Debating to undermine any/all "BELIEF"

Topic's author

#1

AGnosticAgnostic

Debates: 0

Posts: 93

0

2

AGnosticAgnostic

10.17.2019 02:32PM

0

2

10.17.2019 02:32PM

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.

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, but
not 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.

#2

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

10.17.2019 02:55PM

3

4

7

10.17.2019 02:55PM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

The Ultimate Reality is God.

That being the case, I see it as no strange thing to acknowledge that God by necessity exists.

The way of negation already has a name, by the way. It is called nihilism. The problem with nihilism is yes, it can be used to negate everything including itself. Nihilism is self defeating.

Nihilism in the truest sense being the denial of absolute truth or ultimate reality negates itself. After all, if nothing is ultimately real and there is no absokute truth, nihilism itself cannot be true.

The doctrine of negation is very destructive.

That said, The Orthodox Church does put a lot of emphasis on Apophatic theology.

Topic's author

#3

AGnosticAgnostic

Debates: 0

Posts: 93

0

2

AGnosticAgnostic

10.17.2019 03:18PM

0

2

10.17.2019 03:18PM

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

https://ibb.co/090gbJ2

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.

#4

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

10.17.2019 04:28PM

3

4

7

10.17.2019 04:28PM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

You can infer that Ultimate Reality exists very easily.

The fact that you are having an experience is scientific proof that there is some form of existence.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In fact, you can be more certain that God exists than even the existence of what you think is the self.

Topic's author

#5

AGnosticAgnostic

Debates: 0

Posts: 93

0

2

AGnosticAgnostic

10.17.2019 09:01PM

0

2

10.17.2019 09:01PM

***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.

#6

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

10.17.2019 09:48PM

3

4

7

10.17.2019 09:48PM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

It requires belief for you to use language. You have to believe words have meaning.

Topic's author

#7

AGnosticAgnostic

Debates: 0

Posts: 93

0

2

AGnosticAgnostic

10.20.2019 04:20PM

0

2

10.20.2019 04:20PM

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?

#8

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

10.20.2019 10:11PM

3

4

7

10.20.2019 10:11PM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

What is belief based theology?

Topic's author

#9

AGnosticAgnostic

Debates: 0

Posts: 93

0

2

AGnosticAgnostic

10.21.2019 01:11AM

0

2

10.21.2019 01:11AM

-->

@Mopac

What is belief based theology?

Belief in a god... is this not immediately obvious?

#10

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

10.21.2019 04:22AM

3

4

7

10.21.2019 04:22AM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

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.

#11

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,177

3

6

zedvictor4

10.21.2019 05:44AM

3

6

10.21.2019 05:44AM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

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.

Topic's author

#12

AGnosticAgnostic

Debates: 0

Posts: 93

0

2

AGnosticAgnostic

10.21.2019 05:20PM

0

2

10.21.2019 05:20PM

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"?

#13

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

10.21.2019 06:04PM

3

4

7

10.21.2019 06:04PM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

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.

Topic's author

#14

AGnosticAgnostic

Debates: 0

Posts: 93

0

2

AGnosticAgnostic

10.21.2019 07:51PM

0

2

10.21.2019 07:51PM

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 2:17
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.

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-itself
2. Belief-in-and-of-itself
3. 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.

#15

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

10.21.2019 08:03PM

3

4

7

10.21.2019 08:03PM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

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.

#16

Dr.Franklin

Debates: 32

Posts: 10,698

4

7

11

Dr.Franklin

10.21.2019 11:48PM

4

7

11

10.21.2019 11:48PM

Another ebuc

Topic's author

#17

AGnosticAgnostic

Debates: 0

Posts: 93

0

2

AGnosticAgnostic

10.22.2019 12:05AM

0

2

10.22.2019 12:05AM

-->

@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.

#18

PGA2.0

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

3

5

8

PGA2.0

10.22.2019 12:52AM

3

5

8

10.22.2019 12:52AM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

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.

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, but
not 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.

So what do you believe about what you have written?

#19

PGA2.0

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

3

5

8

PGA2.0

10.22.2019 12:54AM

3

5

8

10.22.2019 12:54AM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

It requires belief for you to use language. You have to believe words have meaning.
This is not true.

Do you believe it 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.

Topic's author

#20

AGnosticAgnostic

Debates: 0

Posts: 93

0

2

AGnosticAgnostic

10.22.2019 01:31AM

0

2

10.22.2019 01:31AM

-->

@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, but
not 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.

#21

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,177

3

6

zedvictor4

10.22.2019 05:53AM

3

6

10.22.2019 05:53AM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

Are you saying that:

We think we believe but we probably should know that we don't.

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.

Even some of the brightest sparks retain illogical information within their databases. Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin, to name but two.

#22

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

10.22.2019 12:10PM

3

4

7

10.22.2019 12:10PM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

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.

#23

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

10.22.2019 02:57PM

3

4

7

10.22.2019 02:57PM

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.

#24

PGA2.0

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

3

5

8

PGA2.0

10.22.2019 08:33PM

3

5

8

10.22.2019 08:33PM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

So what do you believe about what you have written?
Generally: I only believe in possibility.

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?

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.

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.

***

Knowledge is justified true belief.

"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?

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

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.

***

Definition of belief

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion: something believed

There 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.

#25

PGA2.0

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

3

5

8

PGA2.0

10.22.2019 08:42PM

3

5

8

10.22.2019 08:42PM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

It is not necessary to "believe" in things before/while knowing them.

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.

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.

***

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.

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.

All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
This assertion is so ABSURD it is the biggest blunder philosophy has ever made.

Not at all. The one (knowledge) is a subcategory of the other (belief). Knowledge is justified true belief. That is the difference.

Not only this but we humans start with our ultimate presuppositions or propositions and work from those. If those presuppositions are not grounded in the truth then we build our whole worldview on shaky ground, on something that is not grounded in truth.

Thus, you either start with God and work from that presupposition or you start with nature, or materialism, or self, as the first or ultimate starting point and work from there outwards into your connected web of beliefs.

The problem from naturalism that many Christians have developed in not starting with God is that if you start with an untrue belief system, a system that excludes God as the starting point, thus, you continually run into contradictions that you solve by borrowing from the Christian framework to make sense of things. Thus, your inconsistency (you do not exclusively work from your starting or original framework at true) is that while you start from one framework you continually borrow from another to make sense of anything, ultimately.

Topic's author

#26

AGnosticAgnostic

Debates: 0

Posts: 93

0

2

AGnosticAgnostic

10.22.2019 10:44PM

0

2

10.22.2019 10:44PM

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.

Topic's author

#27

AGnosticAgnostic

Debates: 0

Posts: 93

0

2

AGnosticAgnostic

10.22.2019 10:44PM

0

2

10.22.2019 10:44PM

"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 belief

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion: something believed

There 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.

Topic's author

#28

AGnosticAgnostic

Debates: 0

Posts: 93

0

2

AGnosticAgnostic

10.22.2019 10:50PM

0

2

10.22.2019 10:50PM

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.

#29

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

10.22.2019 11:23PM

3

4

7

10.22.2019 11:23PM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

Do you think belief is inherently a bad thing?

You seem to be awfully certain about a lot of your own beliefs.

#30

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

10.22.2019 11:26PM

3

4

7

10.22.2019 11:26PM

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

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.....