What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

So what? A definite work in your subjective eyes. So what? What exactly is he saying that you favour?

Yes, there is a chance to ask him to be accountable and when he is not expose his thinking as biased or unsound. IMO, there is an extreme confirmational bias going on here on his part. If he is not open to a fair exchange where both sides have their questions met then I will discontinue.

I have never displayed "an extreme confirmational bias" and I ask you to explain what on earth you are talking about.

I have always been open to discussion. 

Perhaps you may be more than a little prejudiced against those who (quite rightly and justifiably with sound evidence and reason) question the unfounded and absurd beliefs of others.

 In other words, if you have a question, have the guts to ask it instead of pussy-footing around with unfounded, wild insinuations.

So what? A definite work in your subjective eyes. So what? What exactly is he saying that you favour?

No, a universally definitive and accepted work which presents irrefutable facts.

Have you read the book?

Can you quote one section that is incorrect?

Who are you and why are you answering for  wlws9? Is  wlws9 an alias? If so, answer my questions like I've addressed your statements and questions.

 If he is not open to a fair exchange where both sides have their questions met then I will discontinue.

You know perfectly well who I am just as you know perfectly we'll who Richard Dawkins is.

I have already presented you with the relevant and viable reference (The Greatest Show on Earth) which still stands as undeniable proof of evolution by natural selection.

That is your presupposition, your personal opinion, built upon a particular worldview, or do you have concrete evidence as my previous comment asks?

The irrefutable evidence is that life was formed through evolution by natural selection and there is no evidence whatsoever as to life being intended.

The undisputed evidence that backs my claim is clearly and comprehensively tabled in the book by Richard Dawkins...The Greatest Show On Earth.

Are you able to present any concrete evidence that contradicts such facts?

I quoted Richard Dawkins and "The Greatest Show On Earth" as a definitive work on the fact that life evolved as a result of evolution through natural selection.

The findings are irrefutable and fully backed up with carefully researched evidence, none of which has been successfully challenged.

So, the fact of evolution through natural selection stands and any notion or theory of creation is completely nullified. There is no God and life was not created.

Who are you and why are you answering for  wlws9? Is  wlws9 an alias? If so, answer my questions like I've addressed your statements and questions.

You know perfectly well who I am just as you know perfectly we'll who Richard Dawkins is.

I have formally studied the Bible and the science of evolution. My opinion is not biased but fully backed up and correct.

You have been unable to refute my claims and if you insist that you believe that Jesus Christ is still alive I suggest that you are deluded or at best, very naive, impressionable and gullible.

 If he is not open to a fair exchange where both sides have their questions met then I will discontinue.

I'm completely open to fair exchange.

The problem is that it can never be a "fair" exchange since all my assertions are correct and can (and have been, as you very well know) by solid facts and reason.

I accept that you are at a disadvantage since none of your wild statements relating to religion can be backed up since you have not one iota of truth or evidence to back them up. 

But I am open to discussion....if you have any proof to back up why Jesus Christ exists bring it on and stop the pussy-footing around with the well worn tactic of "answer my questions".

Yes, I believe Jesus Christ is alive. That is a reasonable belief.

Billions have believed this throughout history. Over 2 billion currently or one third of the world's population identify as Christians. While the number is likely significantly smaller as to actual true believers, the number is still huge. While the number that believes exceeds any other religious belief (I include atheism) that does not necessarily make it true, it does show that a bigger percentage of any one religious belief acknowledges Jesus.

1. Jesus Christ is a historical Person. 

2. The Christian faith is based on Him. 

3. He is the central Person in both testaments.

4. He and the OT prophecied the destruction of Jerusalem. This happened in AD 70.

5. Every NT writing was written before AD 70.

Yes, I believe Jesus Christ is alive. That is a reasonable belief.

