Debating to undermine any/all "BELIEF"

Author: AGnosticAgnostic

Posts

Total: 131
#61
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, please type my name into the Receivers" box so that I get a notification.

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.
Although a Bible believer can be ignorant that is not what should be the case. God calls the believer to worship Him in spirit and in truth, with mind soul, spirit and body. 



Knowledge always negates belief-based ignorance as it tends both:
toward any all-knowing god
away from all-believing satan.
Belief-based ignorance - yes. That is not the biblical case.

Again you are making fallacious hasty generalizations when you say any all-knowing God. 

I invite you to prove your CLAIM with the Christian God (thus the OT and NT).


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.
I don't follow what you are trying to say. 


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.
Belief has a bearing on whether you know God for you first have to believe that He exists before you seek and find Him since He rewards those who diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6). As you read His words you come to know more and more about God, therein revealed. I don't understand how your ignorance of yourself means you are ignorant of God. I can be ignorant of lots of things and know others. I do believe you come to a better knowledge of yourself and humanity once you know God, or are known by Him. He then directs your paths. 


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.
It depends on what the object of belief and worship is as to whether it is an idol. Jesus told the woman at the well that those who worship God must worship in spirit and in truth. The two go hand-in-hand.  


Faith is the binding agency.
Faith is trust in your belief in God, in who He is and what He says.



Jesus is an idol worshiped by idol worshipers.
Not true, per the Bible. That is the Christian standard, not your words that contradict it.

The Bible, both Testaments, is a reasonable and logical belief that is confirmed by the revelation or self-disclosure of the God within, in the words, in so many ways.


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
What is your reference from, and what of Satan?


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.
Not biblical teaching. You are just making it up. Jesus and Satan are two different persons. They are opposites. It is just logical and common sense when reading the Bible to understand this, thus, you read into it your own private beliefs and interpretation, and do not understand the Author's meaning. IOW's you can't know because you do not understand how to differentiate between your own meaning and the Author's meaning even though it is plain. You are your own worst enemy because of your bias. 


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.


Again, a believer in God is not daft enough to believe that nothing is something or something is nothing. You can't know you are nothing since you already exist. That underlined is a contradictory statement and makes no sense. What is on the other side is a biblical revelation, in as much as it has been conveyed. You either believe it or you don't. 
#62
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
If all knowledge is belief then the belief must come first. Belief --> Knowledge

Correct, not all belief is knowledge!
All knowledge is not belief.
Do you believe that?

Yes, it is belief. You would not know it unless you first believed it. Knowledge is JUSTIFIABLE TRUE BELIEF.

You start somewhere in seeking knowledge. You start with what you perceive is reasonable or unreasonable and you try to confirm what you believe (either reasonable or unreasonable) is the case. Then you know your belief is true.


The philosophical assertion is absurd:

All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
The underlined is correct. Belief has to comply with what is the case for it to be knowledge.


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).
Good! Now is that statement a belief or disbelief/non-belief? If it is a belief you know, then I believe you, yet I have not confirmed it, so it is not knowledge for me as yet!


I know I believe = (conscious) knowledge
Good! Then your knowledge is a true belief.

I believe I know = ignorance lacking knowledge
Ignorant if the belief is not a true belief. 


Knowledge comes first, not belief.
How do you know?



Whoever caused this to become upside-down in the Western world has blood on their hands. Such stupidity.
No idea what you mean?

#63
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic


Do you believe that or do you know it?
Known. See:
Then your belief is justified!


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.
Not if the belief has been confirmed true by evidence that is the case. Then it is knowledge.

If I believe in God here and now, I die, and God takes me to be with Him then my belief is true knowledge in that it is confirmed by what He said and what happened.

Knowledge is lacking any/all degrees of uncertainty, which is thus intrinsically distinct from belief.
Not distinct from true 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.
It is also required for understanding. If you don't believe in God why would you seek Him? If you believe He exists then by diligently seeking Him, the biblical God has said you will find Him. 

Hence belief is required to confuse evil with good.
True. An ill-founded belief confuses evil with good.

Hence knowledge negates belief-based ignorance.
True! But knowledge is justified true 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.
I know I do not know everything. Belief need not enter the equation.
Do you believe that it need not enter the equation?


I do not religiously suck on the belief pacifier as others do: an opiate for the masses.
Then you suck on the naturalism belief pacifier or some other belief pacifier. 


That is ridiculous. Which believer believes they know everything unless they are delusional?
THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.
Then, since you KNOW this, prove I am delusional!


Believing to know good/evil (ie. to a certainty) is the same.
Is that a belief? 

***

What is "good"?

What is your standard of good?

Where does good come from?


Delusional people cause suffering/death.
Yes, they can!

#64
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic



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.
Okay, then, which are you? Are you a believer in God? Are you an unbeliever in God? Are you ignorant of God in-and-of-yourself?


See how beautiful wisdom is? Now you can know:
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.


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


If you make the two one, you can not go wrong either way, because either way is the same.
A believer and a disbeliever in God are not the same things. They do not believe the same things about God although both a believer and an unbeliever can be ignorant about some things regarding this God. One believes God exists. The other does not. Even you are not ignorant of some of the biblical teachings, are you?  


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.
Knowledge is justifiably true belief. 


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.
But it is reasonable to believe. That belief could pan out to be a true belief if it holds to what is the case - thus knowledge.



A knowledgeable belief has conscious knowledge of how it may be false.
May be false or is false? If you know it then it corresponds to the truth and there is no doubt in that belief.


Idol worship involves over-emphasis of trying * to * believe less trying equally the same belief to be * not true *.
Pardon? I'm not understanding your meaning. 


If good/evil consume ad ininitum, equal attention must be paid to proving true/untrue any/all belief-based assertions.
Not sure how this fits?


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.
Lack of faith is lack of trust or disbelief.


A belief is objective: requires a thing. What belief is to image, faith is to likeness.
It can involve a thing (like trusting the rope will hold my weight because someone bigger just used it with no ill-effect, and the rope was firmly attached)  or it can involve trust in someone. A belief has an object of trust to it


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.
How well do you UNDERSTAND and KNOW Scripture? I would bet not well. That is my belief. I can confirm it with knowledge by testing you. 


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





Topic's author
#65
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
God calls the believer to...
Satan requires belief.

Belief-based ignorance - yes. That is not the biblical case.

Again you are making fallacious hasty generalizations when you say any all-knowing God. 

I invite you to prove your CLAIM with the Christian God (thus the OT and NT).
I don't care about the bible: it is a single book among many.

I don't assume one as a believer does. I allow the possibility, for the sake of need to negate it (which I do).

What am I claiming / proving?

I don't follow what you are trying to say.
It is how I know you know
yourself not, neither me,
neither do I know you more.

KNOWLEDGE has a bearing on whether you know God for you first have to KNOW that YOU exist before you seek and find ANYTHING since SEEKING-IN-AND-OF-ITSELF rewards those who diligently seek KNOWLEDGE (CONSCIENCE). As you read ANY words you come to know more and more about WHAT GOD IS NOT, therein revealed. I don't understand how your ignorance of yourself means you are ignorant of God. I can be ignorant of lots of things and know others. I do believe you come to a better knowledge of yourself and humanity once you know God, or are known by Him. He then directs your paths. 
FIXED

It depends on what the object of belief and worship is as to whether it is an idol. Jesus told the woman at the well that those who worship God must worship in spirit and in truth. The two go hand-in-hand. 
Objects are idols.
Beliefs require objects.
Faith requires belief.

Faith is trust in your belief in God, in who He is and what He says.
...

Not true, per the Bible. That is the Christian standard, not your words that contradict it.

The Bible, both Testaments, is a reasonable and logical belief that is confirmed by the revelation or self-disclosure of the God within, in the words, in so many ways.
The Torah-alone is (at least) 4 independent source documents redacted into (along with) a 5th: J, E, P, D and R. YHWH and Elohim reflected the division between 'Ysra'el and 'Yudah. Later, diacritical markings would be introduced, and history would repeat itself with the Qur'an: history repeats itself.

That is not to say it is not valuable literature: I respect the book of Genesis, but do not read it in a language anyone is familiar with.

What is your reference from, and what of Satan?
I don't have 9 1/2 hours to compose a derivation for what I just gave you: if it holds, it holds, and would hold insofar as it is true regardless.

Not biblical teaching. You are just making it up. Jesus and Satan are two different persons. They are opposites. It is just logical and common sense when reading the Bible to understand this, thus, you read into it your own private beliefs and interpretation, and do not understand the Author's meaning. IOW's you can't know because you do not understand how to differentiate between your own meaning and the Author's meaning even though it is plain. You are your own worst enemy because of your bias. 
Satan is not a person. It is a 'state' that any being can themselves be in: bound to believe, for example. That is a 'state'.

Again, a believer in God IS daft enough to believe that nothing is something or something is nothing. You CAN know you are nothing KNOWING you already exist NOT. That underlined is a contradictory statement and makes no sense. What is on the other side is a biblical revelation, in as much as it has been conveyed. You either believe it or you don't. 
FIXED, and I don't. I know not to believe.

Do you believe that?

Yes, it is belief. You would not know it unless you first believed it. Knowledge is JUSTIFIABLE TRUE BELIEF.

