Debating to undermine any/all "BELIEF"

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

That statement of yours makes no sense.

Do you mean the tree of life? If so, yes. If Adam and Eve had eaten from it they would have lived forever.

By taking from the tree of knowledge God banned them from the Garden and partaking of the tree of life. 

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.

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?

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." 

So you know that belief is evil?

You really believe that?

It takes a believer to believe anything, right?

For example, knowing not to believe ones self to be something one is not, is a kind of knowledge absent belief.

To accept that you have knowledge, wouldn't you first have to believe you are capable of knowledge?

This is part of what knowledge of good and evil implies. A fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is to see that truth is good and falsehood is evil. If you know not to embrace delusion, you are able to tell this is wrong.

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...)

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. 

[1] The first fundamental knowledge/ignorance is of self. It is [2] 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.

Neither Satan nor God require belief. Satan is no opposite to God, they are not equals. If we were to say that Satan and God are opposites, we would be dualists. We Orthodox are not dualists. Satan is a creature of God. God is not a creature.

I am having trouble making sense of what you are saying because it seems to me that you clearly have beliefs, but at the same time you are speaking of belief in such a way as to almost imply that you do not have any. 

This dichotomy between belief and knowledge I simply do not accept. They are not mutually exclusive, they are refering to different aspects to something that is similar.

I can't help but be reminded of a historical issue in the church. There was some confusion long ago in the early days of the church over the Greek concepts of "hypostasis", "ousa", and "physis", which do not always translate well but are integral concepts in terms of Christian theology, particularly in the issue of Christology. This confusion is said by some to have been behind one of the earliest schisms of the church, in which a segment did not accept the councel of Chalcedon. 

Even in English these terms don't translate well! 

As we are a faith of revelation, our practices are intended to bring about that true experiential knowledge or epignosis. Without belief, why even bother? And so the door is shut.

One of the major differences between Orthodox Christian theology and the heterodox Christian theology of Western Europe is that western heterodox theology is very rationalistic while Orthodox theology is very experiential. Ours is a revealed faith, not one that was come to through reason. And being that it is a faith that is revealed, it isn't taught to a person, but it is revealed to a person. In western heterodoxy, a theologian is someone who reads a lot of books and has head "knowledge" or maybe belief as you say. We Orthodox understand a theologian as someone who through theoria has real experiential knowledge.

We Orthodox understand Christianity as apodictic truth, that is, capable of being demonstrated. This is in contrast with Christianity  being something that is established through dialectics.

Your statement is obscure. I have no idea what you are referring to. Are you referring to a scriptural verse? Are you referring to my statement?

Casing my net to the right? What does this have to do with my comment?

What do "these things" refer to, my statement or net casting?

Satan, in those verses I referenced, is a personal being, given personal attributes. You take a narrative and turn it into a metaphorical or symbolic language without justification. Although it can mean adversary, the adversary in the NT is a particular being.

"Shin" as the twenty-first letter of the Hebrew alphabet?

I have no idea what you are talking about. This is babel. 

'I am' refers to a person, 'that I am' suggests eternality.

What about them?

"Elohim" is a masculine plural noun. 

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

"in Our image"

Prep‑b | N‑msc | 1cp 

'In'  -> Preposition

'Our' -> masculine singular construct

'Image' -> first person common plural.

"let Us make"

V‑Qal‑Imperf.h‑1cp 

'Let' -> Verb

'Us make' -> Imperfect cohortative if contextual - first person common plural

So you manufacture a shin in YHWH? 

Although I recognize these and other faults in myself, I also recognize them in you. I know I am closed-minded. Truth is narrow. I am biased. There is no neutrality in belief. I can be stubborn, especially when defending the truth.

They each had their own scapegoat. The woman, in turn, blamed the serpent. 

Only one of us can be right to what is the case, if either, since we both state opposites. Do you know you are right? If so, prove it. 

Again, the natural function of a man and woman together as one in marriage was built into the DNA of each. You are reading all kinds of things into the narrative that is not yet disclosed, like,

"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.”

The original sin was taking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. By taking it Adam discovered what evil was, disobedience to God's good commands.

There is a difference between God and humanity. We are limited beings and do not know all things in and of themselves whereas God does. He creates them and understands every function and purpose of all things. All created things exist and hold together because of Him.

Adam only knew of evil once he took of the tree of knowledge. Before that his existence only experienced good. Before that eating of the fruit, he walked with God and experienced His goodness. After that eating, he understood what it meant to disobey God and he experienced evil as well as good. He knew he was naked and he experienced shame.  

