Total posts: 93
Posted in:
It starts with belief.Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is AND that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
Until/if one ever learns to know not to believe the bible is inspired by a god. Else: belief-based ignorance.
Knowledge always negates belief-based ignorance as it tends both:
toward any all-knowing god
away from all-believing satan.
The knowledge is contingent on how well one knows themselves. One can not infer an unknown by way of another unknown.
knowledge of
self / god
0% / 0%
6% / up to 6%
14% / up to 14%
50% / up to 50% etc.
so ones knowledge of any/all possible god is limited to their own ignorance(s) of themselves. This is axiomatic and belief (otherwise) has no bearing on it.
Faith has to have an object of belief. For the Christian, that object of belief is in Jesus Christ and what He has done on our behalf for salvation.Works happen after belief in Jesus Christ (I believe the knowledge of and the repentance of sin is included in that belief). Salvation is granted because of our belief in Him by God. The work of God and how we respond depends on our obedience to His teachings that come after the initial belief. The work is a work ordained by God that comes after salvation, not before (IOW's you can't merit salvation by your own works. Salvation is solely dependent on the work of another - Jesus Christ).
Belief is an object, hence it is idol worship. Faith is the binding agency. Jesus is an idol worshiped by idol worshipers.
Madness happens after graven images in the heavens (ie. fixed objects/beliefs in the psychology) are militarily believed in.
Do you know what satan is? Here is the Hebrew derivation:
shin - expression of being (by way of the conjunction of any/all psychology/emotion/action)
tet - bound; ensnared (ie. serpentine)
nun (final) - ongoing (ie. indefinite) state
satan - any/all expression(s) of being bound in an ongoing (indefinite) state
Therefor, any/all belief in any/all falsity tends towards satan. This is how Jesus knew satan had no hold over him: he knew himself to be nothing.
It takes a believer to believe nothing is something. If one knows they are nothing, they can infer what is on the other side absent belief.
Created:
Posted in:
It sounds to me as if you believe you know better.
You don't know me, thus all you yourself have is belief.
The Ultimate Reality is God. God doesn't need discipline. God doesn't need anything.
Discipline would need to be of god because the cosmos has integrity to it, and thus any god must have integrity (ie. discipline).
It would take the same integrity to know anything-at-all.
There is matter, and there is spirit: but the laws that govern, govern both without prejudice. If the material cosmos has integrity, spirituality must also have integrity.
I don't believe in a belief based God either. I know that The Ultimate Reality is God, and belief has no bearing on this God's existence. It exists if nothing else even does.To give someone the benefit of the doubt when they look dishonest is acknowledging the fact that even honest people suffer delusion. Certainly, believing that someone means what they say is an act of charity when you have doubts. Even if they are delusional, they may be honest. After all, if someone is being deceived, by definition they are not aware of it. If someone is honestly deceived, what an injustice it is to not believe them! To call such a person a liar is cruel and unlikely to be met with respect. Love is superior to polemics.
Recalling...
It sounds to me as if you believe...acknowledging the fact that even honest people suffer delusion
and acknowledgement is a kind of knowledge absent belief. You must knowingly assume the opposite is also possible: believing that someone means what they say is *not* an act of charity when one has doubts. Charity would be trying the belief, and if in so knowing it is false, bringing the other to see the justification towards the ends of seeing their own limitation(s), thus less suffering.
The Ultimate Reality is not a false God.Control is not the intent of the church. The Church is more interested in getting people to use their free will for good rather than evil. What is good to us? To love God and to love others as God loves us, as shown in the example of Jesus Christ. It is really simple. The Church is not a secular government or any kind of kingdom of this world. We consider free will to be part of what it means to be made in God's image, and so hold it in special reverence. Thst being the case, The Church is very much against the use of coercion.
If the Church (or any being/state) so much as even believes to know good and evil, it is satanic. The knowledge of good and evil is the problem-in-and-of-itself. Having no conscious knowledge of any problem-in-and-of-itself is ignorance-in-and-of-itself.
Ignorance-in-and-of-itself is belief-in-and-of-itself absent knowledge-in-and-of-itself. See:
set:k to knowledge-in-and-of-itself, hence {knowledge}, with a candidacy of "positive"b to belief-in-and-of-itself, hence {belief}, with a candidacy of "neutral net ad infinitum"-k to ignorance-in-and-of-itself, hence {ignorance}, with a candidacy of "negative"for:0 = 1 - 1b = k - kk = b (+) k{knowledge} = {belief} + (inverse of) {ignorance}viz.(=) Knowledge is any/all negation of any/all belief-based ignorance(s).candidate: positive (+)-k = b - k{ignorance} = {belief} - {knowledge}viz.(=) Ignorance is any/all belief absent any/all knowledge.candidate: negative (-)b = k - k{belief} = {knowledge} - {ignorance}viz.(=) *Belief is any/all state(s) between knowledge and ignorance.candidate: (n)eutral net ad infinitum___*because belief-in-and-of-itself (ie. (+/-) 0, between 1 and -1) can be either positive or negative (ie. allowing for so-called good/evil but still leaving them undefined as per GENESIS 2:17) it would be a blunder to render "belief is knowledge less ignorance" because this assumes the presence of knowledge a priori. It is possible to relentlessly (ie. militarily) "believe" a problem-in-and-of-itself is a solution-in-and-of-itself which is an ignorance-in-and-of-itself wholly rooted in (a) "belief"-based ignorance(s) absent knowledge(-in-and-of-itself) to *not* believe such to be so.viz.Knowledge is any/all negation of any/all belief-based ignorance(s).Belief is any/all state(s) between knowledge and ignorance.Ignorance is any/all belief absent any/all knowledge.
Any/all knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief,
but not any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.
Knowledge negates any/all belief-based ignorance(s).
2 (any/all) <-*infinity/creation
1 KNOW <-*tree of living
0 I am willing to... <-*being with equal capacity for good/evil
4 BELIEVE <-*tree of knowledge of good and evil
3 *not to* <-*negation/destruction
tree of living: I am willing to KNOW any/all *not to* believe
tree of kg/e: I am willing to BELIEVE *not to* any/all know
Knowledge is derived by way of trying belief: both to and/or not to.
to: trying for any/all good
not to: trying to negate evil
both tend towards whatever is good (without the need to define)
Created:
Posted in:
How can you know unless 1) you believe, 2) that belief corresponds to what is true.If your belief does not correspond to what actually is the case your belief is not knowledge. It is false. Knowledge is that which is the case.
How can you know what *not* to believe?
Can a belief be false? How do you know?
God is all-knowing. He never started with a proposition. He always knew/knows...
Don't bother trying to tell me what god is, knows or knew. I already know not to believe.
Knowledge is a subcategory of belief. Knowledge is a true belief.
Knowledge negates belief: belief-based ignorance becomes knowledge via if/when knowing *not* to believe. Else: ignorance-in-and-of-itself.
True. The question is how you arrive at the "good" without God? Why is what you believe good? How do you KNOW?
I DO NOT BELIEVE TO KNOW GOOD OR EVIL - IT IS THE PROBLEM-IN-AND-OF-ITSELF
I know it is impossible to know either without knowing myself in relation to whatever may be.
And the same is true for any god.
I know satan (so-called) *requires* belief-in-and-of-itself.
I know any all-knowing god must know any/all *not* to believe.
So I know the same by knowing any/all *not* to believe.
The most basic of beginnings and a core-belief you suppose is either 1) God, or 2) chance happenstance is what we trace our origins to.How you look upon that question is how your whole framework will be governed. One of those two positions is false, logically.
... sorry, don't follow whence the assumption of a god less "belief".
So you do not believe everything you wrote. You have refuted knowing what you claimed you knew if that is the case.
No: I do not need to believe in things I know: I know them without needing to believe them. When I didn't know them, I needed to try to believe they were either true or false. Now I know whether they are true or false, so belief is not needed anymore.
belief - one or more degrees of uncertainty
knowledge - no degrees of uncertainty
I do not rely on belief: only ignorance would.
Do you believe truth is necessary to know something?
No: knowing what is not true does not require knowing what truth is.
Is truth something that is the case? If so, then there is a certainty of knowing it, once you understand what it is.***If a person "believes" something to be certain they are not ignorant if the belief is justifiably true. If it is justifiably true it is truly known.
Belief to a certainty is never justifiably true.
Do you know the laws of logic (the laws of contradiction, identity, and excluded middle) are necessary to believe before you can make sense of any communication? The laws of logic would be self-evident since to deny these laws (and make sense) is to use them.By saying, "I deny the laws of logic," you have used them in the denial. What you claim goes against what you actually say, so you refute your own statement.
TRY TO believe. Do you understand (to / not to)?
I know to believe...
I know *not to* believe... <-*knowledge-in-and-of-itself
I don't deny the laws of logic: I know them, and their limitations.
Thus belief comes first!
Yes: then knowledge negates it if/when found untrue/false.
Not according to those closest to the writings. Jesus attributes the Pentateuch to Moses and what he wrote. So do others. But regardless, even if they were transcribed by others the words and thoughts are attributed to Moses and his revelation from God.
I don't care about Jesus: it is idol worship. Jesus and the idolatry therefrom does not over-ride what real science has found to be false.
I really do not care to talk about Jesus: people are psychologically/emotionally/manifestly 'bound' to this idol, and it is incredibly binding. I do not have the patience for idol worshipers who defend their man-idols.
The Messiah, the Christ, to be more specific, is a Person, not a thing.
Here we go against with the IDOL WORSHIP.
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. Evil is doing what is contrary to the goodness and nature of God.
Here we go again with eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The implications are that humanity has sinned and needs to either restore that relationship with God by their own means or allow God to do it on their behalf through the one sufficient means He has given - Jesus Christ. The OT is a demonstration that those who agreed to a covenant with God (OT Israel) were never able to live up to that covenant.
This notion that there had to be a 'sacrifice' for humanity is just so perverse and sick.
I repeated 'it takes a believer to believe evil is good' for a reason: an idol worshiper will believe evil is good by way of vehemently justifying their belief due to their attachment to their man-idol.
Hundreds of millions of people are dead due to the M/E idols of Jesus and Muhammad. That humanity still has not the sense to try the problem-in-and-of-itself of belief-in-and-of-itself leaves so much to be desired, hence what I do. The stupidity of those who don't even have a clue they are a problem, rather than the solution. It takes an ignorant believer to believe a problem is a solution.
Created:
Posted in:
That is fallacious reasoning. There are many logical fallacies associated with these two statements. I'll list just a couple.It is a hasty generalization (https://www.thoughtco.com/hasty-generalization-fallacy-1690919).It is a fallacy of composition (https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-fallacy-of-composition-250351).It is a one-sided assessment with you as the final arbiter because you are stacking the deck and special pleading (https://www.thoughtco.com/stacking-the-deck-logical-fallacy-1692133).It is just an assertion based on your belief and you have not demonstrated otherwise.
Are you insane?
I did not even provide a reasoning, and did not / do not intend to (to yourself). I provided the method I used to falsify "belief in" them. If you wanted to, you could have asked for the reasoning, instead of assuming it, attempting to undermine (ie. making something out of nothing) and will probably assume the same attitude. If it becomes unbearable I will stop.
Again, all knowledge is a subcategory of belief. You, as a human being, have to start with a belief, with something you have to trust, to form other beliefs. Beliefs work on a web of other beliefs starting with a core belief. The question is whether the core belief is a justifiably true belief.You can't know unless you first believe.When you say, "I know I know," not everything you think you know is known by you. If what you BELIEVE you know is proven to be false you did not really know it. It was a false belief.