You start somewhere in seeking knowledge. You start with what you perceive is reasonable or unreasonable and you try to confirm what you believe (either reasonable or unreasonable) is the case. Then you know your belief is true.
No - known.

No, it is not. Belief is ignorance. Knowledge is *inverse to belief: to know *not to believe.

You start by either believing you are (something), or knowing you are (not something).
One is belief-based ignorance, one is knowledge.


Let inf = 0 (as a folded circle)

-2 (any/all) <-*infinitude
-1 KNOW
0 I AM (willing to)...(equal capacity for so-called good/evil: +/-)
+1 BELIEVE
+2 (*not to*) <-*negation
____________________________________________________________________
-(0 = 0 - 1 - 2 + 2 + 1 = 0) KNOW (any/all) (*not to*) BELIEVE
+(0 = 0 + 1 + 2 - 2 - 1 = 0) BELIEVE (*not to*) (any/all) KNOW

0- (leads to:) (inverse of) vvvvvvvv
0+ (leads to:) SUFFERING/DEATH
______________________________________
(-+) is to (lieve) TREE OF LIVING
(+-) is to (eveil) TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL

It takes but a believer to believe evil is good.

The underlined is correct. Belief has to comply with what is the case for it to be knowledge.
It is absurd.


Topic's author
#66
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2

Good! Now is that statement a belief or disbelief/non-belief? If it is a belief you know, then I believe you, yet I have not confirmed it, so it is not knowledge for me as yet!
It's neither. It involves no belief whatsoever. Put your god-forsakes BELIEF away and stop imposing it. KNOWLEDGE comes before any/all trying to believe.

...I acknowledge belief x exists...

This is a knowledge less belief (try: to / not to)
it is the whole point of to TRY something.

I try (to / not) to BELIEVE.

eg. ...I tried to believe the bible is the word a god. I know not to believe it is because...

is a knowledge absent belief. I don't argue about such things
with those who are bound to believe because they (un)just
worship their books and idols and attempt to justify a belief
as knowledge. Such is madness.

Good! Then your knowledge is a true belief.
Knowledge is absence of belief.

belief - as containing one or more degrees of uncertainty
knowledge - as containing no degrees of uncertainty

The difference between knowledge and belief is in degrees of uncertainty. There are no degrees of uncertainty to my knowing you do not understand the difference between a knowledge and a belief, because you are trying to justify one as the other!

P^inf = 0, P
where
P = (+/-)P

+P = KNOWLEDGE
-P = BELIEF

inf = 0
0 = P - P

By saying 'belief is knowledge', is the same as saying -P = +P.

It's absurd.

How do you know?
I know I am. How do you know?

You can not infer an unknown by way of another unknown.
If you do not know yourself, you can not know anything in relation to.
If you believe yourself to be something you are not...

No idea what you mean?
I know.

Topic's author
#67
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
Then your belief is justified!
It's not a belief. You do not understand you can know things absent belief.

Do you believe that it need not enter the equation?
No - it is known. It is a prerequisite for general sanity.

Then, since you KNOW this, prove I am delusional!
I can't prove to a lunatic they are a lunatic. Their never trying to believe they might be one is their lunacy.

Is that a belief? 

***

What is "good"?

What is your standard of good?

Where does good come from?
I don't eat from that tree.

It takes a believer
to believe to know
good and/or evil
and believe one
is the other.

Okay, then, which are you? Are you a believer in God? Are you an unbeliever in God? Are you ignorant of God in-and-of-yourself?
I am A Gnostic Agnostic.
What I know, I know. <-*gnostic
What I do not know, I do not know. <-*agnostic

A believer and a disbeliever in God are not the same things. They do not believe the same things about God although both a believer and an unbeliever can be ignorant about some things regarding this God. One believes God exists. The other does not. Even you are not ignorant of some of the biblical teachings, are you?
They can be, and no I am not ignorant of the bible.

May be false or is false? If you know it then it corresponds to the truth and there is no doubt in that belief.
...the point is, it is not known at the time.

Knowledge of uncertainty is knowledge.
Ignorance of uncertainty is ignorance.
Belief less knowledge of uncertainty is ignorance.

How well do you UNDERSTAND and KNOW Scripture? I would bet not well. That is my belief. I can confirm it with knowledge by testing you.
I could do the same, but won't. I'll bet you can not even read Hebrew. If you can, test me in it only.






#68
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
If data exists, then belief as a concept is somewhat irrelevant anyway.

knowledge is, irrespective of conceptual belief.

The beauty is that data does not necessarily have to correspond with a reality, other than it's own within it's own context.
Topic's author
#69
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
-->
@zedvictor4
1. If data exists, then belief as a concept is somewhat irrelevant anyway.

2. knowledge is, irrespective of conceptual belief.

3. The beauty is that data does not necessarily have to correspond with a reality, other than it's own within it's own context.

1. CORRECT.

2. CORRECT (with note: knowledge (needs) (ie. to negate any/all) belief.

3. VIZ. (UN)CONSCIENCE. One has WILL to CHOOSE context (or are they bound to BELIEVE?).

Thought experiment:

I have a circle.
I fold the circle.
I place the folded circle
inside of a new circle
such that either one side of the folded circle is
equal to the radius (ie. half) of the new circle.

Of the folded circlet, set:
one side as ANY/ALL *to (ie. affirmative will to...)
the other as ANY/ALL *not* (ie. affirmative will to *not* to...)

Now consider KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF. How do they exist in relation?

BELIEF-based ignorance(s) would exist to the degree any/all IGNORANCE would PERMIT, therefor
any/all KNOWLEDGE negates any/all BELIEF-based IGNORANCE.

If any/all problem-in-and-of-itself
BELIEVES of itself
to be a solution-in-and-of-itself
this is ignorance-in-and-of-itself
manufacturing suffering/death.


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.
Belief-in-and-of-itself is certainly required to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the first place.
Proof: any/all "believers" do not know (if/why) *not* to "believe".

Satan would require belief-in-and-of-itself in order for any/all believers to willingly believe:
i. belief-in-and-of-itself is a virtue (instead of an ignorance-in-and-of-itself)
ii. evil is good (without the need to define them)
ii. satan is god (without the need to define them)

Does it *not* take any/all belief/believer(s) to BELIEVE any/all "evil" is any/all "good"
without the need to define them?

Knowledge is not knowing what *to* believe,
it is knowing what *not* to believe.
Ignorance is *not* knowing what *not* to believe.

#70
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
If all knowledge is belief then the belief must come first. Belief --> Knowledge

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

Do you believe that? If not then how do you know it?

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
You believe and your belief is justifiably true because it corresponds to what is actually the case.

I believe I know = ignorance lacking knowledge
Could be ignorance-based on irrationality, or it could be rationally justified yet you have not justified the belief as yet.


Knowledge comes first, not belief.
Do you believe that?


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:
Then justify it as true belief.


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.
Not all belief is uncertain such as justified true belief (knowledge). I believe if I sit down in the chair in my living room it will hold my weight. 

Knowledge is lacking any/all degrees of uncertainty, which is thus intrinsically distinct from belief.

Do you believe that or disbelieve it?


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.
Knowledge is justified true 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.
I know I do not know everything.
Then that belief is based on reason and certainty.


Belief need not enter the equation.
You have to believe something to know anything. Knowledge does not happen in a vacuum.


I do not religiously suck on the belief pacifier as others do: an opiate for the masses.
You suck on the agnostic pacifier, the I don't know, don't know (AGnosticAgnostic) pacifier, ironically enough. For someone who labels themselves as an agnostic would not know about God, yet make judgments and profess all kinds of things about the God you know nothing about (no certainty). Talk about the blind leading the blind!

#71
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic


That is ridiculous. Which believer believes they know everything unless they are delusional?
THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.
You make a blanket and fallacious statement that no sane believer in the biblical God would believe, only a crack-pot.


Believing to know good/evil (ie. to a certainty) is the same.
Again, what is your standard and axis reference point for knowledge of qualitative values? Do you KNOW?


Delusional people cause suffering/death.
Yes, but your drawn association with delusions and true believers in the biblical God is begging the question, bare assertion unless you can establish the proof. You have no proof to date. I don't BELIEVE(reasonable belief based on what you have revealed to date) you can establish any. 



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.
They are diametrically opposite beliefs. 


See how beautiful wisdom is? Now you can know:
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.


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


If you make the two one, you can not go wrong either way, because either way is the same.
Again, you can't make the two "one" since they hold opposing beliefs about a vital issue - God. 

Matthew 12:30 (NASB)
The Unpardonable Sin
30 He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

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.
Then prove you know it. 


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.
You have to believe something before you will know anything. There has to be a first principle that the rest hinge on that is taken by faith. If your belief is correct the principle will pan out into knowledge. 

Matthew 7:24-29 (NASB)
The Two Foundations
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”
28 When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; 29 for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.

When your starting principle is wrong the whole house is built upon a lie, on something that when light is shone on it will collapse. 


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.
Yes, a knowledgeable BELIEF is one that is justified as a true belief. Knowledge is that which is true to what is the case.


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.




#72
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
God calls the believer to...
Satan requires belief.

Belief-based ignorance - yes. That is not the biblical case.

Again you are making fallacious hasty generalizations when you say any all-knowing God. 