Alive in what sense? Not the corporeal sense, clearly, correct? That's the common definition of "alive." If you're talking about a different sense, can you clarify? I'm not sure you think the remainder of that paragraph is evidence or arguments that support your position, but it's not even close. You say as much yourself:

Billions have believed this throughout history. Over 2 billion currently or one third of the world's population identify as Christians. While the number is likely significantly smaller as to actual true believers, the number is still huge. While the number that believes exceeds any other religious belief (I include atheism) that does not necessarily make it true, it does show that a bigger percentage of any one religious belief acknowledges Jesus.

This is appeal to popularity, not to mention there are more non-Christians than Christians, plus it ignores the thousands of years of human history that predates Christianity and the religious beliefs therein, which be necessity would have to be non-Christian. It's an observation at best, assertion at worst (not really backed up by much), but in any case "well lots of people believed it, therefore it's probably more true than not" is just strange. I thought your arguments for Jesus were basically "math works, therefore the bible's real" and some sort of oblique prophecy that combines scripture with non-scripture and a bunch of imagery from some dude's dream 1500 years ago about a temple. Needless to say these are less than compelling. 

1. Jesus Christ is a historical Person. 

2. The Christian faith is based on Him. 

3. He is the central Person in both testaments.

4. He and the OT prophecied the destruction of Jerusalem. This happened in AD 70.

5. Every NT writing was written before AD 70.

Is it not possible that the Christian faith was based on a mythological figure from an oral tradition? I mean, you think every other religion is basically that. You must have evidence for JEsus being historically real, which I'd like to see. Evidence, not argument or logic or it seems reasonable, though. 2 and 3 don't need 1. Jerusalem exists today, so 4 is wrong.  

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?

You insist mind is necessary for the existence of the physical. Which mind? Is your mind necessary for such existence?

I say they will exist if you do not.

I will still perceive and experience the physical.

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.

Even so, you are welcome to think such nonsense.

Your limited, subjective mind does not have what is necessary.

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

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? 

What I am saying is that your mind is not necessary for physicality.

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,

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?

What I am saying is which mind is necessary for physicality?

Is it yours alone?

That is just my point, you don't know Him.

Why? Because logically there can only be one true and living God,

and I believe that God is the God revealed in the Bible.

I state that based on many pieces of evidence and will gladly argue for this God against your belief. Is that sufficient?

How do you test for Tien's existence?

What kind of proof has Tien left you that he/she/it actually exists?

What is that

and how do you verify it is true?

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?

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.

Really? What is Tien then? I will stop using the pronouns "he" or "she" and call Tien "it."

How do you account for consciousness and personhood if Tien is not personal?

What is it, then?

Are you a pantheist or panentheist then? 

It matters a lot. Is your god real (exists) or a figment of your imagination.  

Do words have meaning or have you lost the law of identity to your vocabulary? (I.e., A=A)

Words convey a specific meaning.

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.

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.

A factory does not usually have bedrooms. Houses usually do have bedrooms.

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. 

I appeal to common sense.

What I am saying is don't blur the distinction that gives words meaning (in context) without qualifying what you mean. 

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 is 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. 

Non sequitur.

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?

Non sequitur.

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?

All minds.

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?

My mind is not necessary. The physical would still exist if I did not. It would just not be known by me. 

All minds, yet if you did not exist I would still be aware of the physical, so your mind is not necessary for its existence.

If I did not exist, you would still be aware of the physical, so my mind is not necessary for its existence.

It was here before either of us existed, so our minds are not necessary for its existence.

Yet without a necessary mind - the eternal God - would the physical universe exist?

Yet, there was a time when you did not.

According to your profile, granting it is true, you were born 01 January 1930 (that makes you more of an antique than I am) so you had a beginning.

Did the universe exist before that time (just not to you)? If you say no, are you (meaning me) the only person in the universe and are your (am I) playing games with yourself (myself) out of shear loneliness?

But the distinction is whether either of our minds are necessary to experience the physical and I know that I would still experience it without you existing.

I'm sure you believe the same about me.

I'm not just asserting it. It is a logical impossibility. Some things are just illogical to think and thinking them makes no sense.

I.e.,

One apple plus one apply equals three apples.