One senses that you might be a tad Islamophobic.

As psychologically conditioned perhaps?

Just in the same way that one would expect a psychologically conditioned Muslim to respond to you and I.

And it all depends upon a particular set of fairy tale data. 

Your statement is obscure. I have no idea what you are referring to. Are you referring to a scriptural verse? Are you referring to my statement?

Casing my net to the right? What does this have to do with my comment?

What do "these things" refer to, my statement or net casting?

Satan, in those verses I referenced, is a personal being, given personal attributes. You take a narrative and turn it into a metaphorical or symbolic language without justification. Although it can mean adversary, the adversary in the NT is a particular being.

You are taking too literally: these are stories. They are pointing at something metaphysical.

Finger points to moon: do not concentrate on the finger, or you will miss the moon for the point of the finger.

Cast right means do not think literally/physically, but metaphorically/metaphysically.

"Shin" as the twenty-first letter of the Hebrew alphabet?

Yes - it has three yuds/vavs on it, because it indicates:

i. psychological being

ii. emotional being

iii. instinctual (motor) being

all connected by a single base.

This is the first letter of Satan: indicates totality of being - psychology/emotion/action.

Second letter is bind: for example, to believe something that is not actually true.

Third letter is ongoing state.

I have no idea what you are talking about. This is babel. 

Tried to make it easier for you.

'I am' refers to a person, 'that I am' suggests eternality.

'I am' is not a (particular) person.

A better English rendering would be "I be(come) as I be(come)"

What about them?

They are not real/literal people. The "story" that people read, is actually a bunch of equations dressed up as a story. This is true even in the original Hebrew text: the real essence of the "story" has nothing to do with the story.

"Elohim" is a masculine plural noun. 

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

"in Our image"

Prep‑b | N‑msc | 1cp 

'In'  -> Preposition

'Our' -> masculine singular construct

'Image' -> first person common plural.

"let Us make"

V‑Qal‑Imperf.h‑1cp 

'Let' -> Verb

'Us make' -> Imperfect cohortative if contextual - first person common plural

Because all singular entities take the default masculine.

When elohim is the speaker, it identifies itself as "us/we" and the masculine designation of the Hebrew language is owing to the nature of the language, not the nature of elohim itself. Elohim is a folded circle: one side is bestowing/male, the other is receiving/female. To say Elohim is male, is belief-based ignorance and where religious patriarchy comes from that abuses women. The female is just as divine as the male: Eve means 'mother of all that lives'. Can not have creation without Eve.

So you manufacture a shin in YHWH? 

Each person is their own shin, and each shin returns to YHWH which is what Yahushoa is.

Although I recognize these and other faults in myself, I also recognize them in you. I know I am closed-minded. Truth is narrow. I am biased. There is no neutrality in belief. I can be stubborn, especially when defending the truth.

If you believe something to be true, you are defending yourself in relation to that "truth" believed in, not truth itself.

Knowing what is not necessarily true does not demand that truth be known: only what truth is not.

God is the same: to know all that God is *not* is the same pursuit as knowledge of truth.

They each had their own scapegoat. The woman, in turn, blamed the serpent. 

Man -> Woman -> Serpent

blame -> blame ->

So what is the original sin? Think about how men blame women for how men act and think about Islam.

Only one of us can be right to what is the case, if either, since we both state opposites. Do you know you are right? If so, prove it. 

Right/wrong are according to a context, thus the context must be defined in order to collapse one or the other. The "us vs. them" mindset is a product of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil: division, instead of union.

If the original sin is to blame another for ones own iniquity, the expression:

the accuser is the accused

must always hold true for one who is ignorant and/or in violation of. Therefor, to try any/all accusations first with:

Is the accuser the accused?

reveals ignorance from the start, but only as far as the one trying is themselves ignorant for what they themselves believe.

Again, the natural function of a man and woman together as one in marriage was built into the DNA of each. You are reading all kinds of things into the narrative that is not yet disclosed, like,

"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.”

As it is with dielectricity and magnetism: both are required, and as they approach equilibrium, they approach infinitude.

What you quoted is the result of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It is true: the more a person does it, the more they suffer.

The original sin was taking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. By taking it Adam discovered what evil was, disobedience to God's good commands.

Taking the fruit is the same as believing to know good/evil.

(I believe) I know = ignorance

I know (I believe) = knowledge

It is possible that what the serpent said is also true: one will become like god knowing good/evil. There are two possible results from the same action. To call the serpent "evil" is to ignore the warning in the first place.

