Why can't unbelievers know the truth and reality of God.

Tercon

Well-known member
Your language is ambiguous to everyone, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, and you are reduced to dishonestly evading our questions because you know you are wrong.

There is no dishonesty in the ONLY way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist and occur, when it can ONLY be known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind. I have noticed that you have given up on your "MIPUST" fantasy of late and gone with the "ambiguity" scheme instead.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Why will no not answer this question?

Do you understand that the following two statements mean two very different things?

a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist.
b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known.

What other way or place can the truth and reality be known to exist and occur outside of a believing mind silly?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
There is no dishonesty in the ONLY way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist and occur, when it can ONLY be known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind. I have noticed that you have given up on your "MIPUST" fantasy of late and gone with the "ambiguity" scheme instead.
Your dishonesty is in denying the ambiguity even after it has been pointed out, and then in refusing to answer our questions about it. MIPUST remains the correct answer to one version of what your ambiguous question might mean. But it doesn't seem to matter what I focus on - your evasion remains unchanged.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Your language is ambiguous to everyone, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, and you are reduced to dishonestly evading our questions because you know you are wrong.

You are conflating ambiguity and your unbelief, because there is no ambiguity in how and why the truth and reality is known to us, and you have continuously demonstrated that it isn't known to you.

Both are ONLY knowable in and by a believing mind and in NO other way or place can the truth and reality be known to occur or exist silly.

If the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, then it is only a believing mind that can know that the truth and reality exist.

And if this isn't true, then name another way or place outside of a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known exist and occur.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Your dishonesty is in denying the ambiguity even after it has been pointed out, and then in refusing to answer our questions about it. MIPUST remains the correct answer to one version of what your ambiguous question might mean. But it doesn't seem to matter what I focus on - your evasion remains unchanged.

You are being dishonest in feigning ambiguity and denying how and why the truth and reality is known. And then pretending "MIPUST" "is the "answer to one version of what your" ignorance "might mean". The atheist problem seems to be what it always was; your ignorance caused by your unbelief of the truth and reality.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You are conflating ambiguity and your unbelief, because there is no ambiguity in how and why the truth and reality is known to us, and you have continuously demonstrated that it isn't known to you.

Both are ONLY knowable in and by a believing mind and in NO other way or place can the truth and reality be known to occur or exist silly.

If the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, then it is only a believing mind that can know that the truth and reality exist.

And if this isn't true, then name another way or place outside of a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known exist and occur.
You need to deal with the ambiguity. Locating knowledge and locating existence are two different claims. Using the same language to express two different claims is to be ambiguous.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You are being dishonest in feigning ambiguity and denying how and why the truth and reality is known. And then pretending "MIPUST" "is the "answer to one version of what your" ignorance "might mean". The atheist problem seems to be what it always was; your ignorance caused by your unbelief of the truth and reality.
Deal with the ambiguity. And then explain why MIPUST cannot be the correct answer for where reality is located.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
You need to deal with the ambiguity. Locating knowledge and locating existence are two different claims. Using the same language to express two different claims is to be ambiguous.
Deal with the ambiguity. And then explain why MIPUST cannot be the correct answer for where reality is located.

There is no ambiguity as to how and why the truth and reality is known to occur. The truth and reality can ONLY be known to occur in and with a believing mind and in and with YOUR unbelieving atheist mind it cannot be known to occur., because the truth and reality requires a way and place in order to be known to occur and the ONLY way and place that it can known to occur is in and with a believing mind. And you have not and cannot show otherwise. And in spite of all the projecting of your insidious unbelief, a believing mind remains the ONLY mode by which the truth and reality can be known to occur.

And if you think "MIPUST" is the "correct answer for where reality is located", then "MIPUST" must be a mind as well, because it is only in and with a believing mind that reality can be known to occur silly.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
There is no ambiguity...
What would it take to convince you that your language is ambiguous? You know, other than multiple posters repeatedly showing you the ambiguity in question and explaining it to you in detail? Then asking you questions that you are forced to run away from? I mean, is there something more we can do to help you see it?

And if you think "MIPUST" is the "correct answer for where reality is located", then "MIPUST" must be a mind as well...
Nope. It's a non-mind alternative location for reality. The one you keep asking for and then completely failing to address.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
What would it take to convince you that your language is ambiguous? You know, other than multiple posters repeatedly showing you the ambiguity in question and explaining it to you in detail? Then asking you questions that you are forced to run away from? I mean, is there something more we can do to help you see it?


Nope. It's a non-mind alternative location for reality. The one you keep asking for and then completely failing to address.

I would say that YOUR insidious conjuring is mindless to say the least.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
I would say that YOUR insidious conjuring is mindless to say the least.
Why will you not answer this question?

Do you understand that the following two statements mean two very different things?

a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist.
b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Why will you not answer this question?

Do you understand that the following two statements mean two very different things?

a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist.
b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known.

Why can't you see; if "only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist", then "the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind" silly?
 

Algor

Active member
Why do you keep evading our questions?
Serious point here.....

You are encountering a perfectly closed, sterile loop that smacks strongly of monomania and borders on frank delusion. I have to wonder if engaging has entirely healthy consequences.

I mean, it's years, and the words and phrases are unchanged.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Serious point here.....

You are encountering a perfectly closed, sterile loop that smacks strongly of monomania and borders on frank delusion. I have to wonder if engaging has entirely healthy consequences.

I mean, it's years, and the words and phrases are unchanged.
Why do you keep evading our questions?

Strawman and projection. I am open to belief and unbelievers are closed to it. So, who operating from "a perfectly closed, sterile loop" silly? If you can't know anything without a belief in reality and unbelievers reject belief as incapable of making the truth and reality known, then it is unbelievers like you that are deluded.
Unbelievers can't even be convinced of the necessity and the logical consequences of consciousness for WFC and entanglement to occur.
 

Algor

Active member
If you can't know anything without a belief in reality and unbelievers reject belief as incapable of making the truth and reality known, then it is unbelievers like you that are deluded.

Yes. You said the same thing to me years ago.

Do you often find that people have a hard time following your ideas?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Strawman and projection. I am open to belief and unbelievers are closed to it. So, who operating from "a perfectly closed, sterile loop" silly? If you can't know anything without a belief in reality and unbelievers reject belief as incapable of making the truth and reality known, then it is unbelievers like you that are deluded.
Unbelievers can't even be convinced of the necessity and the logical consequences of consciousness for WFC and entanglement to occur.
But why do you keep evading our questions?
 
Top