Debating to undermine any/all "BELIEF"

Author: AGnosticAgnostic

Posts

Total: 131
Topic's author
#31
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
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".
#32
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
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.

Topic's author
#33
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
-->
@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.

#34
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
I know that knowledge =/= truth. 
Topic's author
#35
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
-->
@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?

#36
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
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.




Topic's author
#37
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
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.
'Knowledge is creation' is confused: knowledge is negation.

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 - k

as in:

(-/+) 0 = (-1 +1)

viz.
a folded circle: infinity symbol ( anumerically: 0 becomes 8 ) with +/- as its poles
wherein (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 another

and 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 - k

k = 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.
#38
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Knowledge is creation' is confused: knowledge is negation.

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.


Any/all falsity is a contingent existence. It is temporal.


Of course. It exists as a falsity, but the defining characteristic of a falsity is its nonexistence, not its existence.



As best, with knowledge, one can dispel any/all falsity leaving only what is true, which is not-an-object (ie. 'itself' is incoherent).
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 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.
Topic's author
#39
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
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.
#40
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
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.

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?


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.

Theophany
Theoria
Theosis



#41
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
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.
#42
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
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.


Topic's author
#43
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
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.

Theophany
Theoria
Theosis
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 knowledge
Try *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).
#44
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mopac
Christianity is not a belief based religion.
Scripture disproves that assertion. All quotes from the NASB.

Genesis 15:6 (NASB)
Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed that very moment.

When He entered the house, the blind men came up to Him, and Jesus *said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They *said to Him, “Yes, Lord.”

but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

And Jesus said to him, “‘If You can?’ All things are possible to him who believes.”

These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;

He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Jesus *said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.

Many more believed because of His word;

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

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.
It requires a belief that God exists and He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. There are certain things, that is you believe, you deny the faith, so the right belief is important. It is believing in what another Person, the Lord Jesus Christ, has done before God that I have no ability to do in to save me.  


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?


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 mystery has been revealed. What the OT saints and BELIEVERS watched and waited for is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. 

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past,

but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;

Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,

He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him

that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief.

By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,

and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel,

that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints,

to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself,

praying at the same time for us as well, that God will open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ, for which I have also been imprisoned;

#45
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
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.

One can come to know and be a witness to the resurrection.

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?

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.


It's not a mystery unless from the perspective of the child
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.


There is only two conscious (justified) choices when it comes to belief:

Try to believe = try it for/as knowledge
Try *not* to believe = know it, as *not knowledge*

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!



Belief is not a virtue - it is needed to confuse the primordial poles of good and evil (so-called).
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.

Topic's author
#46
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
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).
#47
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@PGA2.0
It is not simple belief or intellectual assent that the scriptures speak of, but a faithfulness. Faith being without works being dead, and not considered faith at all.


The mystery has not been revealed to all, as not all are enlightened. If the mystery was revealed to all, the scripture you quoted would not say, "but has now been manifested to His saints."



#48
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
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!

It sounds to me as if you believe you know better.


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.

The Ultimate Reality is God. God doesn't need discipline. God doesn't need anything.


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!

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.




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).
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.
#49
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mopac
It is not simple belief or intellectual assent that the scriptures speak of, but a faithfulness.
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.


Faith being without works being dead, and not considered faith at all.
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). 


The mystery has not been revealed to all, as not all are enlightened. If the mystery was revealed to all, the scripture you quoted would not say, "but has now been manifested to His saints."


Now you are being clear! You originally said,


"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."

 
Even so, the mysteries have been explained.






#50
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Mysteries can be explained, but having an explanation of a mystery is not the same thing as experiencing a mystery.
 
Having an explanation in your mind of thankfulness is not the same thing as being thankful. There is a very different knowledge.
Topic's author
#51
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
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 - 1
b = k - k

k = 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)











Topic's author
#52
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
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.

#53
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic

believ(ing) to know good and evil, it is satanic.

If that was the case, the scriptures would not say to seek wisdom, and discernment would not be a gift of the spirit.





#54
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Belief is an object, hence it is idol worship. Faith is the binding agency. Jesus is an idol worshiped by idol worshipers.



You certainly have beliefs yourself. Are you an idol worshipper?

You do not really know the Jesus we know. You know a different Jesus.



#55
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Again, I ask you to please supply me with a notification by typing my name in the "Receivers" box or I might miss responding to you. Thanks!