It is the other way around: belief is a subcategory of knowledge. You, as a human being, have to start with knowledge of your own existence. Else: belief, which "work(s) on a web of other beliefs starting with a core belief". What makes a belief justifiably true is whether or not there is any/all knowledge to the degrees of its uncertainty (ie. falsifiability) because belief necessarily contains one or more degrees of uncertainty. If any/all 'belief' has no knowledge of its own any/all possible ignorance, it is ignorant-in-and-of-itself, which is what happens to people who eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: believe, instead of knowing better.
Adam represent humanity (the federal head) in his choice to eat.
His eating wasn't the problem. It was his scapegoating / blaming of another for his own crime (ie. accuser is the accused).
It had implications for the rest of us too.
Indeed it does.
Again, Adam represented humanity so you are implicated in the judgment. You, like him, no longer enjoy that close relationship (that "walking" in the Garden with God). To once again experience that relationship Jesus told us we must be born again, restored to a right relationship with God
I do not worship the idols that you worship - including Jesus. It is such idol worship, and one can not even become a Christian less a false testimony contrary to the ten commandments. They are set in stone for a reason. I know not to bear testimony of a resurrection that happened thousands of years ago: it is insanity due to requiring insanity to defend it. The blood spilled over "mercy upon mankind" idols from the M/E is absolute insanity.
Knowledge is justified true belief. When Adam ate he knew the difference between good and evil. His belief corresponded to what is the case. He no longer enjoyed that close fellowship with God after that point in time.
Justified true belief contains knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty. Less: ignorance-in-and-of-itself.
Yes, and you are a believer. You just don't happen to believe the same things I do. So, the question is whether your belief-system is a justified true belief (or knowledge) or a false belief system.
his scapegoating / blaming of another for his own crime
I only believe in possibilities: certainly possible (ie. justified with certain knowledge).
False means falsifiable. I already told you I falsified Christianity and Islam. You reacted and tried to assume I provided a full reasoning (which I could do, if desired).
No, evil is evil. It has its own identity and that identity is not good. Calling evil good contradicts the law of identity. It does not make sense.Just because you can think something does not necessarily make it so. You have to believe what is true before your view corresponds to the truth.
Are you claiming to know evil is evil? If so, you are claiming the same status as god: knowing good and evil. Believing to know good and evil, rather than knowing good and evil, is the root of any/all ignorance. Those who choose to do it are as-ignorant-as towards any/all degree they believe to know it, while being wrong. It is the same cause of suffering and death: ignorance-in-and-of-itself.
A: B is evil!
B: A is evil!
C both A and B are ignorantly eating from the tree
It takes a believer to believe to know anything. The belief that one must first believe in what they know is pure insanity.
All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief. <-*truth by way of negation towards *unfalsifiability
Truth of the way of the living is not a man to BELIEVE in or WORSHIP: it is a PRACTICAL METHOD. You know it, or you don't know it. If you "believe" in it, you certainly don't know it. If I stop believing in gravity, would it stop having an effect on me? No - I know that, you know that. That requires no 'belief' - it would take "belief" to "believe" otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
i. One can come to know and be a witness to the resurrection.ii. Think about it. If in your heart, you kill The Truth... does The Truth really die? If something that is true today becomes untrue tomorrow, does The Truth die?iii. God became even death so that it can be said truly, "If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.", for in becoming death and rising again, death itself has been spoiled.
i. I won't ask how this is consciously justified.
ii. It would take a "believer" to "believe" what is untrue, is true, this equivalent to "killing" the truth which, as you say, does not die. Jesus got nailed to a cross and apparently died. Apparently, he resurrected.
iii. God no more became death than any one could/would die despite not "believing" in death-in-and-of-itself: death is common, not subject to anything, but all to it, and not unique to any "belief"-based god.
That people exploit fear of death is a part of the perversion of "belief"-based theology which vehemently attempts to decorate their particular trees with truths, but are actually recycled time after time insofar as the aesthetic serves. Some even have fake trees!
Indeed, a child of God. You do not have God's perspective, nor can you. And so, a humility befitting of a creature of God is necessary to draw closer to God.
I assume any possible all-knowing God certainly has mine. It would know, as I do, children of God are just as one might expect a child to be: needing someone/something to hold their hand. Such a desire intensifies as one would feel alone; without guidance.
Therefor, if god is said to be needing anything: it is discipline. However, humility must be tried against ones own self before any/all "belief"-based god. One can either be (honest/dishonest) with themselves before any/all considerations of god which would otherwise be distortions.
Of course, a student must believe their teacher if they hope to learn what their teacher is teaching.It is good for the sake of charity to believe. To believe, for example, that someone is being sincere. How many conflicts would be solved among people if only a little bit more charity was shown!
I don't believe in a "belief"-based god.
It is *not* good for the sake of "charity" to believe (!?). To believe that someone is being sincere, when in fact they are being deceptive, is belief-based ignorance lacking knowledge. How many conflicts would be solved among people if only a little bit more *honesty* was shown!
One can not know "evil" motive/intent/will without knowledge (of good and evil). While one may not be able to know good and evil to the degree of god, it must be the thing that connects mortals to it:
GOD = all knowledge of good and evil
MAN = less than all knowledge of good and evil
Satan *requires* belief and uses the 'belief' currency.
God *requires* knowledge and uses the 'knowledge' currency.
'Knowledge' of any/all *not* to 'believe' renders the currency of Satan valueless.
So what in the hell would one "believe" in a god for, if the thing that god has (ie. thus can bestow) is knowledge of any/all *not* to believe?
It's just so ABSOLUTELY ABSURD!
Belief in itself may not be a virtue, but faithfulness is. Even so much that a faithful unbeliever is seen as more virtuous than a believer who is unfaithful.
Always try so-called virtues: can they be exploited? If yes: not necessarily a virtue.
If one has faith in a belief-based god which happens to be false, their life will prove to be exploitation (but knowledge certainly derives).
I undermine "belief"-based theology because it has motive/will/intent to deceive and exploit (ie. control).
Created:
Outside in, inside out.
inside-out, outside-in, inside-out, outside-in
egg-chicken, chicken-egg, egg-chicken, chicken-egg
which came first? (they are one-and-the-same).
Non-inherent data obviously has to come in before it can be stored and perhaps be reworked and adapted before it can go out again.Nonetheless the process and decision making is always internal.No matter how exceptional it may seem, it is still only an internal physiological process.Though it is fair to suggest that the process could have a purpose other than chance physiology.A greater purpose though, could mean a hundred and one different things.Nonetheless, if there is a greater purpose I'm pretty certain that it will be based of some sort of yet to be developed pragmatic technology, rather than such archaic nonsense as cross nailing, hymn singing and incense wafting etc.
If the CKIIT theorem holds, it predicts (lack of) conscious knowledge of ignorance as resulting in/from such nonsense.
This is why it attempts to clarify the so-called Edenic good/evil problem-in-and-of-itself as "belief"-based ignorance-in-and-of-itself.
Mopac: It is less about the singing and incense than it is about being a sincere person striving for perfect love.
'Perfect love' is an ideal and subject to the graven images in the heavens problem-in-and-of-itself.
Love is not intrinsically good: it can be exploited esp. less knowledge of how/why.
Created:
The church wrote the gospels. The church knows what they are. I know what gnosticism means. This is why I called it "so called" gnosticism. I maintain that true gnosis is found in The Trinity.
It does not ultimately matter who wrote the gospels - it is an unnecessary imposition of boundary condition(s) even focusing on it.
What Trinity? A "belief"-based one? Or a knowledgeable one? There is certainly a knowledgeable one contained in Genesis 1:1 and 1:3.
ELOHIM (*+* masc. / fem *-*) 'Let us make Adam...male and female...image/likeness...'
*(+/-)*
(*+* bestowal-give / reception-take *-*) = folded 0 (infinity)
= (-)(8)(+)
......(+)......
(:.....8.....:)
...:..(-)..:...
Genesis 1:1
At the beginning by way of (+8-) is created (essence of) all above and (essence of) all below.
(essence of) all above
..............(+8-)..............
all below (essence of).
Shared property: (essence of) therefor is an 'known' agency by ELOHIM / GOD (if even unknown to all others)
Plug:
Genesis 1:3
And willing elohim,
'Let be light,
and light was.
Into:
(essence of) all above
..............(+8-)..............
all below (essence of)
'Let be light, <-*+* (bestowal-give /
And willing elohim, <-(*+* bestowal-give / reception-take *-*)
and light was <- / reception-take *-*)
viz.
I AM
that
I am
Think about the burning bush.
Truth is the authority.
Correct.
Oh no, certainly not idolatrous. It does appear that way, but what the faith does in fact is address idolatry very well. I tell you, it isn't as you say.
Which tree do you eat from?
Human sacrifice does not absolve sins. In fact, human sacrifice is an abomination.
...
Christ is God, The Ultimate Reality, incarnate as man, becoming death and ascending back to heaven, filling all things and reconciling all of creation back to divinity. God with us, our salvation.
I AM <- call it pure beingness
I AM (+belief in/of...) <- call it separation
I AM <- call it pure beingness
that
I am (+belief in/of...) <- call it separation
If you knew the lower, you'd know the higher.
Hence the CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF IGNORANCE INFERENCE THEOREM.
And it is this humility of God becoming creation that gives us our life. For we were created and subsist on The Word of God, by which all things were made.
...
Not so much Orthodox Christianity. We all pretty much get what it is about. The things that we do differ about amongst ourselves are not the fundamentals of faith, rather nonessential NERD STUFF.
...
And yiu are wrong. Ours is not a faith in our own understanding. The god of gnosticism is what is called "knowledge". The God we know to be The One True God is The Ultimate Reality. To know this God and Jesus Christ is to have epignosis, or true knowledge. I say this not as someone who has only book knowledge, but experiential knowledge.
You need more burning bush.
He is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
...
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."Jesus Christ is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. And he is worshipped and glorified, together with the unoriginate Father and Life giving Spirit unto ages of ages amen.
The
truth of the way of the living is
truth by way of negation.
Whatever negates not, neither negates, is true.
Think of the burning bush.
Created:
Posted in:
Christianity is not a belief based religion. Certain heretics have taken the faith to be little more than intellectual assent, but the church has always recognized that the faith is a walk, not simple belief.
Christianity is most certainly a belief-based religion.
Even Dr. Bill Craig correctly stated if there was no resurrection, Christianity is false.
It takes a "believer" to "believe" in a resurrection that supposedly happened 2, 000 years ago.
Blessed are the pure in heart, they will see God. How can you love God with all your heart, soul, and mind if you don't purify the heart?
Love is not always necessarily good, though. It feels good. But it is also exploited by those who have ill motive, ill intent and ill will.
This is the whole point of knowledge of good and evil: to be able to intuit/know if something is not as it seems. Therefor, it is not about having only a pure heart (which can be exploited): it requires pure knowledge of any/all not to believe:
GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
If/when a person "believes" to know good/evil, but is ignorant of them, suffering and death surely follow according to the ignorance of that being.
This is the only real pursuit of the true gnostic: to know any/all *not* to believe.
The kingdom of heaven is like a handful of sediment mixed with gems: a person always has it in their possession, but until they learn to remove any/all sediments such to expose the gems, it lies buried in wait.
TRIP: The Relative Inference Problem:Start with nothing.Let a universe exist - if so willing it can be this one.Call the universe 'that I am' and set it as 'unknown'.Let any being 'I am' exist in/of 'that I am'.Is it possible for 'I am' to infer 'that I am'if 'I am' is unknown unto/by itself?