I invite you to prove your CLAIM with the Christian God (thus the OT and NT).
I don't care about the bible: it is a single book among many.

I don't assume one as a believer does. I allow the possibility, for the sake of need to negate it (which I do).

What am I claiming / proving?

I don't follow what you are trying to say.
It is how I know you know
yourself not, neither me,
neither do I know you more.

KNOWLEDGE has a bearing on whether you know God for you first have to KNOW that YOU exist before you seek and find ANYTHING since SEEKING-IN-AND-OF-ITSELF rewards those who diligently seek KNOWLEDGE (CONSCIENCE). As you read ANY words you come to know more and more about WHAT GOD IS NOT, therein revealed. I don't understand how your ignorance of yourself means you are ignorant of God. I can be ignorant of lots of things and know others. I do believe you come to a better knowledge of yourself and humanity once you know God, or are known by Him. He then directs your paths. 
FIXED

It depends on what the object of belief and worship is as to whether it is an idol. Jesus told the woman at the well that those who worship God must worship in spirit and in truth. The two go hand-in-hand. 
Objects are idols.
Beliefs require objects.
Faith requires belief.

Faith is trust in your belief in God, in who He is and what He says.
...

Not true, per the Bible. That is the Christian standard, not your words that contradict it.

The Bible, both Testaments, is a reasonable and logical belief that is confirmed by the revelation or self-disclosure of the God within, in the words, in so many ways.
The Torah-alone is (at least) 4 independent source documents redacted into (along with) a 5th: J, E, P, D and R. YHWH and Elohim reflected the division between 'Ysra'el and 'Yudah. Later, diacritical markings would be introduced, and history would repeat itself with the Qur'an: history repeats itself.

That is not to say it is not valuable literature: I respect the book of Genesis, but do not read it in a language anyone is familiar with.

What is your reference from, and what of Satan?
I don't have 9 1/2 hours to compose a derivation for what I just gave you: if it holds, it holds, and would hold insofar as it is true regardless.

Not biblical teaching. You are just making it up. Jesus and Satan are two different persons. They are opposites. It is just logical and common sense when reading the Bible to understand this, thus, you read into it your own private beliefs and interpretation, and do not understand the Author's meaning. IOW's you can't know because you do not understand how to differentiate between your own meaning and the Author's meaning even though it is plain. You are your own worst enemy because of your bias. 
Satan is not a person. It is a 'state' that any being can themselves be in: bound to believe, for example. That is a 'state'.

Again, a believer in God IS daft enough to believe that nothing is something or something is nothing. You CAN know you are nothing KNOWING you already exist NOT. That underlined is a contradictory statement and makes no sense. What is on the other side is a biblical revelation, in as much as it has been conveyed. You either believe it or you don't. 
FIXED, and I don't. I know not to believe.

Do you believe that?

Yes, it is belief. You would not know it unless you first believed it. Knowledge is JUSTIFIABLE TRUE BELIEF.

You start somewhere in seeking knowledge. You start with what you perceive is reasonable or unreasonable and you try to confirm what you believe (either reasonable or unreasonable) is the case. Then you know your belief is true.
No - known.

No, it is not. Belief is ignorance. Knowledge is *inverse to belief: to know *not to believe.

You start by either believing you are (something), or knowing you are (not something).
One is belief-based ignorance, one is knowledge.


Let inf = 0 (as a folded circle)

-2 (any/all) <-*infinitude
-1 KNOW
0 I AM (willing to)...(equal capacity for so-called good/evil: +/-)
+1 BELIEVE
+2 (*not to*) <-*negation
____________________________________________________________________
-(0 = 0 - 1 - 2 + 2 + 1 = 0) KNOW (any/all) (*not to*) BELIEVE
+(0 = 0 + 1 + 2 - 2 - 1 = 0) BELIEVE (*not to*) (any/all) KNOW

0- (leads to:) (inverse of) vvvvvvvv
0+ (leads to:) SUFFERING/DEATH
______________________________________
(-+) is to (lieve) TREE OF LIVING
(+-) is to (eveil) TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL

It takes but a believer to believe evil is good.

The underlined is correct. Belief has to comply with what is the case for it to be knowledge.
It is absurd.



Again, who are you addressing this post to, Mopac or me?
#73
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic

Good! Now is that statement a belief or disbelief/non-belief? If it is a belief you know, then I believe you, yet I have not confirmed it, so it is not knowledge for me as yet!
It's neither. It involves no belief whatsoever. Put your god-forsakes BELIEF away and stop imposing it. KNOWLEDGE comes before any/all trying to believe.

...I acknowledge belief x exists...

This is a knowledge less belief (try: to / not to)
it is the whole point of to TRY something.

I try (to / not) to BELIEVE.

eg. ...I tried to believe the bible is the word a god. I know not to believe it is because...

is a knowledge absent belief. I don't argue about such things
with those who are bound to believe because they (un)just
worship their books and idols and attempt to justify a belief
as knowledge. Such is madness.

Good! Then your knowledge is a true belief.
Knowledge is absence of belief.

belief - as containing one or more degrees of uncertainty
knowledge - as containing no degrees of uncertainty

The difference between knowledge and belief is in degrees of uncertainty. There are no degrees of uncertainty to my knowing you do not understand the difference between a knowledge and a belief, because you are trying to justify one as the other!

P^inf = 0, P
where
P = (+/-)P

+P = KNOWLEDGE
-P = BELIEF

inf = 0
0 = P - P

By saying 'belief is knowledge', is the same as saying -P = +P.

It's absurd.

How do you know?
I know I am. How do you know?

You can not infer an unknown by way of another unknown.
If you do not know yourself, you can not know anything in relation to.
If you believe yourself to be something you are not...

No idea what you mean?
I know.


Who is this addressed to, Mopac or me?
#74
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
@AGnosticAgnostic
1. If data exists, then belief as a concept is somewhat irrelevant anyway.

2. knowledge is, irrespective of conceptual belief.

3. The beauty is that data does not necessarily have to correspond with a reality, other than it's own within it's own context.

1. CORRECT.
Any data is interpreted. It depends on whether the data is correctly or incorrectly interpreted as to whether it is known.


2. CORRECT (with note: knowledge (needs) (ie. to negate any/all) belief.
Knowledge is not obtained until the belief is a true belief and relates to what is the case. 


Topic's author
#75
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
Do you believe that? If not then how do you know it?
No. Knowledge is no uncertainty, belief is uncertainty.

You believe and your belief is justifiably true because it corresponds to what is actually the case.
You can believe yourself into believing just about anything, then. It is insanity.

You have to believe something to know anything. Knowledge does not happen in a vacuum.
You have to believe you are, before you know you are?

I think, therefor I am! I believe, therefor I am!

Both are ignorance-in-and-of-themselves.

You suck on the agnostic pacifier, the I don't know, don't know (AGnosticAgnostic) pacifier, ironically enough. For someone who labels themselves as an agnostic would not know about God, yet make judgments and profess all kinds of things about the God you know nothing about (no certainty). Talk about the blind leading the blind!
I know enmity is a debilitating thing.

You make a blanket and fallacious statement that no sane believer in the biblical God would believe, only a crack-pot.
Believers tend to be the crack pots. Belief is required to confuse good and evil.

Yes, but your drawn association with delusions and true believers in the biblical God is begging the question, bare assertion unless you can establish the proof. You have no proof to date. I don't BELIEVE(reasonable belief based on what you have revealed to date) you can establish any.
I don't care what you believe. It has no existential relevance.

They are diametrically opposite beliefs.
They both require belief-in-and-of-itself.

You have to believe something before you will know anything. There has to be a first principle that the rest hinge on that is taken by faith. If your belief is correct the principle will pan out into knowledge. 

When your starting principle is wrong the whole house is built upon a lie, on something that when light is shone on it will collapse. 
I know I am = first principle knowledge
I believe I am = first principle ignorance

If you start with belief, you are ignorant-in-and-of-yourself.

Yes, a knowledgeable BELIEF is one that is justified as a true belief. Knowledge is that which is true to what is the case.
Your "justified true belief" is a religious dogma - please stop barking it at me. A knowledgeable belief is one that is able to acknowledge any/all degrees of UNCERTAINTY.

Try TO believe = any/all how it is true
Try NOT TO believe = any/all how it is not true

equally. If too much of one or the other = idol worship.

Again, who are you addressing this post to, Mopac or me?
Any/all.

Who is this addressed to, Mopac or me?
Any/all.

Any data is interpreted. It depends on whether the data is correctly or incorrectly interpreted as to whether it is known.
Correct: belief is required to confuse evil with good, thus any/all data less belief is cleaner.

If only two currencies$ existed, what satan is to $belief, god is $knowledge negating belief.

Knowledge is not obtained until the belief is a true belief and relates to what is the case. 
I would like to know where this dogma comes from.

No belief is true unless it has knowledge of its own uncertainty(s).


#76
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic




God calls the believer to...
Satan requires belief.
He wanted it but a person was not required to believe him.  Satan was a liar.


Belief-based ignorance - yes. That is not the biblical case.

Again you are making fallacious hasty generalizations when you say any all-knowing God. 

I invite you to prove your CLAIM with the Christian God (thus the OT and NT).
I don't care about the bible: it is a single book among many.
The Bible discusses the very Person you are ignorant of and of whom you are such a self-proclaimed expert on.