A "dog" is a word we use (it represents something) to describe a particular type of animal. When we speak of a dog we are not speaking at the same time of a cat. A=A. It has its own identity.  A dog is a dog. A dog is not a cat. 

Something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in reference to the same thing. It is either true or it is false. It is either true that it is raining outside my house at this minute or it is not true. It cannot be both true and false at the same time. 

Truth is not false.

If you think such things that go against the laws of logic, yes. The laws of logic are necessary for meaningful conversation.

Oh yes, it is. I am not relying on my mind alone but on the mind of God, in as much as I understand His mind.

When I correctly think and interpret His communications I think in an objective manner.

I'm questioning whether you think you are all that exists?

I'm trying to find out what you think.

You are playing games

You state things that seem illogical or at least inconsistent. You seem to think that your mind is necessary for the existence of the physical universe yet if you did not exist I would still perceive it. 

Again, it boils down to the question of if you did not exist would the universe still exist? I say that based on my experience it would. My parents are both dead, but the universe is still here. It did not depend on their existence for it to have being.

I can't without using my mind, but my mind is not necessary for its existence because whether I exist or not it would still be here. Whether I existed or not, words, language, maths would still be evident to those who still exist unless you think that you are the only one in existence, then I leave you to argue further with yourself.

I confirm it by experience. I see that it did not depend on the various people I know who have died. They were not necessary for the physical to exist. It exists apart from them. They were only necessary to experience it. 

Once you say you are necessary for the physical existence of the universe I take unbridge with that.

If your mind did not exist would the universe still physically exist to other minds, or is your mind the only mind?

No, that is not the question. It is not about your subjective experience but about whether you believe the universe would exist for others if you did not.

Do you believe there are any others? Or is this all about you?

And because you don't know Him you are wrong about Him. 

Because every other god contradicts. To establish this all I would have to do is get you to describe your god and what you think that god is like.

I have already seen that the god you talk about is not the same God I believe in.

Thus, logically, one of us is wrong in our belief. That is a law of logic.

It states that two contrary things cannot both be true at the same time concerning the same thing. 

He meets the requirements of what is necessary to know about origins.

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?

Non sequitur.

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?

All minds.

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?

Perception.

What kind of proof has Tien left you that he/she/it actually exists?

The writings and teachings of Confucius.

What is that

The Mandate of Heaven

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? 

No.

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.

My mind is not necessary. The physical would still exist if I did not. It would just not be known by me. 

You cannot confirm anything about your nonexistence because you do exist. You are making bald assertions based on assumptions. You "assume" that there's a physical without the mind.d

All minds, yet if you did not exist I would still be aware of the physical, so your mind is not necessary for its existence.

You're entertaining a condition that is not logical. Once again: I do and will always exist; existence is not the same as survival.

If I did not exist, you would still be aware of the physical, so my mind is not necessary for its existence.

Yes, because my mind in my own experience is operative and necessary, just as yours is.

This does not inform and independent existence outside of our minds' rationalization. The minute you share your experiences with me, my mind automatically transmutes it and conforms it to my perceptions. Our perceptions have facilitated a standardization of communication which is--and this is important--common, not independent.

It was here before either of us existed, so our minds are not necessary for its existence.

How have you confirmed this?

Yet without a necessary mind - the eternal God - would the physical universe exist?

Physical is a manifestation of perception. The mind rationalizes and informs perception. Any scrutiny outside the bounds of the mind is epistemologically insignificant.

Yet, there was a time when you did not.

Can you confirm this?

According to your profile, granting it is true, you were born 01 January 1930 (that makes you more of an antique than I am) so you had a beginning.

My sentience had a beginning. (And my profile is an exaggeration save my native language and country of origin.)

Did the universe exist before that time (just not to you)? If you say no, are you (meaning me) the only person in the universe and are your (am I) playing games with yourself (myself) out of shear loneliness?

Yes, it was just as much of an expression of the perceptions and mental faculties of those who preceded me. And my "loneliness" is none of your concern. We are discussing mind over matter, so to speak, not the emotions you allege I have.