One could only ever "know" of any all-knowing god according to if/how well they know themselves. Therefor, to "believe" to be something someone is not, is the first fundamental ignorance that can possibly take place, rendering such to be certainly ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.
This is the only reason people suffer: belief-based ignorance. Less this, there is no suffering/death.
No, Christianity is a faith of sacred mysteries. Mysteries as we understand it are not puzzles to be solved so much as they are experiences.The relationship between a good father and their child is a real mystery. The father knows so much, but the child knows nothing. They have to trust their father, who wants them to come to know. The Kingdom of God is for those who are like the child in faithfulness. A choice to trust. A choice to love. The charity to listen, and the humility to be taught. For God gives grace to the humble, but resists the proud.TheophanyTheoriaTheosis
It's not a mystery unless from the perspective of the child - the father may be ignorant in reality (to be learned later).
They have to trust their father, who might be ignorant in reality unbeknownst to the child.
It can equally be said that hell is for those who are like the child in faithfulness: believing whatever sounds good to them.
Hence the Edenic warning: don't believe to know anything. Either know it, or suffer.
It takes a believer to believe evil is good (without the need to define them).
It takes knowing to know any/all *not* to believe.
Most well established religions have a faith of supposed "sacred mysteries".But that that doesn't negate the need for belief.If you didn't believe the Christian message then you wouldn't believe the Christian message, it's as simple as that.Hence why approximately 5 billion people don't believe the Christian message.
Good point.
Of course we have beliefs. We all do. Wouldn't deny that. Using my illustration in the post above yours, I use the example of a good father and their child. A child who believes and obeys their father will develop quicker and better learn what the father is trying to pass down than one that is dismissive and rebellious. I point this out because a lot of times we have to experience something to really know something. Belief in and trust are a choice. Faithfulness is a choice.Say you have a good doctor. You are unhealthy and the doctor prescribes certain lifestyle changes. If you don't do as the doctor prescribes, of what use is belief? How is this even truly belief? It is dead belief. It is not enough to simply agree with something, it must be coupled with movement. With action. The patient who follows the doctor's orders is faithful. The patient who simply nods their head, goes home, and disregards the doctors orders will not reap the benefit of their belief.If I didn't choose to believe the Christian message, I wouldn't have come to know it. Charity "believeth all things", and so if I would not have been charitable I would not have come to epignosis.
The father could be ignorant.
*If* one assumes the father is 'good' (Gen 2:17) before trying the father for ignorance, any such obedience is ignorant-in-and-of-itself.
You do the same with the 'good' doctor example. Do you know the motive/intent/will of these beings?
Does it not take a believer to believe 'evil' motive/intent/will is 'good' motive/intent/will?
Does it not take a believer to believe evil is good?
There is only two conscious (justified) choices when it comes to belief:
Try to believe = try it for/as knowledgeTry *not* to believe = know it, as *not knowledge*
There is a third unconscious 'state'
believer: "I believe! I believe!! I believe!!! I believe!!!! I believe!!!!!"ad infinitum
satisfying satan:
shin - expression of being
tet - bound
nun (final) - ongoing/indefinite state
satan - any expression(s) of being bound in an ongoing state...
believer: "I believe! I believe!! I believe!!! I believe!!!! I believe!!!!!"satan - any expression(s) of being bound (to believe...) in an ongoing state...ad infinitum
Belief is not a virtue - it is needed to confuse the primordial poles of good and evil (so-called).
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I am an Orthodox Christian. You expressed your opinion that the church was intentionally hiding the hidden meaning behind the gospels, which is that they are astrology books.
It's not that they are necessarily intentionally hiding them, it's just that they are themselves ignorant of what they actually are. I understand Christians have an attachment to their faith, and it might be the reason should you be defensive/offensive against gnosticism (which is just a word meaning: to know).
I am here to inform you that this is not true, and you should probably not educate yourself about the faith through the so called "gnostics" or youtube videos. Rather, if you are to be educated it should be with the guidance of the Church.
You can't inform me of either: in agreement with, or contrary to, what I already know. I neither appeal to authority: I let truth stand in its place, even if knowing it not, but knowing what is *not* true is not in any way harmful.
The so called gnostics are not Christian, they never have been. They like to use our scriptures, but their real intent is to undermine the faith in teaching a false doctrine.
Christianity is idolatrous and derived from Canaanite sacrificial rituals: absolution of sins via human sacrifice.
The so called "gnostics" do not have a unified doctrine, they all tend to believe different often contradictory things. What unites the so called gnostics is that they practice "knowingism" or really, to put it simply... they put an awful lot of faith in their own understanding and knowledge. It is a type of self righteousness or spiritual egotism. It is counterfit.
Actually: everything you just said applies to Christianity. Including the counter-fit part (Mithraism).
One way the ancient church distinguished itself from those who would attempt to take advantage of people's familiarity with Christ for their own purposes is that the true church has Apostolic succession. That is, our bishops can trace their ordinations back to the apostles(Take note that this disqualifies every protestant church).The gnostics have never had apostolic succession because they were never part of the church. My point is, you shouldn't believe what the so called gnostics teach, because they will only lead you astray.
"Believers" certainly have no familiarity with Christ: Jesus did not teach he was the "belief"-of-the-way-of-the-life.
I don't see any reason why a gnostic would want to be a part of any church, including a gnostic one. The word gnosis means 'to know' and that is all. It takes any/all a "believer" to become astray.
Pigs whine and squeal.
Sheep tend to flock.
Goats climb mountains.
What can you tell me about Jesus?
Created:
I know you don't understand my faith, but you seem to have strong opinions about it.
I'm of no particular opinion(s) in/of matters without substance, and knowing not (of) your personal faith(s), as relatively equivalent to me as matters without substance could possibly be, I could not so much as have any opinion whatsoever about such matters without substance even if I so desired to - if not already lacking: as it were, as it so remains, and as it so shall: I understand not, for caring not to understand matters without substance knowing not your personal faith(s).
Created:
Posted in:
I am not confused, I know exactly what I am talking about. I would call Knowledge abstraction rather than negation. I say this because to know something necessitates the hiding and revealing of information. Knowledge is always creation. We are created beings living in creation with creation as our medium.
Is knowledge of death an abstraction?
to know something necessitates the hiding and revealing of information
is unintelligible to me. Knowing does not necessitate hiding/revealing - it does necessitate ignorance-in-and-of-itself whence to 'know' not to believe, any longer, any problem(-in-and-of-itself) is any solution(-in-and-of-itself) which is (a/the cause of any/all) ignorance-in-and-of-itself.
Without knowledge, ignorance-in-and-of-itself would be the default/only 'state' of creation. This is clearly not true. What is clearly true is: without knowledge, (any form or non-form of) truth can not even be sought, let alone experienced/understood.
Is absurd.
Of course. It exists as a falsity, but the defining characteristic of a falsity is its nonexistence, not its existence.
...therefor? Which frame of reference would one choose to elaborate with?
From the perspective of any believer in any falsity (reminder: it takes a believer to believe evil is good) having no conscious knowledge of their own ignorance, the falsity 'exists' relative to them insofar as they 'believe' it exists. To others, it is as if it exists not, and all the same for it existing not.
But because a defining characteristic of a falsity is its "nonexistence", that does not mean belief in/of them are of no material consequence.
It is the opposite: what manifests is falsity-embedded-in-time. The truth is in what is *not*, hence knowledge-negating-belief-based ignorance such to 'know' what is *not* truth.
The Ultimate Reality is not an object, but it isn't something to be circumscribed by the mind either. Knowledge cannot dispel all falsity, because all knowledge is false in some sense.
The mind is not the only faculty with which to subject the matter to. There exists faculties that transcend the mind incl. even genetic memory.
Knowledge need not dispel all falsity, because any/all falsity is accrued according to each their own ignorance, thus knowledge serve insofar as it is needed.
because all knowledge is false in some sense
No it is not: just as there is ignorance-in-and-of-itself, there is knowledge-in-and-of-itself.
The Ultimate Reality is true in every sense, and is greater than knowledge. Knowledge requires Ultimate Reality to exist, The Ultimate Reality does not require knowledge to exist.
This sounds just like "belief"-based religion to me.
Created:
Posted in:
'Knowledge is creation' is confused: knowledge is negation.Knowledge is creation. It is a contingent existence. It is temporal.The Truth is uncreated. It nk is not contingent on anything. It is eternal.At best, with knowledge you can come to an image of The Truth, but it wouldn't be The Truth itself.It is not possible to know the essence of The Truth completely, though it is revealed through the things that are made.
Any/all falsity is a contingent existence. It is temporal.
As best, with knowledge, one can dispel any/all falsity leaving only what is true, which is not-an-object (ie. 'itself' is incoherent).
b = k - kas in:(-/+) 0 = (-1 +1)viz.a folded circle: infinity symbol ( anumerically: 0 becomes 8 ) with +/- as its poleswherein (0) itself can be positive or negative (moving up or down)(+)(8) <-*(any theoretical antithetical dichotomy can be inserted here)(-)______*primordial as in: yang-yin; antithetical as in: inverses of one anotherand let them annihilate at 0 ad infinitum...set:k to knowledge-in-and-of-itself, hence {knowledge}, with a candidacy of "positive"b to belief-in-and-of-itself, hence {belief}, with a candidacy of "neutral net ad infinitum"-k to ignorance-in-and-of-itself, hence {ignorance}, with a candidacy of "negative"for:b = k - kk = b (+) k{knowledge} = {belief} + (inverse of) {ignorance}viz.Knowledge is any/all negation of any/all belief-based ignorance(s).candidate: positive (+)-k = b - k{ignorance} = {belief} - {knowledge}viz.Ignorance is any/all belief absent any/all knowledge.candidate: negative (-)b = k - k{belief} = {knowledge} - {ignorance}viz.*Belief is any/all state(s) between knowledge and ignorance.candidate: (n)eutral net ad infinitum___*because belief-in-and-of-itself (ie. (+/-) 0, between 1 and -1) can be either positive or negative (ie. allowing for so-called good/evil but still leaving them undefined as per GENESIS 2:17) it would be a blunder to render "belief is knowledge less ignorance" because this assumes the presence of knowledge a priori. It is possible to relentlessly (ie. militarily) "believe" a problem-in-and-of-itself is a solution-in-and-of-itself which is an ignorance-in-and-of-itself wholly rooted in (a) "belief"-based ignorance(s) absent knowledge(-in-and-of-itself) to *not* believe such to be so.viz.Knowledge is any/all negation of any/all belief-based ignorance(s).Belief is any/all state(s) between knowledge and ignorance.Ignorance is any/all belief absent any/all knowledge.
because any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s) exist in/as (or by way of) belief-in-and-of-itself, knowledge-negating-belief-based ignorance(s) tends towards whatever is true by knowing any/all that is *not* true.
Created:
1. As all data is internally stored.2. Then gnosis is epignosis.3. And religious belief and assumed knowledge are the same also.4. Input, store, think and sometimes output.
1. But not all data is outside-in. It can be generated from the inside-out.
2. Gnosis means to know. There is a knowledge-in-and-of-itself counter-part to ignorance-in-and-of-itself.
3. This is the ignorance-in-and-of-itself of 2.
4. No see, there are two directions. Input can come from both inside and outside. Store: in and out. Think: in and out.
Bestowal (ie. in) and reception (ie. out) is the First Fundamental Distinction of creation:
Genesis 1:3
And saying elohim <-* masc./fem. shared
'Let be light,' <-* masc. bestowal
and light was. <-* fem. reception
the 'letting be' can (ie. does) happen from the inside-out.
Will and light have many shared properties.
Mopac: It seems to me that you believe a lot of things.