I don't assume one as a believer does. I allow the possibility, for the sake of need to negate it (which I do).
That is why you are not a believer in the Christian God, because you do not know Him. 


What am I claiming / proving?
You are claiming that He does not exist. That is a belief because you have not proved His non-existence. You keep claiming it.


I don't follow what you are trying to say.
It is how I know you know
yourself not, neither me,
neither do I know you more.
If you don't know me you don't know what I know about myself. Your sentence is a bunch of BS and inconsistent nonsense. 


KNOWLEDGE has a bearing on whether you know God for you first have to KNOW that YOU exist before you seek and find ANYTHING since SEEKING-IN-AND-OF-ITSELF rewards those who diligently seek KNOWLEDGE (CONSCIENCE). As you read ANY words you come to know more and more about WHAT GOD IS NOT, therein revealed. I don't understand how your ignorance of yourself means you are ignorant of God. I can be ignorant of lots of things and know others. I do believe you come to a better knowledge of yourself and humanity once you know God, or are known by Him. He then directs your paths. 
FIXED
Again, that is not what I said, but a misrepresentation of what I said.

Post 61 - "Belief has a bearing on whether you know God for you first have to believe that He exists before you seek and find Him since He rewards those who diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6). As you read His words you come to know more and more about God, therein revealed. I don't understand how your ignorance of yourself means you are ignorant of God. I can be ignorant of lots of things and know others. I do believe you come to a better knowledge of yourself and humanity once you know God, or are known by Him. He then directs your paths."

***

If you have not met someone but only heard of their existence, yet deny what you hear regarding their existence, you are not going to know that someone that exists unless they introduce themselves to you? Your belief is not conducive to the knowledge of that person's existence (continually dismiss that evidence) unless you actually meet them. Others can tell you about that person but that does not make you know the person, even though much has been written about that person. Knowledge of that person first has to come with the acknowledge him his existence unless you met that person personally. Faith in Jesus introduces you to God personally.

Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”

So they were saying to Him, “Where is Your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also.”

John 14:7 (NASB)
Oneness with the Father
7 If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”

The thing about you is that you do not want to KNOW God. Thus, you are ignorant of Him. 

To know Him you first have to take a baby step and believe He exists. You adamantly stomp your foot and say no. Thus, as you say, you know you are ignorant of Him. 



It depends on what the object of belief and worship is as to whether it is an idol. Jesus told the woman at the well that those who worship God must worship in spirit and in truth. The two go hand-in-hand. 
Objects are idols.
Beliefs require objects.
Faith requires belief.
Not if the object of faith is true and corresponds to what is the case. An idol is a false belief. 

Are you an empiricist/physicalist (won't believe it until you see it)? Do you believe you have to see something to believe it exists?

#77
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Post 65, continued:



Faith is trust in your belief in God, in who He is and what He says.
...

Not true, per the Bible. That is the Christian standard, not your words that contradict it.

The Bible, both Testaments, is a reasonable and logical belief that is confirmed by the revelation or self-disclosure of the God within, in the words, in so many ways.
The Torah-alone is (at least) 4 independent source documents redacted into (along with) a 5th: J, E, P, D and R. YHWH and Elohim reflected the division between 'Ysra'el and 'Yudah. Later, diacritical markings would be introduced, and history would repeat itself with the Qur'an: history repeats itself.
Again, why is your source valid? How do you know this as a fact? You assume this. It is a belief. You don't know this. If you did you would have proven it.


That is not to say it is not valuable literature: I respect the book of Genesis, but do not read it in a language anyone is familiar with.
That is your belief. Do you say it is knowledge? If so, prove it. 


What is your reference from, and what of Satan?
I don't have 9 1/2 hours to compose a derivation for what I just gave you: if it holds, it holds, and would hold insofar as it is true regardless.
Another EXCUSE, a get out of jail free card! Everything you say is based on assertion to date. 


Not biblical teaching. You are just making it up. Jesus and Satan are two different persons. They are opposites. It is just logical and common sense when reading the Bible to understand this, thus, you read into it your own private beliefs and interpretation, and do not understand the Author's meaning. IOW's you can't know because you do not understand how to differentiate between your own meaning and the Author's meaning even though it is plain. You are your own worst enemy because of your bias. 
Satan is not a person. It is a 'state' that any being can themselves be in: bound to believe, for example. That is a 'state'.
No, it is a person, a spiritual being, that the Lord Jesus Christ spoke about.


Again, a believer in God IS daft enough to believe that nothing is something or something is nothing. You CAN know you are nothing KNOWING you already exist NOT. That underlined is a contradictory statement and makes no sense. What is on the other side is a biblical revelation, in as much as it has been conveyed. You either believe it or you don't. 
FIXED, and I don't. I know not to believe.
Agnostic - not knowing, yet you speak of God as if you are an expert on His existence which you deny. 


Do you believe that?

Yes, it is belief. You would not know it unless you first believed it. Knowledge is JUSTIFIABLE TRUE BELIEF.

You start somewhere in seeking knowledge. You start with what you perceive is reasonable or unreasonable and you try to confirm what you believe (either reasonable or unreasonable) is the case. Then you know your belief is true.
No - known.
Then prove it. 


No, it is not. Belief is ignorance. Knowledge is *inverse to belief: to know *not to believe.

You start by either believing you are (something), or knowing you are (not something).
You start with the first principles that you place faith or belief in. It is only when your first principles are confirmed to what is that knowledge is gained on that subject.

You do not start with the principle that you are. A baby does not start contemplating their existence. They experience it and start to think about it as they acquire language and begin to conceptualize it.

You start to reason about being and what that means first. Once you understand what "being" and existence means then you can understand - you know if the belief is what is the case. If your first principles prove true (they are the case) you have knowledge. 

One is belief-based ignorance, one is knowledge.
Knowledge is a belief in what is the case. You can't disbelieve what is the case and still know the case.

#78
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Post 65 continued:

No, it is not. Belief is ignorance. Knowledge is *inverse to belief: to know *not to believe.

You start by either believing you are (something), or knowing you are (not something).

You are jumping from some beliefs as ignorant to all belief as being ignorant. 

You experience you "are" long before you know you are. A baby gradually acquires knowledge as it becomes more aware of the world around it and can begin to conceptualize what it is that it is seeing and figure out how it knows it is the case. The principle beliefs or core/start concepts tie in more and more to a worldview belief and knowledge is acquired as it grows.

Knowledge comes from the belief and is a justified true belief. Thus Belief --> Knowledge

***

1. There is a problem. (I.e., Why does the universe exist?)
2. You formalize a hypothesis (conjecture) on solving the problem. You choose a starting point (I.e., Nature or God as the starting point).
3. You draw implications from the hypothesis (I.e., Nature --> No intent, no purpose causes all things).
4, Then you test the implications. (I.e., You work from that premise in solving the problem by gathering evidence)

Point two: A belief based on your starting point.
Point three: If you choose the natural position alone you funnel all information through that system of belief.
Point four: You work from within the box (the universe) in solving the problem.

1. Empirical hypothesis - observation/witness of something happening and building the hypothesis on that seen occurrence.  --> Belief
2. Theoretical hypothesis - a conception and speculation based on ideas about what should or has happened without seeing the occurrence. --> Belief

For something (a belief) to be known it must have 1) adequate explanation, 2) be internally coherent, and 3) be externally consistent. 

Knowledge --> the observation/thought --> truly justified confirmation (rightful logical thinking) of what happened (what is the case). --> True belief

***

Let inf = 0 (as a folded circle)
A folded circle? Do you mean a half-circle??? Please clarify.


-2 (any/all) <-*infinitude
-1 KNOW
0 I AM (willing to)...(equal capacity for so-called good/evil: +/-)
+1 BELIEVE
+2 (*not to*) <-*negation
____________________________________________________________________
-(0 = 0 - 1 - 2 + 2 + 1 = 0) KNOW (any/all) (*not to*) BELIEVE
+(0 = 0 + 1 + 2 - 2 - 1 = 0) BELIEVE (*not to*) (any/all) KNOW
I'm not following your equation from the information given.

You have to justify what is the case to know it. Therefore, you have to first believe something. It is the starting point for knowledge. Knowledge rests on belief. If you disbelieve something you don't know it because you don't believe it is true.  

***

I know therefore I am!
I am therefore I know!

Which comes first?

I believe I am in order to know I am. I believe in order to know. I do not disbelieve I am. 
I know I am and therefore I believe I am. (Justified true belief)
I know I am because I know I am. (Tautology/circular reasoning)

How do you know (P)? You have evidence you believe (XYZ) that confirms the case (P). Therefore, you know. 
Water comes from the tap. That is a belief. It either is or is not the case. You see steam coming from the water. You have never seen steam before. It is the tap marked by the red coloured symbol. You get burned by the water. Therefore, by connecting the dots you know the water coming from the red symboled tap is hot. You have a correct belief which is knowledge. 

Now, if you do not rightly connect the variables, say leaving out the red tap as a reason, even though the rest of your conclusions (beliefs) are right, you still do not have knowledge of what is the case that caused your burn. If you put your hand under the tap expecting to be burned and the blue symbol has been turned on your belief is not justified. Thus, to have the knowledge you must have connected beliefs in a way that corresponds to what is the case (knowledge is justifiable true belief).

