Where can the truth and reality be known to exist?

[Nouveau]

If you are confused by the argument, then the confusion is your own, because I didn't use the word "host" incorrectly and you cannot show that I did.

The confusion is yours, as this comment had nothing to do with your use of the term 'host'. This is what happens when you ignore a post for so long - you lose the context of what it was about. In this case the 'two meanings' referred to the ambiguity of your OP question, where you could be read as asking for either:

(1) A place other than a mind, where the knowledge of reality can exist; or
(2) A place other than a mind, that we can know of, where reality can exist.

Is YOUR "MIPUST" a mind, or is it belief based? Because if it isn't, then it is unknowable to us in reality, since everything we know to be true in and about reality is belief based and only known to exist in and by a believing mind.

As I already explained repeatedly, MIPUST is known by minds, but is not itself a mind or dependent on any mind in order to exist. That is the hypothesis. Again, can you give any reason - any reason at all - for denying MIPUST to be a possible candidate for reality?

lol, you are wallowing around in a self-imposed delusion. And you don't get to stipulate anything without an explanation as to how and why it is known to you, especially when the subject at hand is how and why the truth and reality is known to us.

I get to stipulate what it is that I am saying, and I've already told you repeatedly that MIPUST is known to us by our minds - it is known by minds but exists independently of minds. Can you show this to be impossible?

 

[Tercon]

I called it. Ambiguous language again.

No-one can have a false belief in something real, but one can really have a belief in something that isn't real.

Actually I am being much more specific than you are, Because when I say 'a belief in reality', I am refers to and denoting the truth in reality. For instance if a say I believe 'Donald J Trump is the president of the USA' is a belief in reality, and you mean it to be something else other than a belief in reality, like I provide for you, then it is you who is conflating a belief in reality with something else other than the truth and reality.

 

[Nouveau]

You're projecting, as if I mean what I say 'a belief in reality' refers to and denotes the truth in reality. For instance if a say I believe 'Donald J Trump is the president of the USA' is a belief in reality, and you mean it to be something else other than a belief in reality, like I provide for you, then it is you who is conflating a belief in reality with something else other than the truth and reality.

Then you are equivocating. What you were asked is whether people can have false beliefs. You have responded by denying that people can have false beliefs in something true. That is trivially obvious and not at all what you were asked.

 

[Tercon]

The confusion is yours, as this comment had nothing to do with your use of the term 'host'. This is what happens when you ignore a post for weeks - you lose the context of what it was about.

Deflection and evasion, show me where I used to word incorrectly?

In this case the 'two meanings' referred to (1) and (2) below:

(1) The KNOWLEDGE of reality's existence can only occur in a mind.
(2) The EXISTENCE of the reality which is known can only occur in a mind.

The problem isn't "two meanings", but your inability to show how and why the truth and reality existence is known to you outside and without the benefit of a believing mind in order to do so.

You use ambiguous language to express both with the same sentence.

Actually it is you who wallows in "ambiguous language" in order to hide the truth and reality from yourself, because belief and a believing mind is necessary in order to know anything to be true in or about reality.

As I already explained repeatedly, MIPUST in known by minds, but is not itself a mind or dependent on any mind in order to exist. That is the hypothesis. Again, can you give any reason - any reason at all - for denying MIPUST to be a possible candidate for reality?

Actually you cannot know anything about the truth or reality without a believing mind in order to make it known to you silly.

I get to stipulate what it is that I am saying, and I've already told you repeatedly that MIPUST is known to us by our minds - it is known by minds but exists independently of minds. Can you show this to be impossible?

Actually you're the one who is showing "this to be impossible", because it is you who cannot explain how and why "MIPUST" is known to you in reality.

 

[Tercon]

Then you are equivocating. What you were asked is whether people can have false beliefs. You have responded by denying that people can have false beliefs in something true. That is trivially obvious and not at all what you were asked.

People like YOU "have false beliefs", when YOU falsely believe they can know the truth or reality without a belief in reality. And you cannot be referring to and denoting the truth or reality by demonstrating how and why it isn't known to you silly.

 

[Nouveau]

People like YOU "have false beliefs"...