You may be mistaking the lens of your own "believing" eye for mine: you believe I only believe, and merely believe to know. There is an alternative 'state' to belief: acknowledgement. Instead of believing I know or do not know, simply acknowledge without need for belief in or disbelief in, acknowledgement can be just as still as silence itself. It usually takes a mad one to upset what could otherwise be peace. See how mad they get when their holy man is ridiculed or criticized? They start spilling blood over that kind of thing. That is the opposite of peace. It takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good. It takes one who knows not to "believe" to know good and evil to see them just the way they are without "belief".
The Truth is not knowledge. The Truth is not contingent on knowing. The Truth is not data that is internally stored.
Knowledge tends towards truth, because truth involves any/all *not* to believe, which leaves whatever could be true.
Knowing is contingent on truth.
Data are like fingers pointing at the moon. Can concentrate on fingers or moon - choice is individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I know that knowledge =/= truth.
I don't believe you. Implied in your statement is you know:
i. knowledge-in-and-of-itself
ii. truth-in-and-of-itself
which I don't believe you do. Can you prove me wrong? I will mind your response carefully with as open mind as needed.
If so, will you let me show you how I know you don't know that, thus do not believe you?
Created:
Sometimes saying "I know better" can also really be another way of saying "I'll know better for next time".Sometimes saying "I don't know" can really be another way of saying "I know better".
If only humanity could take this attitude towards things like fascism. Unfortunately, they don't even know where it is coming from due to "belief".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your claims are ludicrous and unsubstantiatable. You believe lies.Gnosticism, or "know-it-all dipshittism" as it can be translated in English can be summed up as "Faith in one's own understanding or knowledge falsely so called."The Holy Orthodox Catholic Church has true knowledge, or epignosis. This knowledge is experienced through the sacred mysteries.
I see this as a projection. Are you knowing of the accuser? What did Adam do when asked by god if he ate? Did he accuse both the woman and god?
Gnosticsm means to know. The first fundamental knowledge is of ones own ignorance. Less: "belief". It can be known that once accusations start flying, the accuser is present. The problem with projection: the accuser is the accused.
The (un)Holy Orthodox Catholic Church has true obsession with children, or pedophilia. This knowledge is experienced through the abuse of said children. The House of Islam is no different: the leader of their "congregation" establishes a global precedent for pedophilia. And the "believers" "believe" he is the greatest example for all of humanity. Does it takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good? Does it takes a "believer" to "believe" infidelity is fidelity?
And yet, the "believers" "believe" absolutely ignorant of the tree: the very thing required to confuse evil with good.
What all-knowing "god" would have believers believe knowing satan requires belief-in-and-of-itself? The father of all lies is belief-in-and-of-itself.
Created:
The difference between simply believing you know and truly knowing is the difference between gnosis and epignosis.Relying solely on the self very easily leads to plané, which is why even monastics, whose very vocation implies solitude, swear to obey and follow the discipline and instruction of an abbot. An experienced guide knows how to test the spirits, and can identify more quickly what could have potentially derailed the student from The Way.
The difference actually is just "belief". Once you remove "belief" you either know, or you know you know not. In either case, it is gnosis.
If one identifies with their own ignorance (if they are conscious of it), rather than identifying with what they know, the ignorance can become knowledge. However, in order for that to even begin, there must be a conscious knowledge of that ignorance. Else is ignorance-in-and-of-itself in perpetuity.
That is why the theorem predicts one can not infer an unknown from an unknown:
Set the universe to 'that I am' which is a primordial dichotomy of good vs. evil (don't even try to define them - this is eating from the tree itself).Set 'that I am' as absolutely unknown outside of there appears to be good and evil in the cosmos (ie. yang and yin).If an 'I am' being enters this universe, how can 'I am' ever infer 'that I am' if 'I am' is unknown unto/by itself?
It can not. Therefor 'know thy self' is found to be a universal axiom no different than the temple of Delphi. It's fixed.
Therefor, the degree to which one 'I am' identifies with their own *ignorance* is the same degree to which they can infer 'that I am' knowing they are themselves ignorant. It scales: the more one knows of themselves, the more they can infer what is on the other side of them.
This is why people who whine/squeal about there not being a proof for god are ignorant-in-and-of-themselves. The proof is themselves: I can't force them to know themselves anymore they can force me to "believe" in a god esp. less knowing myself whence to infer one.
I believe I know little of what you’re talking about. Can you simplify it for me?
If/when you know you know, let me know. It will be simpler then.
Created:
Posted in:
Do you think belief is inherently a bad thing?You seem to be awfully certain about a lot of your own beliefs.
It's not inherently bad, no. It is good to "believe" in possibilities (if they are justified).
But, neither is it inherently good: it takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good (without the need to define them).
It's literally the in-between point of good and evil:
knowledge-in-and-of-itself <-* tends towards any possible all-knowing god knowing good/evil
belief-in-and-of-itself <-* conscious being
ignorance-in-and-of-itself <-* tends towards any possible all-believing satan confusing good/evil
Hence conscious knowledge of ignorance inference theorem (CKIIT) deriving the two Edenic trees:
The gospels are actually books of astrology.... woah, that is a wild claim.Yeeeeah, seeings how the Church has never ever believed this, and the gospels were written by the church.....
It would probably be to any who is unaware.
The Church is in the business of ensuring people don't "know" what is contained in those books, because it gives them power over others. If people knew what was in those books, they would understand we are all in the Piscean age which is defined by fish:
"I know..."
"I believe..."
wherein the knowing fish jumps up out of "belief"-based ignorance, the believing fish remains.
The problem: they need "believers" for their power. I can't explain further because each person is responsible for their own choices as to what / what not to "believe" and they manifest according to their own ignorance(s). I am tasked with moving away from "belief" into "knowing" which first begins with knowing that knowledge serves towards knowing any/all *not* to "believe".
Created:
Posted in:
Knowledge is a positive belief that is also true to what is the case. You do not generally believe or put your trust in something that you think negatively about.You, acting as your highest authority (it's so because you know it when in fact you don't) or the ultimate reference point for knowledge, disbelieve the Bible. How well do you understand it? I bet not well and I would like to challenge you on such an assumption. I would hazard that you do not know because you cannot properly connect what is said from your bias and preconceived notions on what it says and its true meaning.
Knowledge is not a positive belief, it is the negation of belief. Belief graduates into knowledge after falsified.
I know the first five books of "Moses" were not authored by Moses, but had four source authors J, E, P, D and a fifth R(edactor). These reflected political divisions viz. Elohim vs. YHWH. Therefor, I know not to "believe" it was delivered to a Hebrew man (in reality probably an Egyptian Akhunatun) and therefor am aware there are many who "believe" the books of Moses to be something they are not.
I don't "disbelieve" the Bible, I learned enough of Hebrew to read it in its original "language". However I know that the Hebrew language is actually derived from a single form viewed from 22 different perspectives, thus the real "language" predates Canaanite-Hebrew, and so I read it accordingly. It is nothing like the "English" translation(s) or even the Hebrew "story". It is more like a book of equations. For example,
Genesis 1:1 is a torus field,
Genesis 1:2 is the 'state' before a stable torus field,
Genesis 1:3 is the three components of a stable torus field
etc. and creation is described from the inside-out, rather than the outside-in as people read it.
B'resh'yis (first word of Genesis) has over 900 ways to read/interpret. It can mean:
In the beginning...(English)
At the head of the summit...(Hebrew)
Son (of/that is) fire (is) over time...(Aramaic)
etc.
Understanding the language prior to the Hebrews "adapting" it eliminates any/all possible bias(es) and allows me to see the problem(s) in Judaism and when/where they first arose. These problems would later compound into Christianity/Islam.
Again, God would speak on a different level in communicating with humanity (dumbed down) so that we, even those of lesser intellect, could understand Him (since He, by definition, knows all things). You can't have the same intellectual conversation with a two-year-old that you can with a thirty-year-old. Thus, you have to dumb down the conversation when speaking to the two-year-old (baby talk).
Human beings have two ears and one mouth. Abram had to head out of the land of Ur for a reason: if no listeny, no helpy.
That is because Isalm borrows from the Christian conceptual system of thought, not the other way around. Christianity expands and explains in more detail on the Judaic system of thought to make things clear in that it is a progressive revelation of the same God. It also explains why the Judaic system of worship failed. That reason is that Israel could not live up to the holiness and purity that is God by work or merit-based system in obeying Him (Exodus 24:3, 7).God brought some in Israel to the realization that His grace is sufficient for them and since they could not live up to work-based salvation, He not only met the requirements of doing that in Jesus Christ but also provided a better covenant of grace through Jesus, that those who reach out to Him can believe and live by. We, as Christians, live on the merits/works accomplished by Jesus Christ, not by our own merits to save us.The OT is a worked based demonstration that continually shows the failing of those who agreed to it to live up to it.How can the imperfect live up to the perfect? Only because of and by His grace and mercy!
It is true Islam "borrows" from Christianity, as well as (mostly) Judaism.
The rest is "belief"-based waffle.
Christians are not necessarily victims if they interpret the Bible correctly. That would mean they had a true knowledge in the aspect of teaching or doctrine. Explain how you know your statement is so as opposed to just believing it to be so?
Some did/do: Christ is certainly not an unreal thing. It is just not a bloody man: it does not come lest by way of knowing the suffering of others (ie. transcending suffering of self) which only comes with knowing the original sin as it relates to blaming/accusing/scapegoating. Had Adam not attempted to blame another for his own fault, so-called evil would not have entered.
The implication of the book of Genesis is each carries in/of their own being, their own iniquities, and with them they remain until acknowledged/reversed. If this is not done consciously, there are laws in/of the cosmos that intervene.
Created:
Posted in:
How can you have knowledge based on uncertainty? To know is to believe that which is true to what is. As I mentioned in your other post (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2896/debating-to-undermine-any-all-belief?page=1&post_number=20), knowledge is a justifiable true belief.Knowledge = True Belief.Knowledge is a subcategory of belief. You have to start by believing something (first presuppositions; first proposition, the building block everything else is connected, or the chain of facts that the starting belief rests upon). Since you don't know how everything is connected in all its details you must start from a belief and work from that core supposition. Can you justify your belief? If so, then it is knowledge.
As I mentioned in the other post: you have it backwards.
Belief is a subcategory of knowledge.
Knowledge-in-and-of-itself <-* knowing any/all *not* to believe (to a certainty)
Belief-in-and-of-itself <-* trying belief for belief-based ignorance(s)
Ignorance-in-and-of-itself <-* no conscious knowledge of ignorance
True Belief = Knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty pertaining to that belief. It is conscious knowledge of ignorance. The conscious justification never pertains to how the "belief" could be "true", but rather "false". That is conscious knowledge of ignorance.
If a personal "believes" something to be "certain" they are ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
Again, you have gone off on a tangent from the original statement (emboldened). Do you believe everything you typed about Christians and Muslims? Is your belief (only knowledge if it can be verified and justified as true) based on the verification of facts as they really are (is it a true account)? Only if you can demonstrate this with certainty (truth is a certainty - it expresses what is, it cannot be false), will I grant you know it as true?First, what is your standard or ultimate measure in qualifying what is "good?"
There is no tangent: at best, you/anyone could only ever "believe" I, or any, know what we know. As to whether or not you know what you know, you are your own obstacle to that, not me. I know Christians and Muslims suffer "belief"-based ignorance. I know this because I tried/tested both Christianity and Islam and found them to be certainly ignorant. Again: at best, you can only "believe" me that I know, but I myself know I know. I can't prove something to someone who has no conscious knowledge that they may themselves be subject to "belief"-based ignorance(s) unto which they vehemently cling to. It has to do with idol worship (not "physical objects").