***

With your equations both the negative and positive equals --> I am?

1. KNOW =/= BELIEF (-) I am (0) equals/is to (=) [I am (0) knowing (-1) any/all (-2) not to (+2) believing(+1)] equals (=) I am (0)? 

I am is to/= [I am knowing any/all is not to believe I am]
To put it more succinctly,
I know I am is not to believe I am.

2. BELIEF =/= KNOW (+) I am (0) equals/is to (=) [I am (0) believing (+1) not to (+2)  any/all (-2) know (-1) equals/is to I am (0)]
I am is to/= [I am believing not to any know(ledge) is to I am]
More succinctly,
I believe I am is not knowing I am.

***

Again, the second equation depends on whether the belief is justified as true to what kind of belief it is - rational, irrational, blind.

A reasonable belief can be logically valid when put into a syllogism but it must also be logically sound.

***   

Now, you put the two equations into a more coherent literal speech-language translation instead of a mathematical formula but equate them.

I.e., translate:
-(0 = 0 - 1 - 2 + 2 + 1 = 0)
and
+(0 = 0 + 1 + 2 - 2 - 1 = 0)


0- (leads to:) (inverse of) vvvvvvvv
0+ (leads to:) SUFFERING/DEATH
______________________________________
(-+) is to (lieve) TREE OF LIVING
(+-) is to (eveil) TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL
What does this mean?


It takes but a believer to believe evil is good.
It takes a revealed, objective, absolute, unchanging/fixed qualitative value for goodness to be known. If you don't have one, why is your subjective opinion/preference any BETTER than mine?

What is the source of your qualitative value system? Some other subjective mind, or your mind? What is good about that? Don't dictate what is good until you prove your source is good. 


The underlined is correct. Belief has to comply with what is the case for it to be knowledge.
It is absurd.


Absurd to you whose user name suggests you only know that you do not know in relation to something (presumably God). 




#79
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
the golfer
It takes a revealed, objective, absolute, unchanging/fixed qualitative value for goodness to be known. If you don't have one, why is your subjective opinion/preference any BETTER than mine?
My subjective opinion is no better than yours but it is vastly superior to your indoctrination and since you don't have a revealed, objective, absolute, unchanging/fixed qualitative value for goodness, your indoctrination is all you have.

Topic's author
#80
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
-->
@PGA2.0
He wanted it but a person was not required to believe him.  Satan was a liar.
Satan is not a being: it is a state of being assumed by any person satisfying the following:

"expression of being bound in an ongoing state"

which includes via any/all belief-based ignorance(s) (ie. bound to believe in an ongoing state).

The Bible discusses the very Person you are ignorant of and of whom you are such a self-proclaimed expert on.
Are you talking about Jesus? The truth, way and life? See, the truth, way and life is not a person. This is idolatry. It is a method which infallibly orients ones self towards the source of creation. It is in-and-of-itself infallible, thus renders any/all fallibility to the being themselves, and not the method. The method is infallible, thus always true. In this way it can be said to be a knowledge-in-and-of-itself that is antithetical to any/all problem-in-and-of-themselves, of which belief-in-and-of-itself less conscious knowledge of ignorance is invariably a fixed factor of.

That is why you are not a believer in the Christian God, because you do not know Him.
...it takes one who does not know to believe. They are antithetical.

Knowledge: no degrees of uncertainty
Belief: one or more degrees of uncertainty

This is why any/all being is either rooted in knowledge (ie. of self) or ignorance (of the same): to know ones self is knowledge, thus common with any all-knowing god. It takes belief-in-and-of-itself to believe ones self to be something they are not: including knowledgeable. This is the problem-in-and-of-itself: no conscious knowledge of ignorance. That does not mean one is ignorant in a derogatory sense, but willingness to acknowledge one does not know is a fixed component of knowing anything at all.

You are claiming that He does not exist. That is a belief because you have not proved His non-existence. You keep claiming it.
So much wrong with this.

1. I do not recognize/acknowledge your use of He to say "He" does / does not exist. I do not understand god as a "He"
2. It is a belief that god i. exists, and ii. is a "He"
3. I claimed "it" not once

If you don't know me you don't know what I know about myself. Your sentence is a bunch of BS and inconsistent nonsense.
I know (some of) what you do not know about yourself. It is implicit in your temperament: the expression 'know thy self' is axiomatic, and less this knowledge, enmity arises: the same as Cain.













Topic's author
#81
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
The thing about you is that you do not want to KNOW God. Thus, you are ignorant of Him. 

To know Him you first have to take a baby step and believe He exists. You adamantly stomp your foot and say no. Thus, as you say, you know you are ignorant of Him.
I am ignorant of any/all Him gods, admitted.

The Hebrew word of 'GOD' as rendered in Genesis 1:1 is thus:

el - towardsness <-*archetype of bestowal / electricity
oh - conduit
im - sea/expanse <-*archetype of reception / magnetism

rendering: "towardness in/of sea/expanse" and a bestowal-reception principle that is echoed in Genesis 1:3:

And saying elohim <-*shared will
'Let be light,' <-*bestowal
and light was. <-*reception

which lends itself to the primordial Adam-and-Eve: bestowal-and-reception.

Therefor, any Abrahamic creator god is most certainly not a He. It is male-female-conjunct: "I am that I am."

Every man and woman is their own archetypal Adam and Eve. The Garden of Eden is a fixed state, thus infinite, thus can take the 'form' of whatever 'that' two beings fixate on. This is how creation works, even according to the book of genesis. Pick a 'that', call it the mustard seed, have your partner focus on the same seed, and sow accordingly to make it manifest: thus abundance is only limited to the honoring of both mother and father: one of the ten commandments, and so it should be: less knowledge that god is a conjunct reciprocal relationship, one is certainly not knowing.

I am that I am is all that exists. That is all. Else: belief, which is the currency of so-called satan.

If god is all-knowing, yet antithetical to satan: having the fixed characteristic of requiring belief, how can both god and satan require belief?

Less belief, satan has no potency, and god is all-knowing thus satan has no hold over him. The same was/is true for any in Christ: satan has no hold on them, because they possess the knowledge-of-all-knowledges: truth of the way of the living, which is infallibility and necessarily leads towards any all-knowing god, if even taking god as an unknown (best approach).

Not if the object of faith is true and corresponds to what is the case. An idol is a false belief. 

Are you an empiricist/physicalist (won't believe it until you see it)? Do you believe you have to see something to believe it exists?
Any/all belief not being actively tried is an idol. Idol worship is strictly psychological: not physical as the real idol worshipers would use to hide their own. This is precisely what patriarchal religion is: idol worship to the max. The ten commandments warned about it: no graven images in the psychology (ie. heavens). Hypocrisy begins with those ten commandments: they are in stone for a reason. They prove themselves over and over and over etc.

I still can not falsify even one of them. They hold as if fixed to the fabric of creation itself: they thus have a liberating power such, to know them, and know thy self, it is practically impossible to not live in truth. It will invariably lead to the cessation of the suffering of self and shift attention towards the suffering of others: Christ consciousness not coming lest by way of knowing the same, because any all-knowing god knows the suffering of others. There is one caveat: an all-knowing god would also know any/all who suffer themselves, but attempt to blame/scapegoat their own suffering onto others. Therefor, the axiom proves itself true infallibly: know thy self, god knows you the same, and as true as you are to yourself, this becomes a fixed commonality.

Recall what Adam did to Eve: his own iniquity onto her. Let me as you this question (please respond): are you aware of what the reality is behind the women who suffer having to take the blame/shame for the ignorance of men? Think about women who religiously cover themselves to ward off men. Do you believe god is not knowing of those who transgress the first warning? It would take a believer to believe that.

Truly: Christ consciousness does not comes lest by way of knowing the suffering of others, which certainly requires either comprehension and/or cessation of the suffering of self. This comes with knowledge of self. Knowledge of self aligns with any all-knowing god: therefor, belief becomes of no practical use as it is progressively discovered that it is a vice, not a source of liberation.

Topic's author
#82
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
-->
@PGA2.0
You are jumping from some beliefs as ignorant to all belief as being ignorant. 

You experience you "are" long before you know you are. A baby gradually acquires knowledge as it becomes more aware of the world around it and can begin to conceptualize what it is that it is seeing and figure out how it knows it is the case. The principle beliefs or core/start concepts tie in more and more to a worldview belief and knowledge is acquired as it grows.

Knowledge comes from the belief and is a justified true belief. Thus Belief --> Knowledge

***

Please forgive my bluntness: your methodology is absurd, and begins with an absurd assertion.

In any case, the truth of the way of the living is the only method that can not be falsified.

You have to justify what is the case to know it.
You can also justify what is not the case.

Creation has a counter-part: destruction. You can not just say is! is! is! you have to equally try is not! is not! is not! This is the balance of yang and yin: to try to believe, and to try not to believe. The commonality is trying either way, therefor one is in a perpetual state of trying to / not to, leaving only knowledge (absent belief, knowledge having negates any/all false belief), belief-in-trial, and knowledge of ignorance.

I know therefore I am!
I am therefore I know!

Which comes first?
Neither: and neither are any conscious acknowledgement of self.