"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.
Even so, unless we are colour blind we can distinguish between different hues or shades. The contrast between red and white is obvious to all by the word white or red. White represents one hue or shade of colour, white another. So once someone tells you for the first time "snow is white in colour" you can believe that the colour of snow is classified as white or not. Knowledge comes with the confirmation of what is true. 
 


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.
So, do you not know that snow is white? Do you believe it is red?



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
Where are you getting this stuff from? Are you thinking about it by yourself, or are you using someone's ideas?

#56
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic


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.
A believer in naturalism believes in nature. A scientist believes in science. So what?

The belief in origins comes before the knowledge since we still have varying views that are fought over.

First, we believe God exists, then He supplies the knowledge. 

Even my belief in self-evidential truths came after I thought about the issue. I had to first think the proposition was reasonable. Then once I believed that then it was confirmed with knowledge. When I thought about the law of identity (A=A) I had to believe it reasonable as I confirmed its truthfulness (or else I would have dismissed it) and it was sorted out in my mind.


Belief is a subcategory of knowledge, not the other way around. They have it backwards. See:
Knowledge --> Belief  OR
Belief --> Knowledge (that is justified true belief leads to knowledge)

You have to start somewhere. That is the initial belief. You don't yet know it but it either appeals to you or seems reasonable to you. If the belief pans out to what is real it becomes knowledge. You have to associate belief with fact for it to be justified.



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:
Exactly! So you first have to believe it reasonable or else you will dismiss it as untrue instead of pursuing it further. (Knowledge = justified true belief)


All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
If all knowledge is belief then the belief must come first. Belief --> Knowledge

Correct, not all belief is knowledge!


is absolutely absurd.
Do you believe that or do you know it?

It would mean there is no better to the ignorance-prone belief-in-and-of-itself:
That is not what it necessarily means. Knowledge is justified true belief. There are different kinds of belief - blind, irrational, rational, justified true. 


one can never know (any/all ignorance relating to:) self without believing the self to be ignorant?
First, you don't know everything there is to know about yourself. You believe some things about yourself that are either confirmed or denied by facts, by what is reasonable and what is real.


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.
Do you believe you do not know everything or do you disbelieve you know everything? When you disbelieve one thing you believe the other. Nevertheless, it is a belief. If you can justify it as true belief then you have established knowledge.


It would take a "believer" to believe they already do know everything...
That is ridiculous. Which believer believes they know everything unless they are delusional?

The same fallacious statement could be made about the unbeliever.
"Unbelievers who think they know everything. They speak as though they are gods." 

#57
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8


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.
Do you believe that?

***

As I said before, there are three kinds of faith/belief that I am aware of, blind belief/faith, irrational belief/faith, rational faith/belief. The third kind leads to knowledge for it justifies the belief with facts and what is the case. 



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.
Again, not necessarily ignorant if it is a reasonable belief. If I feel hot water coming from a tap that burns my skin my belief will be to be cautious when turning on the tap. With trial and error, my belief will be fine-tuned to what actually is the case. I will figure out that hot water comes from the hot tap. I will figure out it takes a few minutes for the water to heat up or move along the pipes from the hot water tank to the faucet. I will figure out that when I see the steam I know it is very hot by past experience. By combining individual beliefs about the tap, the water, the steam, the faucet, the information on these beliefs will bring to my belief system knowledge of the real case. 


Faith is not belief: belief is an object (ie. a belief in...) whereas faith is the binding agency of/to it.

Faith is trust. It believes. If I have no faith in something I don't believe it to be the case, I don't trust it.

[ The Triumphs of Faith ] Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for. It believes.

Matthew 9:28-30 (NASB)
28 When He entered the house, the blind men came up to Him, and Jesus *said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They *said to Him, “Yes, Lord.” 29 Then He touched their eyes, saying, “It shall be done to you according to your faith.” 30 And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them: “See that no one knows about this!”

Because of their faith (trust) that He could do it, the belief was granted.

***

Faith is the opposite of doubt. Faith believes. Doubt distrusts.

Immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and *said to him, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?”

No faith = great doubt.

Mark 11:21-23 (NASB)
21 Being reminded, Peter *said to Him, “Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered.” 22 And Jesus *answered saying to them, “Have faith in God. 23 Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him.

Faith in God = not doubting God but believing Him = God grants that person salvation.

God is the object of our faith or belief. Faith is believing God, not doubting Him. 

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Again, the object of our faith or belief is in Jesus Christ. 

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.




Topic's author
#58
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
-->
@Mopac
If that was the case, the scriptures would not say to seek wisdom, and discernment would not be a gift of the spirit.
Wisdom is making the two one.