As to your second question: your very asking it demonstrates you are ignorant of the problem-in-and-of-itself:
GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die....first, what is your standard or ultimate measure in qualifying what is "good?"
I don't eat from that tree. Those who do, have a relative "evil" and are bound to be in conflict indefinitum. If you know, at best, one could only ever "believe" to know good and evil, the very "believing" to know it causes suffering and death. Say hello to "belief" in any god.
By the way, does it not take a "believer" to "believe":
i. Belief-in-and-of-itself is a virtue (?)
ii. evil is good (*without the need to define them*)
iii. satan is god
One question.
Who are so willing to believe?
2 (any/all)
1 KNOW
0- I am (willing to)...
4 BELIEVE
3 (*not to*)
Living: I am willing to KNOW (any/all / *not to*) BELIEVE...
Death: I am willing to BELIEVE (any/all / *not to*) KNOW...
Another question.
Would an all-knowing god not KNOW so-called satan *requires* BELIEF-in-and-of-itself?
Knowledge-in-and-of-itself <-*tends towards any possible all-knowing god any/all *not* to believe
Belief-in-and-of-itself <-*satan certainly requires belief
Ignorance-in-and-of-itself <-*believers who believe evil is good cause suffering/death
More:
Is knowledge of ones own ignorance not needed to beget new knowledge *from* the same ignorance(s)?
If so, how can all knowing be belief, if belief is required to (erroneously) believe one is knowing when one is not?
Does it takes a "believer" to "believe" they are themselves *not* ignorant?
Does it thus take a "knowing" to "know" one is themselves ignorant?
What happens if one is ignorant while knowing not they are ignorant?
They are certainly a "believer" and ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.
Do you believe everything you typed about Christians and Muslims?
No: I know they are ignorant-in-and-of-themselves. However, I do not "blame" them: I see them as victims.
That is why if I ever undermine the idolatrous houses of Christianity/Islam, I'd do it from the top-down. The "believers" do not know what tree they eat from.
Created:
Posted in:
The Christian faith is based on a reasonable belief...
Ah ha. Well there's your problem! Belief that ones 'sins' (ie. the sins of humanity) are duly paid for by the blood of another man is not a reasonable belief, it is a sick and perverted one. Christianity has an immensely violent and blood history - not unlike Islam who likewise have a "mercy upon mankind" idol that is worshiped by idol worshipers. This scapegoating idea came from early Canaanite (ie. Judaic) human sacrificing cults that ceremoniously sacrificed beings to "belief"-based gods "believing" the sacrifice would wash away the sins of the tribe. There were many such cults: Christianity (similar to Mithraism at the time) having been made the 'state' cult by Constantine. It is not a reasonable belief, it is a pathology and reflects the barbarity of the dark ages of man.
Scapegoating ones own iniquities onto another being is the original sin: Adam tried to scapegoat his own eating of the fruit onto the woman. Further, one can not even become a Christian without violating one of the ten commandments re: testimony. There is no Christian alive who has ever witnessed a crucifixion/resurrection of a son of god. It requires much "belief" esp. relating to the Gospels (which are actually books of astrology: Christ being the sun and the twelve disciples the mazarot).
Back to the starting point. YOU HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE (presuppose something as true). You can't know something unless you first believe it. The question is whether that belief is justifiably true. Facts have to be known in relation to other facts before justified true belief takes place.
You can indeed presuppose something as true, but the next step must be to try to falsify it. This is good and well: science. Render an assertion(s) that seem to hold (ie. reflect reality) and attempt to falsify them into impotency. Whatever can never be falsified speaks for itself.
Some things are self-evident truths such as that you have to start with them to believe or know anything (i.e., logic). You have to believe the laws of logic (presuppose) to make sense of anything else. If you did not believe them you would not use them. These things (laws of logic) are not empirical in nature thus they can't be known empirically. But you have to believe in self-evident truths such as the laws of logic to justify other truths.
You can know the laws of logic without need for belief in them. It would take "belief" to "believe" the laws are something they are not.
belief - any premise(s) or sentiment(s) generally taken to be (ie. acted upon as:) 'true' while containing one or more degrees of uncertainty
knowledge - as containing no degrees of uncertainty
So, eliminate God and tell me how you get these truths since your starting point or basic presupposition (the origin of everything would be material and natural) would be a universe devoid of personal being, thus non-intentional, chaotic (not ordered), random happenstance (chance). The laws of logic do not comply with a materialistic or natural standard for such standards are empirical in their nature.
The origin of everything being material and natural is a basic presupposition. But this is exactly how the big bang started: chaotic, not ordered, random. Yet there are laws which govern the cosmos: and these same laws govern us. Therefor, understanding these laws must necessarily lend itself towards the understand of any god (without the need to eliminate or assume one). It can be left open: it takes a "believer" to "believe" they already know.
Your starting point or most basic presupposition is naturalistic whereas mine is personal and knowable in as much a He has made Himself knowable. I believe God has placed these self-evident truths in the universe and in our being so that we may know Him even as we know about Him. The laws of logic and the laws of mathematics are not something we invent but something we discover. We, so to speak, think God's thoughts after Him; thoughts that are eternally true by there very nature (i.e., 2+2=4; law of identity -> A=A), but require mindfulness to discover them. So, we witness this mindfulness in the very running of the universe. We, as conscious, thinking beings, discover laws and principles that seem to have us in mind. These principles and laws are so precise that we are able to express them in detailed or simple mathematical equations (i.e., E=mc2) that defy and mean nothing to the natural world alone, devoid of minds. These discoveries convey to the astute thinker there is a greater and necessary Mind functioning that has created and sustains the universe.
The universe does not have us in mind: we are trying to "believe" the universe (ie. god) has us in it.
I do not begin with a naturalistic presupposition: I understand the universe as nothing. I know it sounds unnatural (ie. there appears something) but it is, in fact, nothingness. How to have something from nothing?
People do it every day: make something out of nothing. It is called "belief" and watch them: how they spill blood over books and idols. It is what they choose to make out of nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
"That snow is white in colour."How can you know it unless you first believe snow is white? If you believe snow is red in colour your belief is not knowledge, it is not true. You could also be colour blind and what you think you know you do not because you have to believe particular propositions that are connected to other propositions that go back to a first presupposition.
Someone, in first showing snow to you, may have said, "This is snow and snow is white in colour."You either believe what he/she is telling you or you do not. You have to start (basic presupposition) somewhere, and that starting point is presuppositional when first thinking something or in discussing origins and one time events that no one was there to see. Thus, it is a belief. You have faith in that belief, that starting point, or you tend not to believe it.I can say, "Snow is red in colour." I can say, "I know snow is red in colour." Is that a true belief?
It is a bad example. Everything is relative to the observer: the problem collapses upon the knowledge that everything we see is 'light' reflected off any object(s) which our retinas capture, invert etc. and we "see" a projection that reflects the "matters" surrounding us. Thus "believing" snow is white is as incoherent as "believing" white light is white light. It is why it is important to understand what is 'light' because it is the basis of existence.
Thus, "knowledge is a subcategory of belief: to know something is to believe it." Van Til Apologetic, Reading and Analysis, by Greg Bahnsen, p. 159
This is false. I'm sorry but the man is confused.
knowledge-in-and-of-itself <-*of any/all *not* to "believe" due to being ignorant)
belief-in-and-of-itself <-* needed to try for knowledge
ignorance-in-and-of-itself <-* unjustified belief
Belief is a subcategory of knowledge, not the other way around:
All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, but
not any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.
Take the following example.
A "believer" "believes" in holy book x. Their being is governed by a "belief" that it contains the word of god.
They try the book, and learn it is, in fact, not the word of any god. They learn of their own suffering and that of others.
Belief is a subcategory of knowledge, not the other way around. They have it backwards. See:
Knowledge involves belief. It is the mental affirmation of believing in that which is true. Belief is a positive attitude and adherence to something, towards some proposition that you or I rely on. For it to be actual knowledge it must qualify as true belief.
Knowledge involves belief is correct insofar as knowledge is attained by way of trying belief. But:
All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
is absolutely absurd. It would mean there is no better to the ignorance-prone belief-in-and-of-itself: one can never know (any/all ignorance relating to:) self without believing the self to be ignorant? It would take "belief" to believe one is *not* ignorant. One can simply know they know not everything there is to know, without the need for belief. It would take a "believer" to believe they already do know everything... which is the ignorance-in-and-of-itself, a product of unjustified "belief" without knowledge. It also takes "belief" to believe the self is something it is *not*. Therefor this assertion is just absolutely absurd and needs:
All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, but
not any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.
and
All belief is ignorance, but not all ignorance is belief.
Definition of belief1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion: something believedThere are three kinds of faith; blind faith, reasonable faith, or unreasonable faith. Faith is belief.The Christian faith is based on a reasonable belief, a necessary belief to make sense of anything, ultimately. God is self-evident to your mind, even though you deny Him outwardly in what you say and do. Inwardly, you still affirm Him by what you think about Him in your denial of Him. When you argue against Him in your denial you conceptualize Him in your denial.
The definition you provided indicates belief is ignorant-in-and-of-itself (which is true; trust/confidence can be misplaced anything accepted can be false). A knowledgeable (ie. consciously jusitfied) belief is *not* ignorance-in-and-of-itself.
Faith is not belief: belief is an object (ie. a belief in...) whereas faith is the binding agency of/to it.
Created:
Posted in:
Are you saying that:1. We think we believe but we probably should know that we don't.2. Which is correct, but doesn't take into account the effects of formative conditioning, which has a tendency to become a sort of secondary operating system.3. Even some of the brightest sparks retain illogical information within their databases. Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin, to name but two.
1. No - knowledge-in-and-of-itself is antithetical to belief-in-and-of-itself. Knowing any/all *not* to believe is a knowledge-in-and-of-itself.
2. Formative conditioning is a product of accrued ignorance(s): it is "belief"-based as well.
3. And it must be this way: learning comes best by way of being wrong about something - it is a stark reminder to attempt to *falsify* at all costs.
I will say I believe, even when I speak of things I know. For even after enlightened, we still say, "I believe in one God..".The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God.I am more certain of the existence of The One True God than I am of anything else.
That is not enlightenment - that is ignorance. "Believing" to know to a certainty without knowledge of degrees of uncertainty is ignorance-in-and-of-itself. It creates a looping ignorance: belief-in-and-of-itself is less knowledge-in-and-of-itself.
When you live in an epistemological blackhole, at some point you realize that even when it is easy, it is a choice to believe. You can choose to trust or love based on emotion or feeling, but you can also choose to trust and love for the sake of purity. Often times, self interest gets in the way of choosing love, but choosing love even against self interest in truth purifies you from the influence that self interest has in corrupting one's nous towards The Truth. In that way, it is actually truly better for the self to surrender one's will over to obedience of God, because the righteousness of God is superior to self righteousness and in the end the reward is greater. For it is The Truth that makes one free, not being a slave to one's impulses, passions, and desires.
When you live in a "belief"-based black hole, at some point you realize that even when it is easy, it is a choice to believe.
What is hard, is choosing to know - it often means facing the unreality of ones own "belief". This is religion: fear to face the unreality of ones own "belief", so they take to sword and spill blood protecting their "belief", their idols, their books, their "chosen ones" rank and title. Hundreds of millions of people are dead due to "belief", and the counter-part? Knowing what *not* to "believe".
That is not the question.What does that particular statement mean?What do you believe about what you have written (OP)? Anything? Nothing? Do you believe it is true what you have written?
The question is ignorant. I did not want to be rude, but that is the reason for the response.