"I know I am" is acknowledgement of self.
"I believe I am" is lacking acknowledgement of self: it is belief-based.
I know I know not" is conscious acknowledgement of ignorance equivalent to any/all potential attainability to/of knowledge. Once can not attain to something they "believe" they already have.

believe I am in order to know I am. I believe in order to know. I do not disbelieve I am. 
I know I am and therefore I believe I am. (Justified true belief)
I know I am because I know I am. (Tautology/circular reasoning)
The tautology begins with an ignorance: I believe I am. Therefor it is circularly ignorant-in-and-of-itself. I see it as a dogma trying to equivocate belief and knowledge when, in reality, they are antithetical. It is just what religion is out to do.

How do you know (P)...
P =/= P.
P = *P
_______
*can be (+) or( -)

You know P by knowing which direction it is moving.

knowledge is justifiable true belief
"Justified true belief" is graven image in the heavens: circular absurdity.

With your equations both the negative and positive equals --> I am?
Yes: reflecting equal capacity for good/evil, leaving it as an open variable without defining, which is the problem-in-and-of-itself (ie. believing to know good and evil, thus attempting to explicitly define).

To put it more succinctly,
I know I am is not to believe I am.

More succinctly,
I believe I am is not knowing I am.

In application to self: yes. It highlights the absurdity of any/all "I believe I am..." etc. As belief is a fixed component of any/all belief-based ignorance. Therefor, a grounded knowledge of self must be absent belief, else: ignorance.

Again, the second equation depends on whether the belief is justified as true to what kind of belief it is - rational, irrational, blind.
...

What does this mean?
The tree of living leads *away from* suffering/death.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil leads towards it.

It takes a revealed, objective, absolute, unchanging/fixed qualitative value for goodness to be known. If you don't have one, why is your subjective opinion/preference any BETTER than mine?

What is the source of your qualitative value system? Some other subjective mind, or your mind? What is good about that? Don't dictate what is good until you prove your source is good. 
Such a thing exists, has existed, and will always exist.

It's not about better/worse: this is a comparison, and the same Cain did of himself to his brother. Are you not mindful of the scriptures? Why compare yourself to another? I am nothing: neither greater nor lesser than the next.

I don't dictate what is good: it is the problem-in-and-of-itself. Good begs an evil counter-part. Whenever a person points and says "there is evil" they assume themselves good in relation. Sometimes, it is true. But, if a person does it, and it so happens they are wrong... they are dead wrong.



#83
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,974
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Another ebuc

Yup. Is it some sort of disease.

Let’s call it ebuc syndrome. 

7 days later

#84
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
He wanted it but a person was not required to believe him.  Satan was a liar.
Satan is not a being: it is a state of being assumed by any person satisfying the following:

"expression of being bound in an ongoing state"

which includes via any/all belief-based ignorance(s) (ie. bound to believe in an ongoing state).
Rubbish. 

You are wrong. Satan is revealed as having the characteristics of personhood and being. He speaks, he does things, he is called a liar and the father of lies, he does evil, he tempts, he distorts the truth, his character is dark.


The Bible discusses the very Person you are ignorant of and of whom you are such a self-proclaimed expert on.
Are you talking about Jesus? The truth, way and life? See, the truth, way and life is not a person.
Yes, I am talking about Him who you deny and misrepresent, and twist the gospel message by reading INTO Scripture things it does not teach. 

This is idolatry. It is a method which infallibly orients ones self towards the source of creation. It is in-and-of-itself infallible, thus renders any/all fallibility to the being themselves, and not the method. The method is infallible, thus always true. In this way it can be said to be a knowledge-in-and-of-itself that is antithetical to any/all problem-in-and-of-themselves, of which belief-in-and-of-itself less conscious knowledge of ignorance is invariably a fixed factor of.
This is a complete BS. Jesus is a Person and a personal Being. 


That is why you are not a believer in the Christian God, because you do not know Him.
...it takes one who does not know to believe. They are antithetical.

Knowledge: no degrees of uncertainty
Belief: one or more degrees of uncertainty
Belief: 1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists
  • 2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something:
Knowledge: 1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject:
  • 2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation
Knowledge = justifiable true belief.

Three kinds of belief: 
1. Blind - believed with no evidence
2. Irrational - 
3. Rational



This is why any/all being is either rooted in knowledge (ie. of self) or ignorance (of the same): to know ones self is knowledge, thus common with any all-knowing god. It takes belief-in-and-of-itself to believe ones self to be something they are not: including knowledgeable. This is the problem-in-and-of-itself: no conscious knowledge of ignorance. That does not mean one is ignorant in a derogatory sense, but willingness to acknowledge one does not know is a fixed component of knowing anything at all.
I'm not following your reasoning. 


You are claiming that He does not exist. That is a belief because you have not proved His non-existence. You keep claiming it.
So much wrong with this.

1. I do not recognize/acknowledge your use of He to say "He" does / does not exist. I do not understand god as a "He"
The biblical God has revealed Himself as a personal Being in the masculine pronoun. 

2. It is a belief that god i. exists, and ii. is a "He"
Yes, per the biblical revelation in part and in explaining anything sensibly regarding what is.

3. I claimed "it" not once
You deny the biblical God as He is revealed. You ignore Him like He does not exist. You say things that go against the biblical revelation.  


If you don't know me you don't know what I know about myself. Your sentence is a bunch of BS and inconsistent nonsense.
I know (some of) what you do not know about yourself. It is implicit in your temperament: the expression 'know thy self' is axiomatic, and less this knowledge, enmity arises: the same as Cain.


I am blunt. I expose things that I do not think are true or right unfiltered. I am not angry. I just lay it down and call it as I see it. Could my language be seasoned with more grace? Definitely. Yet, I choose to put it to you in an uncompromisingly, honest, forthright way. I am exposing to you my thinking unfiltered, not maliciously or spitefully, just not hiding what I think by politically correct words. That is just the way I am. 

I see things in yourself that you do not know about yourself also. You are closed-minded, stubborn, and biased, yet you think you are right. So what? Prove it.

It is human nature to not see faults in ourselves that we recognize in others, but I have examined myself in many of these areas. I know some of my faults. I know some of the problems I have. They have been identified and wrestled with by my mind. 
#85
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
The thing about you is that you do not want to KNOW God. Thus, you are ignorant of Him. 

To know Him you first have to take a baby step and believe He exists. You adamantly stomp your foot and say no. Thus, as you say, you know you are ignorant of Him.
I am ignorant of any/all Him gods, admitted.

The Hebrew word of 'GOD' as rendered in Genesis 1:1 is thus:

el - towardsness <-*archetype of bestowal / electricity
oh - conduit
im - sea/expanse <-*archetype of reception / magnetism

rendering: "towardness in/of sea/expanse" and a bestowal-reception principle that is echoed in Genesis 1:3:

And saying elohim <-*shared will
'Let be light,' <-*bestowal
and light was. <-*reception

which lends itself to the primordial Adam-and-Eve: bestowal-and-reception.
What are your sources? Please supply them, or is this totally a self-effort?

What you do is take the biblical revelation and read all kinds of things into it that it does not say or teach. That is called eisegesis. 

Definition of eisegesis

: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas


What you do is ignore the biblical revelation and ply into its wording all kinds of things that it does not say or teach. 


Therefor, any Abrahamic creator god is most certainly not a He. It is male-female-conjunct: "I am that I am."
The biblical God is a personal Being that has revealed Himself in masculine pronouns, yet God is Spirit and does not have a physical body or male/female parts. Thus, biblical language speaks to us in terms that we as human beings can relate to. God reveals Himself to us this way.

Yet Jesus, the Son, became a human and a man in His incarnation.


Every man and woman is their own archetypal Adam and Eve.
Sure, in a sense. We are sinners by nature and take after Adam and Eve after the Fall. Adam and Eve brought sin into the world. They created a disconnect with God by their disobedience, just like we do. Thus, we need a Savior to restore us to that original relationship. 

The Garden of Eden is a fixed state, thus infinite, thus can take the 'form' of whatever 'that' two beings fixate on. This is how creation works, even according to the book of genesis.
Although the Garden of Eden represented a time in which humans (Adam and Eve) had a paradisical relationship with God it was disrupted by Adam's disobedience. Nevertheless, it was a physical place that was a picture, type or symbolic of a greater reality, the heavenly state of being. 

Pick a 'that', call it the mustard seed, have your partner focus on the same seed, and sow accordingly to make it manifest: thus abundance is only limited to the honoring of both mother and father: one of the ten commandments, and so it should be: less knowledge that god is a conjunct reciprocal relationship, one is certainly not knowing.
A 'that?'


I am that I am is all that exists. That is all. Else: belief, which is the currency of so-called satan.
No, I am that I am is God, and He is not all that exists. He has created a universe and all kinds of creatures, one kind of which is us human beings.

Again, you read all kinds of things into the term that applies strictly to God. He is the One who is, with no beginning or end thus transcends time and the physical reality.  


If god is all-knowing, yet antithetical to satan: having the fixed characteristic of requiring belief, how can both god and satan require belief?
I would say that everyone has an innate knowledge of God that they deny or ignore in their sinful state of being.


Less belief, satan has no potency, and god is all-knowing thus satan has no hold over him.
True, Satan is just another created being, having a beginning, whereas God is eternal in nature. 