There is a difference between God and humanity. We are limited beings and do not know all things in and of themselves whereas God does. He creates them and understands every function and purpose of all things. All created things exist and hold together because of Him.

Therefor,

+P is a body of belief-based ignorance

-P is a body of knowledge-negating-belief-based-ignorance

and as one +P attains to its specific counter-part -P, one approaches any possible all-knowing god.

Adam only knew of evil once he took of the tree of knowledge. Before that his existence only experienced good. Before that eating of the fruit, he walked with God and experienced His goodness. After that eating, he understood what it meant to disobey God and he experienced evil as well as good. He knew he was naked and he experienced shame.  

Hence the need to understand that each being is as their own Adam and thus to scapegoat the problem of "original sin" onto a scapegoat historical Adam is ignorant. This is precisely what religions do: institutionalize scapegoating. People dump their own iniquities onto figures like Jesus and/or join the House of Islam to scapegoat onto Jews/Christians/Atheists/Unbelievers/Infidels and become squealing and whining swine as the Muhammadans are.

conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

There are several flaws in your logic. Firstly, you are asserting that your definition of belief is the only valid definition, which is not true. According to Merriam-Webster, there are three definitions, including this one:

conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

By this definition, belief and knowledge are not exclusive. It is possible to believe something that you know. Your previous refutation of this is that belief is uncertainty, so you can't be uncertain of something that you know. However, this is using your definition to prove your definition. If belief requires uncertainty, then belief and knowledge are exclusive. However, if belief does not require uncertainty, then they are not exclusive. Your logic is as follows:

A: Belief requires uncertainty, so belief and knowledge are exclusive.

B: According to definition X, belief does not require uncertainty, so they are not exclusive.

A: That definition is wrong because belief requires uncertainty.

You are using your definition to prove itself. This is circular.

Secondly, even if belief does require uncertainty, uncertainty does not equal ignorance. Take this example: 

I believe the current time is 4:03. However, I am not certain because I do not have the universal standard clock (or whatever it's called) to prove it. However, I am not ignorant of the topic, because the clock in front of me says it is 4:03. This is a reasonable, informed belief. I am not certain, but I have good evidence that I am right, so I am not ignorant.

Thirdly, it is true that to some degree I am ignorant even though I am informed on the issue because I am ignorant of the official time. However, ignorant is not the same thing as irrational. By that standard, I am ignorant of the time. However, I have good evidence that the time is 4:03 (or was, since time keeps moving as I type). As such, this is a rational belief. 

You have failed to prove, except with circular reasoning, that belief requires uncertainty and that belief and knowledge are exclusive. You have failed to prove that belief is ignorance. You have failed to prove that belief is irrational. Therefore, your logic fails to undermine belief.

I also have an interesting point for you. I am going to take the position that certainty is impossible. Thus, by your definition, knowledge is impossible, and belief is the only possibility. Here is my case.

There is no way to be certain that logic is valid. We can divide any possible argument into the two categories of logical and illogical. Since anything that is not logical is by definition illogical, and vice versa, these are the only two possible categories. My argument follows inevitably from these simple and indisputable premises.

P1: Every argument is either logical or illogical.

P2: Any attempt to use logic to prove that logic is valid is circular, because the use of logic presumes that logic is valid.

C1: It is impossible to use logic to prove that logic is valid.

P3: Any attempt to use illogic to prove that logic is valid is inherently contradictory.

C2: It is impossible to use illogic to prove the validity of logic.

C3: Because of P1, C1, and C2, there is no possible argument that can prove that logic is valid.

I am extremely interested in seeing your response to this argument.

Of course, I myself make the assumption that logic is valid, since it is impossible to make any sense of the world otherwise. However, I cannot prove that my assumption is correct, which is the point I'm making.

The Second Adam - Jesus Christ - is the scapegoat for sin. The sin of the world (for all those who believe in Him) was placed on Him. Jesus, the historical Person took upon Himself the punishment for believers. He is the ONLY ONE who could meet the righteous requirements of God on behalf of the sinner.  

Leviticus 16:10

But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat ...

1. I do not treat merriam-webster as any authority on definitions of words/language.

2. The definition you provided relies on further substantiations viz. "examination of evidence" thus is incomplete and not self-contained.

3. To convict while containing degrees of uncertainty would definitely be an ignorant act,

especially if convicting others for the crimes of self (!).

