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
If what you were saying is true, then you must know of some other way or place outside of a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known to exist and reside?
You are still framing this in an ambiguous way that fails to make clear whether you are locating reality itself, or merely knowledge of it, in a mind.

These are two very different claims, despite your insistence on pretending otherwise.

Just because you think they are both true and both involve locating things in the same place, that doesn't mean they are saying the same thing. One is locating reality, while one is locating only the knowledge of it. So because it is possible for OTHER PEOPLE to coherently disagree with you on these two different things both sharing the same location, you need to make these two claims separately, so that others can tell you which they agree with and which they do not. Conflating them together, just because YOU think both are true, means you are never going to understand why everyone else disagrees with you.

For instance, if we just disagree with your ambiguous claim that reality can only be known to exist in a mind, you might think we are claiming to be able to know things without a mind. But that would be because you have assumed the wrong one of your two possible meanings. What we are actually saying is that we can know of a place other than a mind where things can exist, even though all knowledge of this requires a mind.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
You are still framing this in an ambiguous way that fails to make clear whether you are locating reality itself, or merely knowledge of it, in a mind.

These are two very different claims, despite your insistence on pretending otherwise.

Strawman. They are still only knowable in and by the same way and place a believing mind silly.

Just because you think they are both true and both involve locating things in the same place, that doesn't mean they are saying the same thing.

Strawman.

One is locating reality, while one is locating only the knowledge of it.

If the only way and place that the truth and reality known is in and by a believing mind, then the truth, reality and knowledge are all belief based and thus the product of a believing mind.


So because it is possible for OTHER PEOPLE to coherently disagree with you on these two different things both sharing the same location, you need to make these two claims separately, so that others can tell you which they agree with and which they do not. Conflating them together, just because YOU think both are true, means you are never going to understand why everyone else disagrees with you.

You can't separate a believing, truth and reality and still get any knowledge of the truth and reality silly.

For instance, if we just disagree with your ambiguous claim that reality can only be known to exist in a mind, you might think we are claiming to be able to know things without a mind. But that would be because you have assumed the wrong one of your two possible meanings. What we are actually saying is that we can know of a place other than a mind where things can exist, even though all knowledge of this requires a mind.

If "all knowledge of this requires" a believing "mind", then how is it possible for YOU to "know of a place other than a mind where things can" be known to "exist" silly?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Strawman. They are still only knowable in and by the same way and place a believing mind silly.

Strawman.

If the only way and place that the truth and reality known is in and by a believing mind, then the truth, reality and knowledge are all belief based and thus the product of a believing mind.

You can't separate a believing, truth and reality and still get any knowledge of the truth and reality silly.

If "all knowledge of this requires" a believing "mind", then how is it possible for YOU to "know of a place other than a mind where things can" be known to "exist" silly?
Nothing I said was a strawman, and nothing you've said in response even remotely addresses what I said. Again, locating knowledge MEANS SOMETHINGS DIFFERENT to locating the things the knowledge is about. When you fail to distinguish between them you not only confuse yourself, but you also prevent yourself from understanding how and why people disagree with you.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Nothing I said was a strawman, and nothing you've said in response even remotely addresses what I said.

Sure it's a strawman, because labeling my position as "ambiguous" is a deliberate misrepresentation of my position and that a strawman. And what I said refutes your nonsense. For instance see below.

Again, locating knowledge MEANS SOMETHINGS DIFFERENT to locating the things the knowledge is about. When you fail to distinguish between them you not only confuse yourself, but you also prevent yourself from understanding how and why people disagree with you.

What do we use in "locating knowledge" and "locating the things the knowledge is about" is all done and implemented in and by the same place silly, this is all done in and with a believing mind. You keep strawmanning saying that they are "DIFFERENT", when that's not the point to begin with., because my claim and point is that all of this is ONLY knowable and doable in and by a believing mind. And you have not given one shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.
You are spewing nonsense in an attempt to keep yourself ignorant of the fact that unbelievers can't do or know anything including ascertaining the truth and reality without using a believing mind to do so. You are wallowing around in nonsense old son, deliberately trying to hide away from the truth and reality, because the truth and reality is the product of God's believing mind.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Sure it's a strawman, because labeling my position as "ambiguous" is a deliberate misrepresentation of my position and that a strawman. And what I said refutes your nonsense. For instance see below.