The same was/is true for any in Christ: satan has no hold on them,
True, Satan has been defeated by Jesus Christ.


because they possess the knowledge-of-all-knowledges:
Yet that does not make a human being all-knowing. They possess the knowledge of God in knowing Him in as much as He has revealed Himself. 



truth of the way of the living, which is infallibility and necessarily leads towards any all-knowing god, if even taking god as an unknown (best approach).
Jesus was the One who lived the perfect life before God, thus faith in Him and in His work on our behalf restores our relationship with God. Our righteousness or good standing before God is based on what Someone else has done on our behalf. We know the truth and the truth is found in Jesus Christ.

Colossians 2:2b-3
Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

#86
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic


Not if the object of faith is true and corresponds to what is the case. An idol is a false belief. 

Are you an empiricist/physicalist (won't believe it until you see it)? Do you believe you have to see something to believe it exists?
Any/all belief not being actively tried is an idol. Idol worship is strictly psychological: not physical as the real idol worshipers would use to hide their own. This is precisely what patriarchal religion is: idol worship to the max. The ten commandments warned about it: no graven images in the psychology (ie. heavens). Hypocrisy begins with those ten commandments: they are in stone for a reason. They prove themselves over and over and over etc.

I still can not falsify even one of them. They hold as if fixed to the fabric of creation itself: they thus have a liberating power such, to know them, and know thy self, it is practically impossible to not live in truth. It will invariably lead to the cessation of the suffering of self and shift attention towards the suffering of others: Christ consciousness not coming lest by way of knowing the same, because any all-knowing god knows the suffering of others. There is one caveat: an all-knowing god would also know any/all who suffer themselves, but attempt to blame/scapegoat their own suffering onto others. Therefor, the axiom proves itself true infallibly: know thy self, god knows you the same, and as true as you are to yourself, this becomes a fixed commonality.
Too much to respond to here.


Recall what Adam did to Eve: his own iniquity onto her.
Where do you find this revealed in Scripture or are you just reading it in?

Let me as you this question (please respond): are you aware of what the reality is behind the women who suffer having to take the blame/shame for the ignorance of men?
They were both ignorant and they were both complicit in disobeying God, yet Adam, who was created first and who was also the type or picture of Him who was to come [Jesus Christ] Adam was the One who brought judgment upon all of us as what is termed the "federal" head. That means his actions affected us, down the line. 

Genesis 3:6-7
6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” 14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
16 To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.”
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”
20 Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

God held each of them accountable for what they did, yet because God created Adam first and Adam was a type of Him who was to come [Jesus Christ, the Second Adam] it was Adam who represented the rest of humanity in his decision.



Think about women who religiously cover themselves to ward off men. Do you believe god is not knowing of those who transgress the first warning? It would take a believer to believe that.
Again, I am not following your reasoning or how you establish this.

God is all-knowing for starters. He knows all transgressors. 

"Do I believe God is not knowing of those who transgress the first warning?" What is the "first warning?"


Truly: Christ consciousness does not comes lest by way of knowing the suffering of others, which certainly requires either comprehension and/or cessation of the suffering of self. This comes with knowledge of self. Knowledge of self aligns with any all-knowing god: therefor, belief becomes of no practical use as it is progressively discovered that it is a vice, not a source of liberation.
Again, not sure of what you are trying to convey.

#87
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
You are jumping from some beliefs as ignorant to all belief as being ignorant. 

You experience you "are" long before you know you are. A baby gradually acquires knowledge as it becomes more aware of the world around it and can begin to conceptualize what it is that it is seeing and figure out how it knows it is the case. The principle beliefs or core/start concepts tie in more and more to a worldview belief and knowledge is acquired as it grows.

Knowledge comes from the belief and is a justified true belief. Thus Belief --> Knowledge

***

Please forgive my bluntness: your methodology is absurd, and begins with an absurd assertion.
I appreciate raw bluntness that is not hidden in political correctness, as long as it is not vulgar.

Do you have to believe something before you can believe anything else?

Knowledge does not come from a vacuum. You have to start somewhere. You first have to believe something, test it, and justify it is true before you arrive at knowledge. 


In any case, the truth of the way of the living is the only method that can not be falsified.
I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. Please rephrase it. 


You have to justify what is the case to know it.
You can also justify what is not the case.
This is true and so do it. 


Creation has a counter-part: destruction. You can not just say is! is! is! you have to equally try is not! is not! is not! This is the balance of yang and yin: to try to believe, and to try not to believe.
And the counter to that is if you do not believe 'this' but 'that' (or not this) you still have a belief, an opposing or contrary belief. The person who says, "I believe in God" has a belief. The person who says, "I do not believe in God" still has a belief, that there is no God. 


The commonality is trying either way, therefor one is in a perpetual state of trying to / not to, leaving only knowledge (absent belief, knowledge having negates any/all false belief), belief-in-trial, and knowledge of ignorance.
Leaving only knowledge, which is a true justified belief. An absent belief of one thing is a belief on the contrary or opposite thing. 


I know therefore I am!
I am therefore I know!

Which comes first?
Neither: and neither are any conscious acknowledgement of self.
Neither? So you have not begun to exist yet you know you are???

Even though a baby of one day old exists is it aware or knowing it exists. It has not begun the thought process of knowing yet. It is still experiencing in its growth process yet is not reasoning its knowledge of its existence yet.


"I know I am" is acknowledgement of self.
True, yet it is also reasoning that requires a rational thought process. 

I know I am is a true, justified belief.

"I believe I am" is lacking acknowledgement of self: it is belief-based.
It is not a well thought out belief. 

I know I know not" is conscious acknowledgement of ignorance equivalent to any/all potential attainability to/of knowledge. Once can not attain to something they "believe" they already have.
Okay, yet acknowledgement of ignorance does not happen in a vacuum. You have to know other things before you become aware of things you do not know. That knowledge is based on a belief system that is confirmed to be the case. You can't build a house without a foundation. 

If you know one thing, that you do not know anything else, how do you know this? Again, knowledge has to be built on other knowledge. You have to start somewhere with a belief that is either confirmed or denied by what is the case. 
"I know I know not" has to be a knowledge in relation to something else that is not known. 

I know I know not = conscious acknowledgment of ignorance (which pertains to a specific thing) = Any potential attainability to knowledge.
I know I know not = All potential attainability of knowledge. 

"One can not attain to something they "believe" they already have." Knowledge = justified true belief. 


believe I am in order to know I am. I believe in order to know. I do not disbelieve I am. 
I know I am and therefore I believe I am. (Justified true belief)
I know I am because I know I am. (Tautology/circular reasoning)
The tautology begins with an ignorance: I believe I am. Therefor it is circularly ignorant-in-and-of-itself.
Reasonable belief is different from irrational or blind belief. 



I see it as a dogma trying to equivocate belief and knowledge when, in reality, they are antithetical. It is just what religion is out to do.
A belief has to be 1) justified and 2) true to be knowledge. Thus, you will never know God without first believing He exists and thus trusting He rewards those who seek Him with knowledge of Him.

If you can justify something you believe as reasonable before it happens it is not yet true. Thus, it is not yet knowledge until it happens the way you thought it would.  

#88
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic


How do you know (P)...
P =/= P.
P = *P
_______
*can be (+) or( -)

You know P by knowing which direction it is moving.
What does that statement mean? "What direction it is moving?"

P =?= P  --> P does not equal P? 

A dog (P) is not a dog (P)? It does not have that identity?

Or are you trying to say that you can't know P is P?

***

P can be or not be P? A dog can or can't be a dog?

The dog (P) is asleep and not moving (no direction), therefore, it is not a dog? 


knowledge is justifiable true belief
"Justified true belief" is graven image in the heavens: circular absurdity.
That statement of yours makes no sense.


With your equations both the negative and positive equals --> I am?
Yes: reflecting equal capacity for good/evil, leaving it as an open variable without defining, which is the problem-in-and-of-itself (ie. believing to know good and evil, thus attempting to explicitly define).

To put it more succinctly,
I know I am is not to believe I am.

More succinctly,
I believe I am is not knowing I am.

In application to self: yes. It highlights the absurdity of any/all "I believe I am..." etc. As belief is a fixed component of any/all belief-based ignorance. Therefor, a grounded knowledge of self must be absent belief, else: ignorance.

Again, the second equation depends on whether the belief is justified as true to what kind of belief it is - rational, irrational, blind.
...

What does this mean?
The tree of living leads *away from* suffering/death.
Do you mean the tree of life? If so, yes. If Adam and Eve had eaten from it they would have lived forever.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil leads towards it.
By taking from the tree of knowledge God banned them from the Garden and partaking of the tree of life. 


It takes a revealed, objective, absolute, unchanging/fixed qualitative value for goodness to be known. If you don't have one, why is your subjective opinion/preference any BETTER than mine?

What is the source of your qualitative value system? Some other subjective mind, or your mind? What is good about that? Don't dictate what is good until you prove your source is good. 
Such a thing exists, has existed, and will always exist.
Then what you are saying is that God exists since you have not always existed. Values such as goodness, to exist eternally, must be grounded in an eternal Being since goodness is an abstract mindful thing and requires a Mind for its existence and meaning. 