I'll give you an example of what the statement means. I believe in world peace. Not because I "hope" for it (though it is present), but because I know (ie. there are known) variables that, if they occur, would tend towards world peace and eventually manifest it. Therefor, I believe in the possibility of world peace. However, I know world peace is *not* possible so long as the:
"believer vs. unbeliever"
division exists. This is certain: it takes a "believer" to "believe" others who do not "believe" are "evil". It takes a "believer" to "believe" "evil" is "good". Therefor, "believers" will "believe" "unbelievers" are evil ad infinitum. The opposite is true: it takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good (without the need to define them: the problem-in-and-of-itself).
A: B is evil!
B: A is evil!
C: Both are ignorantly eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and will annihilate one another ad infinitum.
Knowing degrees of uncertainty??? How can you know something that is uncertainty? It seems an oxymoron. If you know it, then it is no longer uncertain.
...you can know any/all variables which would render any outcome possible/impossible (ie. know an outcome is uncertain). As in the example I gave you: I know world peace is possible, but impossible so long as there is a "believer" vs. "unbeliever" division. This is knowledge of uncertainty. The opposite would be: a "believer" "believes" peace can only come by way of forcing their "belief"-based ideology on everyone. That is not a knowledge of uncertainty: that is ignorance-in-and-of-itself. When any problem "believes" itself to be a solution, it is perpetual conflict.
Knowledge is justified true belief.
Justified true belief contains knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty. It's the other way around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So what do you believe about what you have written?
Generally: I only believe in possibility.
Do you believe it is not true?
No, I know it is not true.
Knowledge pertains to knowing degrees of uncertainty: I know language has limitations, and therefor do not "believe" in language for knowing them. One need not "believe" in language at all. That doesn't mean one can not know where its usefulness begins and ends.
It is not necessary to "believe" in things before/while knowing them.
I know I am = knowledge
I believe I am = ignorance
I know I believe = knowledge
I believe I know = ignorance
I know I know = incoherent (rhetorical: for emphasis "I know I know!")
I believe I believe = "religious" people (incoherent/ignorant)
I know it takes a "believer" to ever "believe" evil is good (whatever they may be), and
I know that any all-knowing god must certainly know the same: all *not* to believe.
Try this thought experiment.
The Relative Inference Problem (TRIP)Start with nothing.Let there be a universe - if so willing, it can this one.Call the universe 'that I am' and let any being 'I am' exist in/of 'that I am'.Query: if 'that I am' is unknown, how can 'I am' ever infer 'that I am'if 'I am' is unknown unto/by itself?
This is the reason for 'know thy self': can not infer any god less a knowledge of self.
All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
This assertion is so ABSURD it is the biggest blunder philosophy has ever made. Try:
All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, butnot any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.
Now there is need to try any/all "belief" for "belief"-based ignorance(s), including the self. But according to philosophy, all knowing is belief, so at best one can only "believe" in the self, thus be perpetually ignorant of themselves forever ad infinitum. ABSURD.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
How do you know I don't know God exists? I am 100% certain that God exists. In fact, I am more certain of God's existence than anything. I can't even think of anything else off hand that I am also 100% certain.
Because you admitted to "believing" in God. Belief means there is one or more degrees of uncertainty. Knowledge means knowing what those degrees of uncertainty are. Else: "belief"-based ignorance. If you know God exists, and are certain, you would not also "believe" God exists. It would take "belief" *not* to know God exists, if God is known to exist.
It reduces the problem into what one certainly means by the word 'God' (which is just a word).
My understanding of the word 'god' is an infinity symbol describing:
(+) bestowal (ie. male; image; electricity)
(-) reception (ie. female; likeness; magnetism)
wherein as the two approach equivalence, they can exist as a single 'form' ad infinitum insofar as their equivalence permits.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
This is precisely what happens to people who eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: they "believe" they "know" but are dead wrong.You can be very certain and simply delusional. Sure, the delusional might believe they know.
very certain of what *not* to BELIEVE = tree of living
delusional of what *to* BELIEVE = tree of knowledge of good and evil
Notice how the top requires no belief, and all-knowing god would certainly know any/all *not* to "believe"
Notice how the bottom one requires belief, which satan certainly requires in order that any believer believe:
i. belief-in-and-of-itself is a virtue
ii. evil is good (whatever they may be)
iii. satan is god
So knowledge is discovered to be the inverse of "belief": the total negation of it until all-knowing of any/all *not* to believe.
What knowledge is to white,
belief is to black, which is the
opposite of white. Black can
become white as any/all
"belief"-based ignorance(s)
are tried/tested and falsified,
becoming new knowledge,
of any/all *not* to "believe".
Black becomes white, but
white needs to try/test black
to become white.
All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, but <-*as in: tree of living
not any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all. <-*as in: tree of knowledge of good and evil
The problem with modern-day philosophy is in the statement:
All knowing is belief (?), but not all belief is knowing.it is absurd. A knowledge-in-and-of-itself exists such that negates any/all false belief, thus is not a belief(-in-and-of-itself), but the counterpart to it!
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Don't you have to believe you have knowledge?I still believe knowledge/belief is a false dichotomy, and I am still not really clear on what it is you are really trying to say.
BELIEF - as containing one or more degrees of uncertainty
KNOWLEDGE - as containing no degrees of uncertainty
No, you do not have to "believe" you have knowledge.
No, you do not have to "believe" you have knowledge.
You can "know" you have knowledge with no degree of uncertainty.
If knowledge/belief is a false dichotomy:
knowing *not* to believe, would not exist, and
knowing to believe, and to what degree(s), would not exist, and
believing to know while being wrong (ie ignorance, learning), would not exist, and
believing to know and being right (ie. to know, intelligence), would not exist.
It's clearly absurd to deny a knowledge/belief dichotomy.
It is *the* dichotomy that defines the fixed characteristics of god/satan:
god: knowledge-in-and-of-itself (ie. all-knowing)
satan: belief-in-and-of-itself (ie. requires belief)
I know not to believe... I am receiving revelations from a god. <-* knowledge vs.
I believe I am ... receiving revelations from a god. <-* belief-based ignorance
Created:
Posted in:
Of course it requires belief too believe that God exists.But I believe God exists, and if I didn't believe, God would still exist. I do not simply believe that God exists, I know that God exists. I do not believe that it is incorrect for me to say I believe God exists because I know God exists.I do not accept that belief is the absence of knowledge.
Let me show you what I see - it is not personal but for purposes of dialogue.
and if I didn't believe, God would still exist.
there is an assumption here: "god would still exist". *If* God exists, it *is true* that God would *still* exist absent any/all "belief". However, until it is proven, it is an assumption, so to simply state...
I do not simply believe that God exists, I know that God exists.
this is a "belief" disguised as a knowledge, as in:
(I believe) I know...
wherein the (I believe) is present, but not conscious, thus an ignorance follows:
I do not believe that it is incorrect for me to say I believe God exists because I know God exists.
it can be known that it is incorrect for anyone to say:
I believe God exists because I know God exists.
it is incoherent. Either you:
i. know God exists, or
ii. believe God exists, or
iii. know you believe God exists while having a conscious knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty; thus, know to merely believe.
When a "belief" is unconsciously taken as a "known" this is precisely the need for the Edenic warning: do not "believe" to know anything to a certainty.
GENESIS 2:17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
The reason is simple: if it is untrue, the same ignorance will certainly, once elaborated, cause suffering/death, and it is certain (ie. "surely").
"Belief" need not necessarily be an absence of knowledge as in the case of iii: knowing one believes in God while having a conscious knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty is a knowledgeable "belief". "Belief"-based ignorance is without knowledge: no conscious acknowledgement of any/all degrees of uncertainty, just simply taken as "certain". This is ignorance. Look:
1. Knowledge-in-and-of-itself2. Belief-in-and-of-itself3. Ignorance-in-and-of-itself
Call category 1 all-knowing (ie. god).
Anything in category 2 can be in one of two states:
i. Containing knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty <-* consciously "justified" belief | CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE
ii. Absent knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty <-* belief-based ignorance | OF IGNORANCE
What happens with idol worship: people protect their ideological "beliefs" by disallowing trying/testing/falsifying. This leads to fascism and is a product of "belief"-based ideologies that are ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
If all knowledge is belief, and all belief is ignorance, but you say knowledge negates belief...I am not really sure what you are saying.
All knowledge is *NOT* belief. The philosophical assertion:
All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
Is absurd. Try:
All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, butnot any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.
which establishes the need to try any/all belief for belief-based ignorance(s).
So it is technically true that knowing *requires* belief, but black is not white.
What BELIEF is to black (ie. ignorance), <-* satan requires belief
KNOWLEDGE is to white (ie. knowledge) <-* god is all-knowing
and knowledge negates belief ad infinitum. <-* yang and yin
Now with this in mind, reconsider 0-1-2-3-4 and 0-4-3-2-1:
2 (any/all)
1 KNOW (equivalent: Tree of Life)
0 I am willing to... ^v
4 BELIEVE (equivalent: Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil)
3 *not to* (negation/falsification)
wherein:
0-1-2-3-4 = I am willing to KNOW, (any/all) *not to* BELIEVE...(ad infinitum)
(tends towards knowledge of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s) otherwise "believed" in by the unknowing / all-knowing god)
0-4-3-2-1 = I am willing to BELIEVE, *not to* any/all KNOW...(ad infinitum)
(tends towards "belief"-based ignorance(s) lacking knowledge that would otherwise negate "belief" in/of them / all-believing satan)
The theorem predicts that these are the two Edenic trees:
wherein there are only two variables:
KNOWLEDGE
of
BELIEF(-BASED IGNORANCE)
and knowledge negates belief: knowing any/all *not* to "believe". This establishes a Truth by Way of Negation model:
Truth: whatever can not be **NEGATED**
Way: conscience; consciously trying/testing ad infinitum (ie. consciousness itself)
Living: duality; knowledge/of/ignorance; true/false (ie. light/darkness)
Hence the Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance Theorem.
It can be used to predict:
i. The original sin(s) (so-called)
ii. Source(s) of suffering: Nazism/fascism, socialism etc.
iii. Peace model that tends towards peace, instead of "us vs. them" / "believer vs. unbeliever" etc.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I can not say I agree with your use of language if you are saying that to say "I believe because I know" or "I believe what I know" can never be meaningfully said.
"I believe because I know..."
"I believe what I know..."
are ignorant statements. It is not that it is *not* "meaningful", it just means the person is ignorant. Look:
I think, therefor I am.
is similarly ignorant. There is no conscious acknowledgement of self. In fact, there is a conflation of being with thought:
i. one can can think less they exist, and
ii. one can not even begin to think less
having knowingly been born in the mind
as a thought: "I think, therefor I am!".
Try:
I think, therefor I know I am able to think.
which is still ignorant of self, but recognizes the ability/capacity of the self to think. Try:
I think not, knowing I am willing not to think.
which is a full acknowledgement of self:
i. distinguishes the being from the thought process of that being
ii. recognizes the ability/capacity of self
iii. acknowledges self
Now replace with "belief":
I believe, therefor I am.
absurd and ignorant.
"I believe because I know...""I believe what I know..."
are ignorant statements. It is not that it is *not* "meaningful", it just means the person is ignorant.
Try:
i. I believe not, because I know.ii. I believe not what I know.
which are consciously justified:
i. knowledge negates belief - knowing any/all *not* to "believe"
ii. knowledge negates belief - believing entails degrees of uncertainty, whereas knowledge contains none
And so the one who "believes" in what they "know" are themselves confused without real knowledge-negating-belief.
I think, therefor I am.
is thus backwards:
I am, therefor I (may) think.
is correct.