Good and evil are not one if one believes they are two.

inf = 0
(folded 0 = infinity)
0=1-1
1^inf = 0, 1
(-1)+1^inf = {0, 1} -1

etc. infinity requires a counter-part, thus good and evil are one.

However:

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

b = k - k
wherein
k is knowledge (negating belief)
-k is ignorance (belief-based)

Satan only has potency in/as/of -k
The counterpart is k: God(-negating-Satan).

Belief in any god is spurious upon the knowledge satan *requires belief-in-and-of-itself to be potent.



#59
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
It is not necessary to believe in Satan to be deceived. You can be deceived without believing in Satan. 


Knowledge of infinity requires a counterpart, because that is how creation works. In creation objects are created by relations. For the human mind to make sense of anything, it needs something else to compare it to. Knowledge, belief, or anything apprehended by the mind is creation.

That  being the case, God is greater than knowledge, because God is not a contingent or relativistic reality, but the singular Ultimate Reality.


Topic's author
#60
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
If all knowledge is belief then the belief must come first. Belief --> Knowledge

Correct, not all belief is knowledge!
All knowledge is not belief.

The philosophical assertion is absurd:

All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.

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.

I know I am willing to try to believe... (acknowledgement).

I know I believe = (conscious) knowledge
I believe I know = ignorance lacking knowledge

Knowledge comes first, not belief.

Whoever caused this to become upside-down in the Western world has blood on their hands. Such stupidity.

Do you believe that or do you know it?
Known. See:

That is not what it necessarily means. Knowledge is justified true belief. There are different kinds of belief - blind, irrational, rational, justified true. 
Belief is belief: one or more degrees of uncertainty.
Knowledge is lacking any/all degrees of uncertainty, which is thus intrinsically distinct from belief.

First, you don't know everything there is to know about yourself. You believe some things about yourself that are either confirmed or denied by facts, by what is reasonable and what is real.
Hence belief is required for ignorance.
Hence belief is required to confuse evil with good.
Hence knowledge negates belief-based ignorance.

Do you believe you do not know everything or do you disbelieve you know everything? When you disbelieve one thing you believe the other. Nevertheless, it is a belief. If you can justify it as true belief then you have established knowledge.
I know I do not know everything. Belief need not enter the equation.

I do not religiously suck on the belief pacifier as others do: an opiate for the masses.

That is ridiculous. Which believer believes they know everything unless they are delusional?
THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.

Believing to know good/evil (ie. to a certainty) is the same.

Delusional people cause suffering/death.


The same fallacious statement could be made about the unbeliever.
"Unbelievers who think they know everything. They speak as though they are gods." 
Therefor make the two one: unbelievers and believers alike can be ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.

See how beautiful wisdom is? Now you can know:

Theists and atheists are both capable of being ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.

If you make the two one, you can not go wrong either way, because either way is the same.

Do you believe that?

***

As I said before, there are three kinds of faith/belief that I am aware of, blind belief/faith, irrational belief/faith, rational faith/belief. The third kind leads to knowledge for it justifies the belief with facts and what is the case. 
No. It is knowledge that can be attained to.

The impasse will always exist: you believe belief comes before knowledge. With no disrespect intended, it is absurdly backwards: all knowledge begins with/as acknowledgement, which is in-and-of-itself absent belief for needing to try to / not to believe.

Again, not necessarily ignorant if it is a reasonable belief. If I feel hot water coming from a tap that burns my skin my belief will be to be cautious when turning on the tap. With trial and error, my belief will be fine-tuned to what actually is the case. I will figure out that hot water comes from the hot tap. I will figure out it takes a few minutes for the water to heat up or move along the pipes from the hot water tank to the faucet. I will figure out that when I see the steam I know it is very hot by past experience. By combining individual beliefs about the tap, the water, the steam, the faucet, the information on these beliefs will bring to my belief system knowledge of the real case. 
Necessarily ignorant as compared to knowledge. A knowledgeable belief has conscious knowledge of how it may be false.

Idol worship involves over-emphasis of trying * to * believe less trying equally the same belief to be * not true *.

If good/evil consume ad ininitum, equal attention must be paid to proving true/untrue any/all belief-based assertions.

Faith is trust. It believes. If I have no faith in something I don't believe it to be the case, I don't trust it.
Faith involves trust - they are not wholly equivalent. A belief is objective: requires a thing. What belief is to image, faith is to likeness.

As an fyi: references to scriptures are meaningless to me. I do not believe in them, knowing they are not what many believe them to be.

I lost the first half of the responses, and am not inclined to re-type them out.