But the distinction is whether either of our minds are necessary to experience the physical and I know that I would still experience it without you existing.

Non sequitur. No one has argued that I'm necessary for you to have an experience, albeit physical. It is being argued that the "mind" is necessary. And you have a mind.

I'm sure you believe the same about me.

I cannot perceive you without the use of my mind. Your existence ndependent of my subjective experience is insignificant as it concerns me. That is not to say, that it bears to no significance to you.

I'm not just asserting it. It is a logical impossibility. Some things are just illogical to think and thinking them makes no sense.

I.e.,

One apple plus one apply equals three apples.

How is it a logical impossibility? One plus one equals two so long as the descriptions of each number are defined to make that statement true. Change the definitions and it's no longer an impossibility. And words, numbers,  and descriptions are, as you had put it earlier, "figments of the imagination." There are no material characteristics or chemical properties to numbers, so do they exist?

You miss the point and are overthinking. I can demonstrate physicality without using YOUR mind, so your mind is not necessary for the existence of the physical. And you can explain and show physicality without the existence of my mind, so physicality is not dependent on my mind thinking it.

If you did not exist, I could still show other mindful beings that it still hurts to get run over by a speeding bus or for me to hit another mindful being with a hammer, causing a contusion as a minimal consequence.

You seem to be suggesting that nothing exists if your mind does not exist since your mind is the necessary mind for it to exist.

Now, if no mind existed, there would be no one to know it existed, thus would it exist? If so, how did the physical make it possible for us thinking, conscious beings who are aware of its existence unless the physical universe is created in itself by a necessary mind who in turn creates other limited mindful beings?

That is what we continually find when we examine the universe. Mindful processes are found to be in operation that we discover, not invent. They existed before we discovered them.

Then why is your mind the necessary mind for the existence of the physical since you believe your mind is needed for there to be a physical reality?

No, that is not true. Some mindful beings no longer exist or are non-functioning in this physical realm.

Thus, not all minds are necessary for its physiology.

Yes, your ignorance of Him distorts who He is.

Instead of worshiping the Creator, you worship a graven image, what you suppose God to be, not what He is.

You manufacture God based on another subjective beings (Confucius) feelings of God.

Three reasons: The law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middles.

He has what is necessary, a personal God, an omniscient God, an unchanging God, an eternal God, an omnipotent God, a benevolent God, a revealed God. He gives us verification.

How does Confucius, other than his subjective writings and musings about God reveal God?

Yes, I argue against yours as found in Confucius, based on the biblical God's revelation. The biblical God who is knowable and has made Himself known is my reason.

As I said before, each perception is different.

My understanding of God is different than yours.

One of us is most definitely wrong since we understand God differently.

Confucius was a man. What makes him infallible or even correct about God?

Again, written by ONE man. Why should he be believed?

People believe all kinds of things that are not true. What are the internal pieces of evidence that what is said is true?

There you have it. I can't ask Confucius.

You presume. I'm asking for your evidence that your particular belief is a reasonable belief.

The Bible has many verifiable proofs; one of the most reasonable is prophecy. Another is the unity of the Bible. Each of the 66 writings written by around forty different authors, presents a typology of the Lord Jesus Christ. What is spoken of God in the OT is spoken of Jesus in the NT! There are at least eight NT writers that claim 1st-hand knowledge of witnessing Jesus and His resurrection.

How many 1st-hand witnesses were there that Confucius could cite regarding Tien?

The 66 writings I spoke of a few paragraphs ago.

What does that mean? Is Tien a person? If so, describe Tien's personality.

Why? Because we are personal beings. How does personhood come from the impersonal? How does consciousness come from that which is devoid of it? How does agency come from something devoid of intent. You have to be mindful to have intent. If Tien is not personal, I want to know how personhood originates.

Are you saying Tien is not a personal being? If so, your god difference from the biblical God. Thus, logically one of us is wrong in our perception of God and I say that it is you. 

That means nothing. It is a tautology.

You are playing games

I do not play games in serious discussions.