I believe I am...
is ignorant: no knowledge of self.
I know I (merely) believe...
is a knowledge. It recognizes that "belief" has (a) limitation(s), and knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty pertaining to that "belief" is also knowledge. It is therefor a knowledgeable "belief".
If a person "believes" something and merely takes it to by 'true' without a conscious acknowledgement of any/all degrees of uncertainty pertaining to that "belief", the person is ignorant and in "belief"-based ignorance. This is much/all of "belief"-based theology.
Created:
Posted in:
That doesn't really say anything. Belief in a god can mean so many different things. I am not sure what "Belief theology" means, and its meaning is not obvious to me.-Mopac
Any/all belief in any god requires "belief"-in-and-of-itself.
So-called satan also requires "belief"-in-and-of-itself.
There is a problem in this.
What is belief?Belief is the internal assessment of internally stored data, whereby the assessor establishes a conclusion of sorts.Sometimes, through discussion or debate we take on board a new set of data that causes us to modify our previously held conclusion.How resolutely we adhere to set patterns of internally stored data is largely due to when where and how we were formatively conditioned.In extreme cases this is often referred to as brainwashing. Though it's fair to say that we all grow up with a certain amount of well established data and thought patterns on board.-zedvictor4
It can be made simpler: belief contains one or more degrees of uncertainty.
How (un)conscious one is regarding those degrees of uncertainty is where knowledge begins/ends.
Knowledge negates (need for) "belief",
"Belief" is absence of knowledge.
If satan requires "belief"-in-and-of-itself,
and is antithetical to god,
would god not require "knowledge"-in-and-of-itself
of any/all *not* to "believe"?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
No, you have it backwards: all belief is ignorance. Knowledge negates belief and is thus antithetical to belief.It kind of sounds like you are saying all knowledge is ignorance(?). Is that what you are saying?
All belief is ignorance, but not all ignorance is belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Belief in a god... is this not immediately obvious?What is belief based theology?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good (without the need to define them). Any all-knowing god would certainly know any/all *not* to "believe".Good to know you believe everything you typed, blaming Muslims, Christians and characters in books you think don't exist for the demise of the world's morality. I'm glad to know you believe so strongly in not believing.
People who "believe" while having no conscious knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty pertaining to their "belief" are necessarily ignorant. That is what defines ignorance: lack of knowledge. If a person just "believes" and "believes" ongoing, it is the same as satan:
shin - expression of being (ie. as a conjunction of psychology/emotion/action)
tet - bound (ie. entangled)
nun (final) - ongoing (ie. indefinite) state
...the expression of being bound in an ongoing (indefinite) state...Knowledge serves to know what *not* to "believe" such to avoid it, and I know not to "believe" either the Bible (the first five books of which are the Torah, themselves derivative of four independent source authors J, E, P, and D with a 5th R(edactor)) nor the Qur'an (evolved from Syriac Christian strophic hymns) are the perfect words of any inspired creator. At best, if they ever were, there is a needed emphasis on were for certainly no longer being such. If one looks closely, one finds history repeats itself between the two: addition of diacritical markings, redactions and modifications etc. Mecca did not even exist in the time of Muhammad: all mosques built up until ~730 CE had qiblas (direction of prayer) facing Petra in South Jordan, which *did* exist at the time of Muhammad and served as a central trade hub. Islam began in Petra, not Mecca, and thus Muhammad would not have ever faced "Mecca" to pray. It is all "belief"-based ignorance that has costed the lives of hundreds of millions.
Ps. the Christians/Muslims are the first victims of their own ideology.
Created:
Posted in:
Some TIPS (truth in plain sight):
*if* the original sin of man is related to his blaming the woman for his own iniquity, do we see this manifest in the real world?
What do the "believing" women wear as a symbol of so-called "modesty"?
Do men who view women as "whores" sexually abuse/rape women "believing" them to be such anyways (ie. as a justification for their raping them)?
Is the hijab/niqab a product of the sexual degeneracy of men viz. blaming them for the men being unable to control themselves?
Are the women of these religions actually wearing the iniquity of the men?
"I have never seen anyone suffer like the believing woman."-A'isha, "favorite" wife of the "believed"-himself-to-be-the-final-messenger-of-god Muhammad
There is much more truth in her words than the entirety of the Qur'an, which is evolved from Syriac (not Arabic) Christian (not Islamic) strophic hymns and suffered the same man-handling (ie. changes, modifications, addition(s) of diacritics etc.) as the Torah before it (ie. history certainly repeats itself). All of this "belief"-based ignorance at the hands of "believers" who are bound to "believe" and "believe" and "believe"...
...eating from the very tree they were first instructed not to. So they blame the woman. So she blames the serpent, and Cain blames whoever he hates etc. and on and on and on. "Belief"-based ignorance will be the death of humanity if/whenever that comes.
Now see for example, the House of Islam, whine and squeal over criticisms of their idol they *absolutely worship* for a living: a dead man, what he said, what he did, how he lived, how he prayed etc. and their many books of his sayings and actions. They worship a man while "believing" they are *not* worshiping a man - all of this unknowing Allah is Muhammad('s lust for women/conquest). So they use his image and likeness to justify their own: to obey Muhammad is to obey Allah (despite their "belief" they do not associate partners with Allah(?)). It is all "belief"-based ignorant brain rot that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions, and all the House of Islam can do is point fingers, blame, scapegoat etc. while, in reality, the idol of Islam Muhammad establishes a global precedent for pedophilia/war on the planet. The greatest example for all of humanity is a pedophile warlord man, and the "believing" Muhammadans claim they do not worship this man despite their willingness to *spill blood* over ridicule of the man. Islam is the most idolatrous institution on the planet (beyond even Christianity): guilty of crimes against humanity while being the real root(s) of Nazism/fascism, socialism and Liberalism (all mental disorders stemming from Islam itself). Islam has absolutely no conscious knowledge of its own "belief"-based ignorance and can only blame others, suppress, silence, slander etc. all qualities they accuse the Jew of, mind you. Who are they to speak ill of the Jew, being their ancestors? Like, hello? Abraham "Ibrahim" right? Moses "Musa" right? Islam is not an Abrahamic religion: it is an Abrahamic heresy. That is the example of how "belief" is the conduit of any/all potential "evil" (without the need to define it).
It takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good. Such are the "believers" who "believe" they are *not* eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thereby "believing" evil is good. They have absolutely no knowledge (the negation of "belief") nor idea (use of conscience), of what they do: they just eat, and eat, and eat "believing" to know good and evil. Thus, they become upside-down over time recognizing not the evil of themselves. This is Muhammad, and the reason A'isha spoke the words she spoke: the man was ignorant of himself militarily "believing" himself to be something he was not. Hundreds of millions are dead due to that. Hitler did something similar against Jews.
When any problem ignorantly "believes" itself to be a solution,
it is a problem-in-and-of-itself begging for perpetual conflict.
Created:
Posted in:
According to the definition of intelligence applying knowledge is something only an intelligent being can do. I will list an example of me applying knowledge then list a example of god applying knowledge.My exampleI have knowledge that plants die during the winter time. So i apply this knowledge and bring in my plants indoors so they do not die in the cold.Gods example.God has knowledge that dogs would be hot during the summer. So he applied this knowledge and designed the dogs to shed it's fur during the summer
Your "Gods example" is absolutely presumptuous: it denies the obvious that lifeforms adapt to their immediate environments such that any/all changes to their physiology are derivative therefrom. It is because such lifeforms need a coat during the cold while not needing it in heat they have evolved to grow/shed accordingly (to the environment). It can be said that life-in-and-of-itself is intelligent, but certainly not that:
i. there is therefor a God, and
ii. God therefor applied so-called knowledge to produce what we see
It can be explained without the assumption of any god.
Knowledge first begins with self: 'know thy self'.
If you take the universe and call it 'that I am'
and take any being 'I am' and place them in/of 'that I am'
how could 'I am' ever infer an unknown 'that I am' if 'I am'
is unknown unto/by itself?
This is why "belief" in matters pertaining to god are entirely ignorant less a knowledge of ones own self whence to infer such god. One can not infer an unknown by way of another unknown - it is impossible, and it takes a "believer" to "believe" otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
There is no sensible way to believe the mainstream storyline of Adam being the biological father of Cain. I believe that the idea is that Cain was made from God's alter ego Satan (I don't believe that Lucifer is Satan or that he ever becomes it, I believe that Lucifer is Jesus in the NT and that God of the OT is, or directly controls, Satan throughout). The Serpent was to produce the most evil, masculine being in the entire storyline; Cain, who would reflect everything sinister and brutal in humanity, whereas Abel would represent a more feminist type of guy, who respectd women and people in general holding an honest reputation about himself.There is absolutely no explanation of what the 'swallowing of the apple' is metaphor for, are you literally telling me that an apple was that tempting? I think the apple was having sex with the serpent of the sexy badboy Satan.
Adam is the "symbolic" father of Cain: it follows from the original sin onward.
Adam: blames woman/god for his own failing to adhere to the warning of not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil
Eve: blames serpent for not adhering to the warning of not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (ie. "believe" to know it)
Cain: elaboration of blaming/scapegoating: tilling from ones own soil and projecting it onto ones own adversary (ie. brother) as if the fault is owing to another and not to the self. Clinically this is psychological projection: blaming/accusing others of ones own 'state'. This is technically what "religion" is: scapegoating of the sins of the self onto others (ie. Jesus) and/or projecting the iniquities of ones own house (ie. abusing women) onto their adversaries (ie. the West). It is all original sin blaming projecting scapegoating ad infinitum. This is a root of evil: to accuse another of what one is themselves guilty of. It is what Adam did: blame/accuse.
The metaphor of the apple is not complicated: it is just too much for some "believers" to swallow.
2- (any/all) <-* infinite/boundlessness
1- KNOW <-* TREE OF LIVING
0- I am (willing to) <-* (un)conscious being
4- BELIEVE <-* required by satan in order for any "believer" to "believe" evil is good
3- *not to* <-* avoid so-called satan
wherein:
0-1-2-3-4 = I am willing to KNOW any/all *not to* BELIEVE...
0-4-3-2-1 = I am willing to BELIEVE any/all *not to* KNOW...
(notice the backwards/forwards inversion - this inversion is needed to invert evil/good via BELIEF)
Thus it takes a "believer" to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:
A: We are good, B is evil!
B: NO, WE are good, A is evil!
(a third option exists unknown to either A/B):
C: Both A and B are ignorantly eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
A/B will "surely die" according to their own eating/entanglement/polarization.
C can choose not to become entangled at all "knowing" it takes a "believer" to ever "believe" evil is good.
In the same way it takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good,
it takes the same "believer" to "believe":
i. War is Peace
ii. Infidelity is Findelity
iii. Abuse is Mercy
iv. Man is entitled to more than one woman contrary to the pre-fall Edenic 'state' of 1:1
v. A (dead) polygamous pedophile infidel man is the greatest model for all of humanity
etc. etc.
And there is all of your "evil": wrapped up in "belief"-in-and-of-itself.
There is another tree entirely: knowing any/all *not* to "believe".
Created:
Posted in:
It requires belief for you to use language. You have to believe words have meaning.
This is not true.
It does not require belief for anyone to use language: they can acknowledge its capabilities and limitations accordingly. This is not a "belief", this is a knowledge in/of the degree to which "language" has application/limitation.
Further: one need not "believe" words have meaning: rather "know" they have a shared (ie. common) meaning and the degrees to which this can (and/or can not) serve.