4. It is possible to both believe in, and know: gravity, but "believing" in gravity is redundant, as gravity "acts" anyways. So does the gravity associated with any/all belief-based ignorance(s) that take ignorance(s) as knowledge(s), such as books to be perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant etc. It doesn't matter if a person believes in a truth or not: its efficacy is the same. Knowledge always negates belief-based ignorance(s).

0 + 1 - 2 + 2 - 1 = 0: I am willing to BELIEVE *not to* (any/all) KNOW <-*it takes a believer to believe evil is good (ie. satanic)

It is when a belief is taken as a definite: my belief is definitely true!

Such an utterance would be ignorant-in-and-of-itself. If something is in a state of 'definitely true' it requires not belief, but rather acknowledgement.

belief-in-and-of-itself is the agency required to ever confuse one-with-the-other, therefor satan must necessarily require it to confuse evil and good.

How can both god and satan require belief if they are opposites?

I don't try to undermine belief: knowledge does this naturally.

I simply designate belief-in-and-of-itself as a property of satan

It's not necessarily true: it can be both. Argumentation exists that tries to reconcile them.

Okay, but nobody is trying to prove logic is 'valid'.

Believers likewise presume that belief is 'valid'.

It is also impossible to use the Torah/Bible/Qur'an to prove that the Torah/Bible/Qur'an are valid.

I don't recognize your use of illogic and is undefined.

It is possible to use knowledge to prove the invalidity of belief.

I wouldn't want to.

I hope I didn't disappoint.

I do not assume that logic is valid.

Which emphatically calls for the designation that P =/= P, but rather there is a basic variability intrinsic to P that is set as a variable from the onset.

This is the interesting part of your response. What do you mean? If you don't assume that logic is valid, then would it be possible for logic to not apply in some circumstances? If so, what would that look like? I'm genuinely curious.

I do not assume that logic is valid.

Start with nothing.

Let a universe exist - if so willing one can use this one.

Call the universe 'that I am' and let it be otherwise unknown.

Let a being "I am" exist in/of 'that I am'.

"I think, therefor I am"

-Descartes

I think, therefor I know I am able to think.

I think not, knowing I am willing not to think...

I believe not, knowing I am willing not to believe...

I do not assume that logic is valid.

I think I am...

I think (therefor!) I am...

I believe I am...

I hope I am...

I assume I am...

etc.

I know I am...

I know not to believe I am something/anything I am not...

To be, or not to be...

ABC'S of GOOD and EVIL

A believes B is evil.

B believes A is evil.

A&B annihilate

C knows both knew not from which tree they ate.

GENESIS 2:17

ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות

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.

Query: if 'that I am' is an unknown universe,

can "I am" infer 'that I am'

if "I am" is also unknown

unto/by itself ?

Notice how Descartes identifies himself by way of his own thought:

i. one can not think less they exist, and

ii. one can not possibly think less: having knowingly

been born in the mind as the thought:

"I think (therefor) I am!"

therefor this utterance of Descartes is absurd.

I think, therefor I know I am able to think.

Which acknowledges both:

i. conscious acknowledgement of self

ii. ability of self

but notice it is still lacking severing one from their own thought-process.

duly followed by any/all cessation of thought. This accomplishes much:

i. severs from ones own thought-process

ii. conscious acknowledgement of self

iii. ability of self / full command of will

Thus deriving a fully consciously justified knowledge absent belief: to know one is not thinking.

I believe not, knowing I am willing not to believe...

and find the same.

I do not assume that logic is valid, because I find modern use of the term 'logic' to be invalid on its own terms:

P = P is invalid.

P is unknown: a variable.

Therefor, P = P is intrinsically invalid

because it ignores (ie. self-defeats)

that P is a variable.

and find that they are all relatively ignorant to:

I know I am...

I know not to believe I am something/anything I am not...

which clarifies why I do not take 'logic' as 'valid' because it removes unknown variable from itself (!) which is a blunder of Western "thought".

Thus 'know thy self' is absolutely valid:

one can not possibly know of any god less they know something of themselves whence to know of such a god.

In the same way Descartes was fixed to his own thought-process, "believers" are rooted in a practical ignorance(s) of themselves.

I believe I am... = Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil merely "believing" to know but being dead wrong

I know I am... = Tree of Living Forever

thus belief is the root of all suffering/death,

 an all-knowing god would know it takes a believer to believe evil is good.