Then your answer to Whatsisface should have been a clear: "Yes, people can have false beliefs."

 

[Nouveau]

Deflection and evasion, show me where I used to word incorrectly?

The ambiguous language I was referring to was in your OP question, and I explained the ambiguity in my first post in this thread, where I answered both questions your ambiguous phrasing could be read as asking.

The problem isn't "two meanings"...

Yes, it is. You persistent ambiguous language is very much a problem.

Actually you cannot know anything about the truth or reality without a believing mind in order to make it known to you silly.

No-one is suggesting that knowledge is possible without a mind. And you didn't answer my question: Again, can you give any reason - any reason at all - for denying MIPUST to be a possible candidate for reality?

Actually you're the one who is showing "this to be impossible", because it is you who cannot explain how and why "MIPUST" is known to you in reality.

Please pay attention, I just told you how MIPUST is known to me. Can you disprove it or not?

 

[Tercon]

Such a barrier is not known to exist.

I believe that there is no difference between existence and what is known to exist, as both are ONLY known to occur and are known to occur in one way and place.

For someone who uses the word "if" such a lot, it is odd that you apparently don't know what it means.

The word "if" doesn't mean something isn't true in reality silly.

Not at all. Your argument is neither true nor logical.

Sure it is true and logical. And the illogical contradiction that you are picking up on is your own. See below.

There is nothing preventing a mind independent reality from existing. It is true that we don't know that it exists, but we don't know that it doesn't exist either.

Such a barrier is not known to exist.

Well you are contradicting yourself then, because you to seem to think that there is no difference or "barrier" between existence and what is known to exist.

 

[SteveB]

Ok.....
I'm guessing you're missing my previously made point.
This is about knowledge, following the act of trust.
One can believe, and not know, because they have not acted on that thing in which they've placed their belief.

The only act of knowing the truth that is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to us is belief, as we only act upon what we believe in to be true in reality.

Another of those features of Truth is--- that to know it's true, that belief requires acting on the truth.

If a belief in reality is necessary in order to make the truth known, then a belief in reality is what makes the truth known in reality.

Eg., I can believe that the key on my keyring will unlock my the door to my house, garage, car, mailbox, and storage lock, but until I actually use those keys, to unlock/lock those specific locks, I won't actually KNOW.....

No, if belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to us, then it is a belief in reality that makes the truth known to us. And what is "opinion-belief", it doesn't sound like a belief in reality? You cannot pretend you are referring to a belief in reality, because belief is still necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to you, no matter your "opinion" of what belief is.

It'll be nothing more than an opinion-belief.
Another example, I can indeed believe that the mini-oreo cookies I have in the little cup container I bought for a dollar taste good.... but until I do what I did, eat them, I won't actually KNOW they taste good.

This too is a basis of knowledge.....

That belief requires action for the knowledge we speak of to be experienced. Otherwise, it's nothing but an opinion.
This is why I say that atheism is nothing but a belief based on the lack of knowledge.
Btw.... those mini-oreos really tasted great!

Jesus said in John 17:3 that eternal life is knowing God, and Jesus whom God sent.
God says in Jeremiah 24:7 that he will give us a heart to know him.

I.e., God is providing the means and methods by which he may be known/knowable.

This is part of what James is saying when he talks about being a doer of the word, and not a hearer only.

When we believe that which is true, and act on that which is true, we experience the fact of that which is true, and it goes beyond a simple opinion, aka, a belief.

 

[Temujin]

I believe that there is no difference between existence and what is known to exist, as both are ONLY known to occur and are known to occur in one way and place.

How then do you account for previously unknown objects that become known? Did Pluto exist before it was discovered? If I have a secret possession that only I know about, does it remain in existence if I die? If yes, then that proves that there a class of objects that no-one knows about, which nevertheless exist.

The word "if" doesn't mean something isn't true in reality silly.

No. It means that something may or may not be true in reality. Both possibilities need to be taken into account.

Well you are contradicting yourself then, because you to seem to think that there is no difference or "barrier" between existence and what is known to exist.