You state things that seem illogical or at least inconsistent. You seem to think that your mind is necessary for the existence of the physical universe yet if you did not exist I would still perceive it. 

Seem is not an argument; Yes my mind is necessary for and informs my subjective perception of the physical, just as your mind is necessary for and informs your subjective perception of the physical.

Again, it boils down to the question of if you did not exist would the universe still exist? I say that based on my experience it would. My parents are both dead, but the universe is still here. It did not depend on their existence for it to have being.

No, this is a question that you are projecting. Once again, you are making references to survival, not existence (i.e. your parents' death state.)

I can't without using my mind, but my mind is not necessary for its existence because whether I exist or not it would still be here. Whether I existed or not, words, language, maths would still be evident to those who still exist unless you think that you are the only one in existence, then I leave you to argue further with yourself.

You cannot perceive your own nonexistence. Nonexistence is imperceptible. You would know "nothing" because you'd be "nothing." You're only making assumptions about that which lies outside of your mind; you have not confirmed this; you have not controlled for it. You merely reference a commonality in communication (i.e. logic, math, science, etc.) as independent without demonstration. You're speaking to the "intersubjective," not the "objective."

I confirm it by experience. I see that it did not depend on the various people I know who have died. They were not necessary for the physical to exist. It exists apart from them. They were only necessary to experience it. 

What experience? And how did you control for that experience independent of your own mind? Once again, death is not the same as non-existence.

Once you say you are necessary for the physical existence of the universe I take unbridge with that.

This is projection. Quote me verbatim.

If your mind did not exist would the universe still physically exist to other minds, or is your mind the only mind?

My mind is not the only mind; but this has no significance independent of my mind, because its mere notion is produced and informed by mind.

No, that is not the question. It is not about your subjective experience but about whether you believe the universe would exist for others if you did not.

Your questions have been based on projections and non sequiturs. I cannot perceive my own nonexistence, and thus I do not offer rationalizations premised on the aforestated because nonexistence is irrational.

Do you believe there are any others? Or is this all about you?

Yes, and yes.

And because you don't know Him you are wrong about Him. 

How have I been wrong about him. Quote me verbatim.

Because every other god contradicts. To establish this all I would have to do is get you to describe your god and what you think that god is like.

So God's existence--or that of any god--is necessarily informed by his description?

I have already seen that the god you talk about is not the same God I believe in.

I've been talking about two gods, so to which one are you referring? Tien? Or God?

Thus, logically, one of us is wrong in our belief. That is a law of logic.

Making reference to the qualifier, "logically" does not mean you're employing logic.

It states that two contrary things cannot both be true at the same time concerning the same thing. 

So I must ask again: why is it logically necessary that God exists to the exclusion of all others? How is the existence of God contrary to that of Tien's?

He meets the requirements of what is necessary to know about origins.

What are those requirements?

Then God is a personal being and separate from creation. Is God then monotheistic or pluralistic?

I mean God is something outside of yourself who exists without you inventing Him/God, or existing just because you accept another subjective person's invention. He is real, not invented but actual, not a figment of your mind or a projection from another person's mind but actual regardless of your mind.

So "dog" is the definition of a horse!!!

Vocabulary gives the word meaning in a context, a combination of alphabetic symbols to describe something specific. Depending on how you use that word in context gives it specific meaning.

In context words convey specific mean or else you would not be able to understand me. You know when I say I'm green with envy I am usually speaking figuratively, not speaking of my physical being as being green. You know when I say the grass at my house is green I am usually speaking of the physical lawn at my house.

You are the one blurring the difference. You think that just because you can think it, then it makes it true. That is the message you convey throughout this dialogue. That, my friend, is the definition of a relativist. Relativism doesn't work successfully in the real world.

You are blurring the difference between a house and a factory without first qualifying it by context.

Sure. It is ONE of the distinctions that usually separate houses and factories. Some houses may qualify as a factory, and some factories qualify as a home (such as a factory ship in a whaling fleet), but it is not usual. People do not usually live or sleep at a factory with their families. Homes usually house families.