They have no conscious knowledge of their own ignorance

Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance (Inference) Theorem which derives the real identities of the two Edenic trees

I therefor condemn any/all "believer vs. unbeliever" conflict(s) as being necessarily ignorant

including the designation/persecution of "unbelievers" relative to a particular "belief"-based ideology

CKIIT finds that the hundreds of millions of people dead are dead due to the exact singular reason alluded to in the warning of Genesis 2:17

I hope this has clarified my position and contention to belief-in-and-of-itself.

This is akin to saying, "If blue is 'three men planting daisies in a cornfield,' can we infer that the sky is not blue?" Maybe we can, but there is no reason to believe that blue is three men planting daisies in a cornfield or that "that I am" is an unknown universe. There is no logical justification for either statement.

You say it is absurd, but the points i and ii that you provide support his point. You don't show how it's absurd. However, I don't know what this has to do with anything.

And if you know you are able to think, then you are. This is merely restating Descartes' claim without the inevitable conclusion. If you are able to think, then you must exist. You think, therefore you know you are able to think, therefore you are. Your statement merely adds an intermediate step.

Again, you are merely restating Descartes' ideas in different words. The "I am" part was a conscious acknowledgement of self. His statement did not sever him from his own thought process. Rather, it relied on them not being severed, because he knew he existed because he could think. He did not separate them; rather, he united them. If one, then necessarily the other. 

You can't sever yourself from your own thought process or cease thinking except by going to sleep. No matter what you do, your brain activity continues, and your thought continues. In order to know one is not thinking, you would have to have the thought that you aren't thinking. You can't know without thought. It is an impossible divide. However, I don't really see the point of any of this. What are you trying to say?

And the same thing applies. In order to will something, you have to think it. Once again, though, I don't see that it's even worth disagreeing about, because there doesn't seem to be any point to all of this.

But you don't show how they're ignorant. You just "find" them to be.

P1: First set of statements

P2: ???

C: The first set of statements is ignorant compared to the second set of statements.

It removes unknown variable from itself. It removes unknown variable from itself. It removes unknown variable from itself.

I feel dumb just writing it. This statement has no meaning in the given context. You never explained how your equations proved this. You never explained why this is a blunder. You never showed that Western thought includes this blunder. You never even showed there is such a thing as Western thought or what that could be. This is gibberish.

Firstly, this isn't what that phrase means, but I'll let that slide since you aren't using it in that sense.

Secondly, this does not in any way follow from your previous statements.

Those two trees have objective definitions, and those are not it.

This does not follow from your previous statements. It relies on the absolutely ludicrous, unsupported, and in fact insupportable idea that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is equivalent to "I believe I am," which itself does not follow from your previous statements, and those statements don't follow from the statements before them, etc.

You never even attempted to explain why a believer believes that evil is good. This does not follow. Furthermore, this statement is utterly meaningless. It is a truism. It takes a believer to believe, period. No one that I know of other than Satanists believe that evil is good. This could not be more irrelevant. I don't understand why you keep repeating this phrase as though it actually has some profound or important meaning.

The conflict is necessarily ignorant? Is that a typo? Conflicts can't be ignorant or knowledgeable. This is gibberish

Persecution and designation are relative to ideologies. What?

Congratulations. You have reached the exact same conclusion that Jewish and Christian scholars have known for thousands of years. They didn't even have to write formulas. All they needed to do was read the Bible.

I regret to say that it has done anything but. The more I try to understand what you're saying, the less sense it makes.

Your statements don't follow from the ones before them.

Your attempt to find the "real identities" of the Edenic trees is beyond ridiculous and is something I would expect to find in a parody of someone searching for a metaphor behind every word to find support for his end times prophecy pamphlet "20 reasons Christ will come back in '20."

You never provide any clear definition of "belief-in-and-of-itself."

You say Descartes' statement was absurd only to provide your own statements that are merely reworded versions saying the same thing, except that you give them a distinction without a difference. Quite frankly,

your attempt to clarify your position pointlessly pontificated preposterous propositions paired with prolific and prevaricating prose.

Mopac:

You say that God and Satan. are not different.

Then you say that satan is the inverse of God.

Not only are both of these claims mutually exclusive, but neither of these claims reflect what we teach.

You literally said "The root of P is either -P or +P: they are equal counter-parts.

God and Satan are not different" in post 102.

I don't appreciate your implication that I am engaging with you deceitfully.

You say that God and Satan. are not different.

Then you say that satan is the inverse of God.

Not only are both of these claims mutually exclusive (?), but neither of these claims reflect what we teach.