It's not about better/worse: this is a comparison, and the same Cain did of himself to his brother. Are you not mindful of the scriptures? Why compare yourself to another? I am nothing: neither greater nor lesser than the next.
There has to be a comparison or else everything is flux and you have nothing to base your claim on, nor measure the degree of goodness.

So you have to have a fixed measure to compare something to. We know what an inch is in relation to one foot, and a foot in comparison to a yard, and so on. We know that we go so many inches along a measuring line to mark of this degree of measurement. The standard for the inch is the International Bureau of Weights and Measures that other measurements can be calibrated against.

What is that measure for goodness, since you say it has always existed, fixed, firm? Since it is qualitative rather than quantitative it must be a necessary Being. 

If you don't know what is good how will you determine something is better (qualitatively) than something else? If your measurement of goodness keeps changing how will you know it is better? Better than what? How will you know good unless there is a fixed best?



I don't dictate what is good: it is the problem-in-and-of-itself. Good begs an evil counter-part. Whenever a person points and says "there is evil" they assume themselves good in relation. Sometimes, it is true. But, if a person does it, and it so happens they are wrong... they are dead wrong.


Evil in comparison to what? Why would a relative being think themselves better than another being unless there is a fixed measure to compare too?

It either is true or it is false but the question is how you know?

Dead wrong in comparison to what?

You have failed to answer my question. Here it is again,

"What is the source of your qualitative value system? Some other subjective mind, or your mind? What is good about that? Don't dictate what is good until you prove your source is good." 

Topic's author
#89
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Rubbish. 

You are wrong. Satan is revealed as having the characteristics of personhood and being. He speaks, he does things, he is called a liar and the father of lies, he does evil, he tempts, he distorts the truth, his character is dark.
You have not casted your net to the right - these things are symbols and metaphors, there is an underlying nature to satan that is expressed in the word itself:

shin - expression of (totality of) being (as a conjunction of: psychology, emotions and instinctual motor)
tet - bound (ie. entangled)
nun (final) - ongoing (ie. indefinite) state

...the expression of being bound in an ongoing state...

and this satisfies any/all belief-based ignorance(s) that would be due to satan, which requires belief. Therefor, knowledge-negating-belief is the counter-part to any/all belief-based ignorance(s). However, because each person is unique, and has their own unique body of ignorance, each has their own corresponding unique body of knowledge to be attained to; and if/when so, alleviates any/all ignorance(s) restoring the primordial 'state'.

One must know what that state is in order to restore it: it is not hard.

The biblical God has revealed Himself as a personal Being in the masculine pronoun.

False.

I am that I am.
Adam and Eve.
Elohim = male/female "us".

When you place a shin in the middle of YHWH, you get YHshWH.
Remember shin is the conjunct expression of the totality of being, thus each has/is their own.

I see things in yourself that you do not know about yourself also. You are closed-minded, stubborn, and biased, yet you think you are right. So what? Prove it.
You would believe you see things: it is already established you mistake belief as knowledge, and the ad hominem is a projection of your own nature. Enmity results in projection (ie. Cain; tiller of ones own soil) thus the accuser is always the accused when from a place of enmity. This results in the projection of ones own nature as that of another: the same is the original sin of Adam attempting to scapegoat his own iniquity onto the woman. If you want to see what that leads to, look at Islam: men blame women for their own behavior. It is the same scapegoating.

It is human nature to not see faults in ourselves that we recognize in others, but I have examined myself in many of these areas. I know some of my faults. I know some of the problems I have. They have been identified and wrestled with by my mind.
Your problem(s) is exactly what you accused me of.

Where do you find this revealed in Scripture or are you just reading it in?
GENESIS 3:12
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

When lower organ controls the higher organ (ie. sex controls brain) the potential for evil is present: lust (sum of all evil). Men who abuse their power over women (again, like Islam) are the exaggeration of the original sin. It destroys the 1:1 ration established at the onset by killing off the men and taking the women as war spoils, thus 1:4 and 1:9 for Muhammad. Islam is the original sin in perpetuity, so don't believe I have anything against anyone moreso than the House of Islam for being the House of Antichrist. It's just that the Christians are do nobody any favors worshiping a man as the Muhammadans do: the truth of the way of the living is not a man, it is a method.

Again, I am not following your reasoning or how you establish this.

God is all-knowing for starters. He knows all transgressors. 

"Do I believe God is not knowing of those who transgress the first warning?" What is the "first warning?"
If God is all-knowing, God is all-knowing of:
i. all belief-based ignorance(s) exist in and/or by way of belief-in-and-of-itself
ii. satan requires belief, thus
iii. any/all not to believe.

Hence the two trees in the garden:

-1 KNOW <-*tree of living
+2 any/all <-*creation
-2 *not to* <-*destruction
+1 BELIEVE <-*tree of knowledge of good and evil
0 I AM (willing to...) <-*equal capacity for good/evil
_______________

Tree of living: 0 - 1 + 2 - 2 + 1 = 0 | I AM willing to KNOW any/all *not to* BELIEVE (I am...)
Tree of G/E: 0 +1 - 2 + 2 - 1 = 0 | I AM willing to BELIEVE *not to* any/all KNOW (I am...)
Topic's author
#90
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
Do you have to believe something before you can believe anything else?

Knowledge does not come from a vacuum. You have to start somewhere. You first have to believe something, test it, and justify it is true before you arrive at knowledge.
I don't understand your first question.

Knowledge comes by way of trying belief: once a belief is falsified, knowledge not to believe it is attained. One need not believe they exist in order to know they exist. If one stops believing in gravity, gravity still has an effect. Similarly, if one does not believe in ones self, rather know ones self, one realizes it takes belief to believe ones self to be something they are not (!)

And the counter to that is if you do not believe 'this' but 'that' (or not this) you still have a belief, an opposing or contrary belief. The person who says, "I believe in God" has a belief. The person who says, "I do not believe in God" still has a belief, that there is no God. 
Your latter example is not necessarily true: one can say "I do not believe in God" while having no belief there is / is not one. One can either know, or not know, absent belief. Belief means one does not know.

Leaving only knowledge, which is a true justified belief. An absent belief of one thing is a belief on the contrary or opposite thing. 
Knowledge has nothing to do with belief unless it is of the degrees of uncertainty of the belief. Knowledge is negation of belief: turns a "possible true" belief into "definitely not (necessarily) true" which derives a knowledge not to believe.

This justified true belief dogma is very destructive: trying to pass off ignorance as knowledge, just as religion would.

Neither? So you have not begun to exist yet you know you are???

Even though a baby of one day old exists is it aware or knowing it exists. It has not begun the thought process of knowing yet. It is still experiencing in its growth process yet is not reasoning its knowledge of its existence yet.
My beginning to exist does not depend on my believing to exist.

It has conscience: ability to inquire. That? That? That? That's unconditioned conscience: seeking to know. That is the default state. Believing to know happens over time in relation to ones own belief-based ignorance.

I know I am is a true, justified belief.
No: it is a conscious acknowledgement of self, not a belief.

'I believe I am' is a true, justified belief. But it's not knowledge, because one can believe themselves to be something they are not, and thus:

I believe I am...
I know I am...

are the two trees as they exist locally in a being: two hemispheres of the brain wherein the right is higher (ie. closer to knowledge) and the left is lower (ie. closer to belief-based ignorance). Casting to the right means: left hemisphere to right hemisphere. The ship is the mind.

Okay, yet acknowledgement of ignorance does not happen in a vacuum. You have to know other things before you become aware of things you do not know. That knowledge is based on a belief system that is confirmed to be the case. You can't build a house without a foundation. 
The first fundamental knowledge/ignorance is of self. It is technically the only thing to know. It takes belief to believe ones self to be something they are not.


If you know one thing, that you do not know anything else, how do you know this? Again, knowledge has to be built on other knowledge. You have to start somewhere with a belief that is either confirmed or denied by what is the case. 
"I know I know not" has to be a knowledge in relation to something else that is not known. 
Conscience is used to derive knowledge: it acknowledges things either as they are, or as they are not (ie. belief-based).


I know I know not = conscious acknowledgment of ignorance (which pertains to a specific thing) = Any potential attainability to knowledge.
I know I know not = All potential attainability of knowledge. 

"One can not attain to something they "believe" they already have." Knowledge = justified true belief. 
Knowledge negates belief.

'Justified true belief' is an attempt to turn ignorance into knowledge.

What does that statement mean? "What direction it is moving?"

P =?= P  --> P does not equal P? 

A dog (P) is not a dog (P)? It does not have that identity?

Or are you trying to say that you can't know P is P?

***

P can be or not be P? A dog can or can't be a dog?

The dog (P) is asleep and not moving (no direction), therefore, it is not a dog? 
-1 KNOW <-*tree of living
+2 any/all <-*creation
-2 *not to* <-*destruction
+1 BELIEVE <-*tree of knowledge of good and evil
0 I AM (willing to...) <-*equal capacity for good/evil

Tree of living: 0 - 1 + 2 - 2 + 1 = 0 | I AM willing to KNOW any/all *not to* BELIEVE (I am...)
Tree of G/E: 0 +1 - 2 + 2 - 1 = 0 | I AM willing to BELIEVE *not to* any/all KNOW (I am...)

You can go in one of two directions (ie. trees).

P =/= P (direction is variable!)
P = *P wherein P can be + or -