I think that not being known to exist is not a barrier to things existing. Things that exist is a larger set than things that are known to exist. How much larger, we don't know. If and when we stop discovering things that previously were unknown, then we can say that the two sets are the same. Perhaps.

 

[Tercon]

Then you are equivocating. What you were asked is whether people can have false beliefs. You have responded by denying that people can have false beliefs in something true. That is trivially obvious and not at all what you were asked.

Strawman, rather I have shown that "false beliefs" cannot be known to exist in reality, because "false beliefs" cannot be "something true" in reality. Rather "false beliefs" are akin to unbelief or a contradiction instead.

 

[Tercon]

Then your answer to Whatsisface should have been a clear: "Yes, people can have false beliefs."

You have a "false belief" if you believe "false belief" exists in reality silly.

 

[Tercon]

The ambiguous language I was referring to was in your OP question, and I explained the ambiguity in my first post in this thread, where I answered both questions your ambiguous phrasing could be read as asking.

It isn't ambiguous at all, but that's just you projecting your unbelief unto a statement that is irrefutable and yet disbelieved by you.

Yes, it is. You persistent ambiguous language is very much a problem.

No, actually your pretending it is "persistent ambiguous language is very much a problem".

No-one is suggesting that knowledge is possible without a mind. And you didn't answer my question: Again, can you give any reason - any reason at all - for denying MIPUST to be a possible candidate for reality?

Yes, because you cannot know any truth without a belief in reality and because the ONLY thing capable of belief is a mind, then all knowledge of the truth necessarily presupposes the existence of a believing mind in order for existence. As no-one including you can experience knowledge without a mind, no more than you can experience existence without a mind.

Please pay attention, I just told you how MIPUST is known to me. Can you disprove it or not?

Strawman. As if it is true that your "MIPUST" is known to you in reality and it isn't dependent on a mind for its existence, then explain how "MIPUST" is known to you without the benefit of your believing mind in order to make it known to you in reality silly?

 

[Tercon]

How then do you account for previously unknown objects that become known? Did Pluto exist before it was discovered? If I have a secret possession that only I know about, does it remain in existence if I die? If yes, then that proves that there a class of objects that no-one knows about, which nevertheless exist.

I don't have to, since it is you who has to show how you know "previously unknown objects" are known to exist without the benefit of a believing mind making them known to you and not me silly.

And since "previously unknown objects" aren't known to exist in reality, rather it is only a belief in reality that makes the truth and reality known. And whereas consciousness like reality is ONLY knowable in the present tense and unknowable in the past and future, then it is ONLY a believing mind that makes reality known and consciousness possible.

No. It means that something may or may not be true in reality. Both possibilities need to be taken into account.

No, actually in reality if something is true, then it is true in reality. And whereas all knowledge of the truth and reality requires a believing mind in order to make the truth and reality known to us, then the only logical response to 'if something is true in reality' is belief, because that is what it makes the truth known to us in reality.

I think that not being known to exist is not a barrier to things existing.

Illogical nonsense, if YOU "think that not being known" "is not a barrier to things existing", then explain how and why YOU "think" or know something exists including existence itself without the benefit of a believing mind and "not being known" of its existence.

Things that exist is a larger set than things that are known to exist. How much larger, we don't know. If and when we stop discovering things that previously were unknown, then we can say that the two sets are the same. Perhaps.

Actually the set I am referring to and denoting here is reality; and in reality everything that exists is only known to exist in reality. Therefore, the primary set of every that exists can ONLY be known to exist in reality. And the ONLY place that the truth and reality can be known is in and by a believing mind. Therefore, reality must be a believing mind, why? Because it is ONLY a believing mind that can make the truth and reality known to exist and without a believing mind the truth and reality are unknowable.

 

[Nouveau]

Strawman, rather I have shown that "false beliefs" cannot be known to exist in reality, because "false beliefs" cannot be "something true" in reality. Rather "false beliefs" are akin to unbelief or a contradiction instead.

So false beliefs don't exist. Got it.

You have a "false belief" if you believe "false belief" exists in reality silly.

Oops, but now they do! Want to try that again?

You are obviously confusing act and object again. There are people who believe in Allah. That belief is false because Allah does not exist. But the belief still exists. It is just that the belief is false. The belief is the existing act. Allah is the nonexistent object of that belief.