What do we use in "locating knowledge" and "locating the things the knowledge is about" is all done and implemented in and by the same place silly, this is all done in and with a believing mind. You keep strawmanning saying that they are "DIFFERENT", when that's not the point to begin with., because my claim and point is that all of this is ONLY knowable and doable in and by a believing mind. And you have not given one shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.
You are spewing nonsense in an attempt to keep yourself ignorant of the fact that unbelievers can't do or know anything including ascertaining the truth and reality without using a believing mind to do so. You are wallowing around in nonsense old son, deliberately trying to hide away from the truth and reality, because the truth and reality is the product of God's believing mind.
It is not a strawman to correctly point out the ambiguity of your premise. The fact that you keep trying to make two completely different claims with the same ambiguous language is very much my point, as you prevent others from being able to answer clearly without first separating your claims, and you prevent yourself from understanding how and why others disagree with you. Continuing to conflate distinct claims is dishonest and renders your argument invalid.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
It is not a strawman to correctly point out the ambiguity of your premise. The fact that you keep trying to make two completely different claims with the same ambiguous language is very much my point, as you prevent others from being able to answer clearly without first separating your claims, and you prevent yourself from understanding how and why others disagree with you. Continuing to conflate distinct claims is dishonest and renders your argument invalid.

I am not making up anything silly, that's how atheism makes unbelievers ignorant of how and why the truth and reality is known, because the truth and reality is ONLY knowable in and with a believing kind. And completely unknowable to you in and with your unbelieving mind.

There is no ambiguity in what way and place that the truth and reality is known, because the truth and reality is ONLY knowable in and by a believing mind and outside of a believing mind it is unknowable.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
I am not making up anything silly, that's how atheism makes unbelievers ignorant of how and why the truth and reality is known, because the truth and reality is ONLY knowable in and with a believing kind. And completely unknowable to you in and with your unbelieving mind.

There is no ambiguity in what way and place that the truth and reality is known, because the truth and reality is ONLY knowable in and by a believing mind and outside of a believing mind it is unknowable.
Again, the ambiguity in your premise is that of failing to distinguish between locating knowledge (of reality) in a mind, and locating the things the knowledge is about (i.e. reality itself) in a mind. These are two different claims - one that everyone agrees with, and one that nobody agrees with - and continuing to conflate them is dishonest - it prevents you from understanding why people don't accept your arguments, and it renders those arguments invalid. Until you learn how to correct this error, you will continue to fail here, as you've been doing for over a decade now.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
You tell me. What is your first principle?

Everything is belief based. And if it isn't in the form of a belief, then it has nothing to do with the truth or reality. God tells us to believe for a reason, because He uses belief to do everything He does. God doesn't do things to us, rather He does it with us; He believes with us and that makes us a part of His truth and reality = His Kingdom.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Again, the ambiguity in your premise is that of failing to distinguish between locating knowledge (of reality) in a mind, and locating the things the knowledge is about (i.e. reality itself) in a mind. These are two different claims - one that everyone agrees with, and one that nobody agrees with - and continuing to conflate them is dishonest - it prevents you from understanding why people don't accept your arguments, and it renders those arguments invalid. Until you learn how to correct this error, you will continue to fail here, as you've been doing for over a decade now.
What ambiguity? You can't know anything without a believing mind silly. Get over it.
 

Woody50

Well-known member
Everything is belief based. And if it isn't in the form of a belief, then it has nothing to do with the truth or reality. God tells us to believe for a reason, because He uses belief to do everything He does. God doesn't do things to us, rather He does it with us; He believes with us and that makes us a part of His truth and reality = His Kingdom.
This isn't a trick question.

So funny.

I'll just chalk this up to yet another question you won't answer...because you can't.
 
Top