Can you find one that includes both? Take a standard dictionary, whichever you like, and prove your case. Prove that the definition of a house is the same as that of a factory. 

I have qualified my meaning.

No, you have blurred the standard definitions found in dictionaries without qualification.

Your relativism say, "I call something what it is and that makes it what it is."

You just invent a god and say that god is the real God when that god does not comply to the real God if you do not believe it to be so.

That is why I ask you for evidence that God is who you say God is.  

Then God is a personal being and separate from creation. Is God then monotheistic or pluralistic?

Explain your conclusion. And monotheism and pluralism are not attributes of God; they're descriptions of religion and philosophy. 

I mean God is something outside of yourself who exists without you inventing Him/God, or existing just because you accept another subjective person's invention. He is real, not invented but actual, not a figment of your mind or a projection from another person's mind but actual regardless of your mind.

How do you know what exists outside of yourself if it is in fact outside of yourself? What is the difference between "actual" and "invented"?

So "dog" is the definition of a horse!!!

It can be should the description change. Descriptions aren't immutable.

Vocabulary gives the word meaning in a context, a combination of alphabetic symbols to describe something specific. Depending on how you use that word in context gives it specific meaning.

Then words don't have specific meanings. Only context does. And that was not your argument. Don't backpedal.

In context words convey specific mean or else you would not be able to understand me. You know when I say I'm green with envy I am usually speaking figuratively, not speaking of my physical being as being green. You know when I say the grass at my house is green I am usually speaking of the physical lawn at my house.

Don't backpedal. I presented you with a homonym, and you're now trying to revise your original argument to include for context. Context speaks more to my argument than it does to yours. You are arguing the sustenance of general descriptions based on a common understanding. And in doing so, you asserted that words have specific meanings. Now, you're stating that words have meanings specific to context? If that's the case, then this contradicts your previous citation of "Law of Identity," albeit fumbled, because words don't have specific meanings (i.e. "mine" being informed by a possessive, an explosive, or an excavation site for minerals.)

You are the one blurring the difference. You think that just because you can think it, then it makes it true. That is the message you convey throughout this dialogue. That, my friend, is the definition of a relativist. Relativism doesn't work successfully in the real world.

No. That is the definition of idealism.

You are blurring the difference between a house and a factory without first qualifying it by context.

You're projecting again. Your original argument renders context contradictory since words, as you put it, are subject to the law of identity. I don't have to qualify using a context because I'm not the one arguing any specific description. You are. The only necessary description to both a factory and a house is that they're buildings.

Sure. It is ONE of the distinctions that usually separate houses and factories. Some houses may qualify as a factory, and some factories qualify as a home (such as a factory ship in a whaling fleet), but it is not usual. People do not usually live or sleep at a factory with their families. Homes usually house families.

Once again, this is not about what people usually do. This is about description. You concurred with Stronn that my argument imputed a logical contradiction, the likes of which neither of you have substantiated. Are you willing to withdraw this allegation?

Can you find one that includes both? Take a standard dictionary, whichever you like, and prove your case. Prove that the definition of a house is the same as that of a factory. 

A futile attempt at shifting the burden. Furthermore, my argument was never that the descriptions of a house and factory were the same.

I have qualified my meaning.

Irrelevant. It is still logically fallacious reasoning.

No, you have blurred the standard definitions found in dictionaries without qualification.

What is it that you're arguing? That words have meaning specific to context? Or that words should be restricted to their standard definitions? You can't have it both ways.

Your relativism say, "I call something what it is and that makes it what it is."

That's not relativism; that's idealism (perhaps a bit of solipsism as well.)

You just invent a god and say that god is the real God when that god does not comply to the real God if you do not believe it to be so.

You're projecting... again. I do not presume objectivity, and thus qualify God with descriptions which fallaciously ascribe objectivity--i.e. your gratuitous use of the term "real." I merely argue that God exists.

That is why I ask you for evidence that God is who you say God is.  

What or who have I argued or said that God is?

That is not true.