 

[Nouveau]

It isn't ambiguous at all, but that's just you projecting your unbelief unto a statement that is irrefutable and yet disbelieved by you. No, actually your pretending it is "persistent ambiguous language is very much a problem".

It is ambiguous and I'm not pretending. I proved it to be ambiguous in my first post in this thread, where I showed you the two different things your OP question might mean.

Yes, because you cannot know any truth without a belief in reality and because the ONLY thing capable of belief is a mind, then all knowledge of the truth necessarily presupposes the existence of a believing mind in order for existence. As no-one including you can experience knowledge without a mind, no more than you can experience existence without a mind.

I'm not suggesting we can have knowledge or experience without a mind. I asked you if you could disprove MIPUST as a candidate for reality, and nothing you've said here is even close to being relevant to what I asked.

Strawman. As if it is true that your "MIPUST" is known to you in reality and it isn't dependent on a mind for its existence, then explain how "MIPUST" is known to you without the benefit of your believing mind in order to make it known to you in reality silly?

I answered that a dozen times already. MIPUST is known by my believing mind, but does not depend on any mind in order to exist. Can you rule out this possibility or not? So far you've you've just avoided the question by repeatedly asking how MIPUST is known, and then ignoring my answer.

 

[Temujin]

I don't have to, since it is you who has to show how you know "previously unknown objects" are known to exist without the benefit of a believing mind making them known to you and not me silly.

And since "previously unknown objects" aren't known to exist in reality, rather it is only a belief in reality that makes the truth and reality known. And whereas consciousness like reality is ONLY knowable in the present tense and unknowable in the past and future, then it is ONLY a believing mind that makes reality known and consciousness possible.This is simply untrue. You are suggesting that nothing is ever discovered, since previously unknown objects don't exist. This is just nonsense.

Illogical nonsense, if YOU "think that not being known" "is not a barrier to things existing", then explain how and why YOU "think" or know something exists including existence itself without the benefit of a believing mind and "not being known" of its existence.

You are correct. What you say here is illogical nonsense. I know that thinks exist which I did not know about before, which I do know exist now. Several planets spring to mind. Today I discovered the existence of a dinosaur named "Irritator challenger". It has been known in the scientific world since 2996. It lived 110 million years ago. Its existence and knowledge of its existence are two separate timeliness. Your position seems to be that the sum of all knowledge is the sum of all things that exist. This is clearly wrong in the past and continues to be proved wrong with every new discovery.

Actually the set I am referring to and denoting here is reality; and in reality everything that exists is only known to exist in reality.

Wrong.
There is no logical reason why this should be the case. Your assertion has no basis in fact.

Therefore, the primary set of every that exists can ONLY be known to exist in reality. And the ONLY place that the truth and reality can be known is in and by a believing mind. Therefore, reality must be a believing mind, why? Because it is ONLY a believing mind that can make the truth and reality known to exist and without a believing mind the truth and reality are unknowable.

More nonsense. Your conflation of existing and being known to exist continues to be faulty. Just saying the same thing in more convoluted language doesn't make what you say true. It is a simple fact that not all things that exist are known to exist.

 

[Tercon]

So false beliefs don't exist. Got it.

Oops, but now they do! Want to try that again?

Strawman, actually "false beliefs" don't exist in reality. And it is only when you falsely believe "false beliefs" exist in your mind is when you are deceived. Like you are demonstrating right here and now.

You are obviously confusing act and object again. There are people who believe in Allah. That belief is false because Allah does not exist. But the belief still exists. It is just that the belief is false. The belief is the existing act. Allah is the nonexistent object of that belief.

Actually if "false beliefs" have no object of belief that exists in reality, then "false beliefs" are not beliefs in reality, because in reality it is only the truth and a believing mind that can be known to exist. And outside of a believing mind nothing is able to be known to exist.

 

[Five Solas]

Actually if "false beliefs" have no object of belief that exists in real

You're committed here to proving false propositions do not exist.

 

[Tercon]

You're committed here to proving false propositions do not exist.

And which "false propositions" are you referring to?