The generally accepted:
All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
Is philosophical waffle. It absolutely overlooks there is knowledge-in-and-of-itself as it serves to *negate* any/all "belief" such to never "believe" that which is certainly not true. This is a knowledge absent belief: knowing any/all *not* to "believe". I would even argue this is all 'knowledge' is: the inverse of "belief"-based ignorance, hence the two Edenic trees:
2- (any/all) <-* infinity
1- KNOW <-* TREE OF LIVING
0- ^v I am (willing to...) <-*(un)conscious being
4- BELIEVE <-* TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL
3- *not to* <-* negation knowledge-in-and-of-itself
0-1-2-3-4 = I am willing to KNOW any/all *not to* BELIEVE...
0-4-3-2-1 = I am willing to BELIEVE any/all *not to* KNOW...
Rendering:
All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
as being ABSOLUTELY ABSURD, in so knowing so deriving:
| Any/all knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, but | <-* conscious knowledge
| not any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all. | <-* of ignorance
which allows for a knowledge-in-and-of-itself absent any/all "belief": the knowledge of the need to incessantly negate it.
With all of this said, I recall:
i. It takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good, thus eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
ii. Any all-knowing god would *know* so-called satan *certainly requires belief* in order to be potent
iii. Any all-knowing god must necessarily know any/all *not* to "believe"
and "belief"-based theology collapses to this absurdity: what in the f*** would an all-knowing god need with "belief" knowing knowledge-in-and-of-itself is the very thing that negates any/all need for "belief" knowing so-called satan certainly requires "belief"-in-and-of-itself in the first place?
Created:
I am currently working on a working/testable theorem that I would love to have falsified (if it can be, it needs to be anyways). It predicts a:
"belief"-in-and-of-itself / "knowledge"-in-and-itself
primordial antithetical dichotomous dipole singularity
as in: a primordial yang and yin.
I find it absolutely equivalent to the two so-called "Edenic" trees of life, and of knowledge of good and evil (explained later herein).
I derived it via beginning with the thought experiment thus:
Start with nothingness.Let there be a universe (if so willing it can be this one) and designate this universe as 'that I am'.Let there be a being "I am" in/of 'that I am'.Let 'that I am' be absolutely unknown: god, no god, satan, no satan, flying spaghetti monster etc. absolutely 'unknown'.Is it possible to infer 'that I am' if "I am" is also 'unknown' unto *itself*?
This gave rise to a component to the theorem: The Relative Infra-Inference Problem-Postulate (TRIIPP)
which begs that there be a reconsideration of:
All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
to:
All knowing is (by way of) indefinitely trying belief, but
not all belief is (by way of) indefinitely trying to know all.
rendering the former absolutely absurd.
It omits that knowing any/all *not* to "believe" by way of *falsification* is (as) a kind of knowledge-in-and-of-itself, and is essential to (con)science(s). For example, the negation of any "belief"-based assertion(s) otherwise taken to hold (ie. as generally true) may be tried (indefinitely, if needed) for ignorance(s) that may exist *unknowingly* and subsequently falsified, thus not to be "believed" in, which is a knowledge *as distinct from* belief. This demands a conscious knowledge of ignorance argument rendered thus:
CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF IGNORANCE ARGUMENT (CKOIA)P1. Knowledge (ie. 'knowing') is certainly made attainable and/or practical by way of use of the (con)science(s) (ie. inquiry).P2. Knowing (how) to consciously falsify (ie. try/test) belief(s) for ignorance(s) (ie. to consciously 'know' *if not* to believe) certainly exists and is definitely a (kind of) knowledge-in-and-of-itself.P3. Any/all 'belief'-based ignorance(s) exist(s) in, as, of and/or by way of belief-in-and-of-itself.C1. All-knowing is definitely approached by: indefinitely trying to consciously falsify any/all "belief(s)" indefinitely (ad infinitum).
This later gave rise to LORI: Laws of Relative Inference:
which predicts a bi-directional eye of a dipole:
2 (any/all)
1 KNOW (equivalent: Tree of Life)
0 I am willing to... ^v
4 BELIEVE (equivalent: Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil)
3 *not to* (negation/falsification)
wherein:
0-1-2-3-4 = I am willing to KNOW, (any/all) *not to* BELIEVE...(ad infinitum)
(tends towards knowledge of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s) otherwise "believed" in by the unknowing / all-knowing god)
0-4-3-2-1 = I am willing to BELIEVE, *not to* KNOW (any/all)...(ad infinitum)
(tends towards "belief"-based ignorance(s) lacking knowledge that would otherwise negate "belief" in/of them / all-believing satan)
which allows the rendering of the following dichotomous statement:
What (the presence of) "belief"-based ignorance is to *the absence of* knowledge,(the presence of) knowledge is to *the absence of* "belief"-based ignorance.
And this all lead naturally to the dipole presented:
(+)knowledge/negation/ignorance(-).
Thus:
as ignorance increases(for lacking knowledge *not* to believe),suffering/death increases accordinglyto how one "eats".
and
as knowledge increases(for lacking "belief"-based ignorance)suffering/death decreases accordinglyto how one "eats".
This finally discovers:
All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
to be further begging of a modification of belief:
All belief is ignorance, but not all ignorance is belief.
And this would certainly collapse any/all "belief"-based ideologies as being necessarily ignorant. Which finally brings me to ask:
Is there any way to falsify any of this?
Anything to be improved upon?
Does the CKOIA hold?
Thanks for reading and consideration.
Created:
Posted in:
***RE: You can infer that Ultimate Reality exists very easily.
I don't recognize your use of "Ultimate Reality".
***RE: The fact that you are having an experience is scientific proof that there is some form of existence.
What does that have to do with anything? Scientific proof of what? You can not just say "Ultimate Reality" (whatever that is) then say experience is proof of it. It's absolutely nonsensical. Nobody is questioning existence. You can not just infer whatever you want "because existence!"
***RE: If you have ever been wrong, have been surprised, have learned anything, etc. This proves that the reality you experience is not reality as it truly is.
No it doesn't, it proves that "reality" is relative to the observer, just as time is. We understand how that works just fine without "Ultimate Reality".
***RE: The Ultimate Reality is reality as it truly is in its completeness. It is reality in the truest sense of what that means. It is ultimately real, not real in a relativistic or contingent sense. Truly a singularity.
A singular absurdity: knowledge negates "belief"-based ignorance and vice versa. As such, each person is conflicted between the two less they are fully self-realized / liberated.
***RE: The Ultimate Reality is what we call God. That is what God means. The Supreme Being, that is, being in the sense of existence. The Supreme Existence.
...it's what *you* might call god, and what it means *to you*. The Hebrew word for god "Elohim" is a folded circle which has the bestowal/reception male/female principles imbued into it.
***RE: God by necessity must exist, because if there is no Ultimate Reality, nothing is ultimately real! As there is clearly some form of existence or reality, God must exist.
No, there is no "by necessity" anything. You can't call upon necessity of there being a god "because existence!" it's absolutely absurd.
***RE: In fact, you can be more certain that God exists than even the existence of what you think is the self.
I don't think anything about the 'self' I'm not Descartes who thinks "therefor I am!". Once a person thinks they are, they are living in their mind as the philosophers do.
I think (therefor) I am... = ignorant
I believe I am... = ignorant
I know I am... = first fundamental knowledge
Once again, it takes a "believer" to "believer":
i. evil is good
ii. satan is god
iii. "belief"-in-and-of-itself is a virtue
and knowledge of any/all *not* to "believe" tends towards any all-knowing god, which must certainly know that satan requires belief.
Created:
Posted in:
I do not find truth by way of negation and "nihilism" to be the same... at all.
Truth by way of negation does not / can not negate itself: it is subject to itself according to how it is derived from nothing:
0. Of any antithetical dipole dichotomy, one can not infer an unknown from an unknown
1. if any fixed property of one pole is known,
2. its other can be inferred via inversion
3. the antitheses of which
4. can be used to infer the antithesis of 1
It does not act *against* whatever can not be negated - leaving only what is tending toward being true/infallible, such as to reveal axioms over time that indicate primordial order (ie. law).
Law 0 dictates that no "believer" can possibly infer any god for not "knowing" themselves.
There is a reason 'know thy self' exists: can not infer god from an unknown (ie. one who "believes" themselves to be something they are not).
Therefor the first fundamental knowledge/ignorance is of one's own self: the truth by way of negation is only as effective as the being using it.
Created:
Posted in:
RE: "BELIEF"
Usage:
---
belief - as containing one or more degrees of uncertainty (ie. unknown)
knowledge - the sum immediate conscientiousness of any body (as attained to) concerning any/all matters
*not* to be wholly "believed" (in) on the basis of such to be 'known' (ie. as a body of 'knowledge') to
certainly contain some degree(s) of (relative) uncertainty and/or 'known' falsity;
as well as, any/all conscientiousness of (the existence of) fixed principles
(as attained to, in pursuit of the same 'knowledge') immediately serving (ie: temperance of) the same body.
*not* to be wholly "believed" (in) on the basis of such to be 'known' (ie. as a body of 'knowledge') to
certainly contain some degree(s) of (relative) uncertainty and/or 'known' falsity;
as well as, any/all conscientiousness of (the existence of) fixed principles
(as attained to, in pursuit of the same 'knowledge') immediately serving (ie: temperance of) the same body.
negation - to know to a certainty that any tried/tested belief-based assertion(s) is not true
---
Does so-called Satan not explicitly *require* belief-in-and-of-itself, in order that any believer "believe" Satan is God (ie. confusion)?
Does it not take any "believer" to "believe" evil is good? ( ie. conflation, whatever they may be...)
How does one ultimately know any/all *not* to "believe"? (to avoid Satan/evil...?)
...what "belief"-in-and-of-itself is to Satan,
"knowing"-in-and-of-itself is to God (...who is all-knowing?)
Of...?
...any/all *NOT* to "BELIEVE"...?
Would an all-knowing god not "know" any/all *not* to "believe"?
If so, read 0-1-2-3-4 then 0-4-3-2-1
2 (any/all)
1 KNOW(ledge)
0- (I am willing to...)
4 BELIEVE(-based ignorance)
3 *NOT* to
trending towards all-knowing god: 0-1-2-3-4
I am willing to KNOW, (any/all) *NOT* to BELIEVE = TREE OF LIFE
(Truth by Way of Negation of any/all "Belief"-based ignorance)
trending towards all-believing satan: 0-4-3-2-1
I am willing to BELIEVE, *NOT* to KNOW (any/all) = TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL
("Belief"-based ignorance due to good vs. evil / us vs. them / believer vs. unbeliever dualism etc. hundreds of millions dead)
Genesis 2:17 (KJV)But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Truth by Way of Negation leaves only the Truth of the Way of the Living (whatever is true can not be falsified).
Some Q.
Who are so willing to calling themselves BELIEVERS and what are they willing to BELIEVE?
Are they attempting to consciously try/test their "belief" for ignorance(s) in pursuit of more knowledge?
Are they aware (ie. conscious of) of their own ignorance and/or do they acknowledge it?
Who "believes" to be in possession of a god-book?
Who "believes" in a male central figure "mercy upon mankind" idol for any/all of humanity?
Who "believes" to be fighting in a cause of a "belief"-based god?
What would any all-knowing god need with "belief" if god is knowing satan requires it?
Why would any all-knowing god use the same currency (ie. belief) as satan?
Who would want "believers" to "believe" that "belief"-in-and-of-itself is a virtue?
All-knowing is by way of endlessly trying belief, butnot all belief is by way of endlessly trying to know all.All belief is ignorance, but not all ignorance is belief.
Willing to debate against any/all "belief"-based (mono)theism as necessarily ignorant.
Created: