I assert they are independent of our human minds. Can you show me a mind that is necessary for them to exist, a necessary mind?
Yes, your mind.
You insist mind is necessary for the existence of the physical. Which mind? Is your mind necessary for such existence?
All minds. And yes, my mind is necessary.
I say they will exist if you do not.
I do and will always exist. Existence is not the same as survival. Existence is the quintessential ontological expression; survival is a stall to corporeal harm or decay.
I will still perceive and experience the physical.
Not without your mind, thereby eliding the premise of my challenge.
So, how can one know? On the impossibility of the contrary. Some things are just plain illogical and irrational to think. They make no sense. They go against what coherent.
Do not simply assert that which you do not comprehend as incoherent/irrational. Demonstrate the incoherence/irrationality.
Even so, you are welcome to think such nonsense.
Have we come to this point where one is indulging "nonsense"? Suffices to say that there is something to be said for one who spouts "nonsense." There's also something to be said for someone to call that with which one disagrees "nonsense" especially when there's a lack of comprehension and counterfactual.
Your limited, subjective mind does not have what is necessary.
And your mind is not subjective, I presume?
I will argue that you are not having this conversation with yourself.
The inconsistency of your thinking is troubling to me who claims I exist apart from you
I extend my previous statement. You're also imputing a straw man argument.
No math, no logic - how so? God (in three Persons), is that necessary mindfulness that we originate from and owe our being. How is that irrational? From the living comes life. From conscious beings come other conscious beings. From the loving come other loving beings. From personal beings come other personal beings. From intelligent mindful beings come other intelligent, mindful beings. Do you ever witness otherwise?
I extend my previous statement.
What I am saying is that your mind is not necessary for physicality.
Then demonstrate physicality without the use of your mind; you can't use logic, science, math, language or words. I wish you luck.
So what I am saying is that this physicality is not something that depends on your mind or mine. They are not necessary for it. This same physicality would exist if either you or I did not,
Can you confirm that? How would you go about this confirmation if you have to both isolate and nullify the use of your mind?
or do you believe there is only you and you are having a conversation with yourself?
If so, I'll leave you to do that. In such a case, I would suggest you re-examine yourself. With such thinking, you are obviously capable of more than you give yourself credit for! Why not just materialize your heart's desire?
Both introspection and that for which I give myself "credit" are irrelevant.
What I am saying is which mind is necessary for physicality?
Is it yours alone?
As it concerns my subjective experience, yes.
That is just my point, you don't know Him.
You're repeating what I just told you.
Why? Because logically there can only be one true and living God,
Why? Why is it logically necessary that God exists in exclusion to all others?
and I believe that God is the God revealed in the Bible.
What does that have to do with a logical necessity?
I state that based on many pieces of evidence and will gladly argue for this God against your belief. Is that sufficient?
Against my belief? I do not dispute the existence of God. (In fact, I on several occasions demonstrated the existence of God.) So against which "belief" would you argue?
How do you test for Tien's existence?
What kind of proof has Tien left you that he/she/it actually exists?
The writings and teachings of Confucius.
What is that
and how do you verify it is true?
Through the fact that it was believed and is believed; that it was perceived and is perceived.
If your god is not a personal being, as you state, how did you get this "Mandate of Heaven and Confucius?" Did Confucius just invent it?
"My" God once again does not register. And you'd have to ask Confucius about the origin of the Mandate. I 'd presume Tien. It would be no less "invented" than the Bible, Torah, or Qu'ran.
Because I believe the evidence points to the Jewish Scriptures as related to the Christian Scriptures and speak of the same God, just in a greater revelation.
What is this evidence and what is its nature?
Really? What is Tien then? I will stop using the pronouns "he" or "she" and call Tien "it."
Tien is a deity.
How do you account for consciousness and personhood if Tien is not personal?
Why would one attribute consciousness and personhood to Tien or any other deity? Aren't you just projecting?
What is it, then?
God is God; Tien is Tien. "My" has nothing to do with it.
Are you a pantheist or panentheist then?
It matters a lot. Is your god real (exists) or a figment of your imagination.
You still haven't answered my question. What do you mean by actual? Material or does the distinction not matter?
Do words have meaning or have you lost the law of identity to your vocabulary? (I.e., A=A)
Yes, words have meaning, and no, the law of identity doesn't apply to vocabulary.
Words convey a specific meaning.
No, they do not. A single word can have several meanings. Case in point: "mine." Tell me the meaning of this word. (Note: I did not provide context, so be cautious.)
They represent and are necessary for communication. Don't blur the difference between a house and a factory without qualifying what you mean. House =/= factory. House = house. Factory = factory.
Your proposition is sufficient as long as you substantiate it. Demonstrate that a House =/= Factory. That is, demonstrate that the description of a house excludes a factory, and vice versa.
A house is a living abode. We don't usually have our abode in factories. A house has a place to eat, a place to sleep and a place to s_ _ t. A factory does not usually have a place to sleep. A word that describes the place we sleep is called a bedroom when it is walled and separated from other areas. Yes, some people do not have such rooms. I speak of what is common.
Demonstrating a logical contradiction has nothing to do with your impressions. You're not asked to speak to that which is "common;" you're asked to speak to that which is descriptive. And thus far, you have not done this. You're merely projecting your opinion as description.
A factory does not usually have bedrooms. Houses usually do have bedrooms.
A bedroom is a place where people sleep. Do you really intend to extend this argument to its logical conclusion?
I have not argued a building called a house cannot ALSO act as a factory or visa versa. To call a house a factory would be adding to our normal understanding of what a factory is and such distinction needs to be qualified since what is meant is not in the standard meaning of the word factory, to call it a house. The definition of a house is not the same as that of a factory. To call the two the same needs qualification. If the BUILDING you call home also is being used as a factory I have no beef about that.
Both a house and a factory are buildings. That's a non-issue. A house can be and is used to produce goods. A factory can be used as a dwelling and/or place to sleep. Your projections of usual behavior has no bearing on that fact. And that's my point. If you're going to state that I've made a logical contradiction, then you're going to have to do more than just state that which you think is usually done. So, I'll make it simple: can you or can you not find a description of either a house or factory that precludes one from the other?
I appeal to common sense.
Yes, that would be another word for it, and that would still be logically fallacious reasoning.
What I am saying is don't blur the distinction that gives words meaning (in context) without qualifying what you mean.
I'm only "blurring" the distinctions you've projected, not that which is part of their (house and factory) descriptions.