AGnosticAgnostic

I reject your knowledge falsely so called. You are clearly delusional.

You don't understand our faith, and the worldview you are promulgating here seems to imply that you are unteachable.

How can you come to know what I know if you aren't even willing to believe in order to come to knowledge? 

So where can we even go from here?

You know better, right? If you know better, I certainly am not going to convince you of anything. 

You certainly don't know Christ as I do, nor do you understand what I do know. So I ask you, who do you say Christ is?

It's a fairy tale invented by primitive ignorant superstitious savages.

primitive ignorant superstitious savages

2. You cannot undo the effects of Adam and Eve's transgression.

Only Christ can.

It takes a believer to believe anything, so you pointing out that it takes a believer to believe evil is good is meaningless as far as I can see.

The Orthodox Church teaches that there is such a thing as spiritual delusion. The Greek word is "plané" and the Russian word is "prelest". The Church has a great deal of experience grappling with this, and it is especially a focus in our monasteries. Our religion is Truth worship, so sincerity is a must when it comes to the faith. The therepeutic method of the church weeds out delusion, and exposing that which influences us unawares, helps to make the practitioner a more honest person.

3. Like me in what way? The Orthodox Catholic Church is the 2nd largest congregation of Christians in the world, and the original Apostolic church. The Church is present here in America, but Orthodox Christianity is not big here. In fact, we don't even really have a properly formed Church yet in America, and you will see that in America's peculiar situation in the many immigrant churches that are named after their country of origin. Eventually, all these churches will be united in a proper American Orthodox Church, but it is a process.

1. The Orthodox Catholic Church

2. That "without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

3. The Holy Spirit of Truth abides abides in The Apostolic Church, which has faithfully preserved the good news of our salvation and reconciliation to God for millennia. It is the definitive Christian Church.

ABC's of GOOD and EVIL?

A believes B is evil

B believes A is evil

A&B annihilate

C knows neither knew not from which tree they ate.

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.

I don't consider this valid as in a counter to what original thread starter said. His premises and conclusions are practical apart from conclusion 3.

I don't think this is valid either. Mainly due to that is how we do pretty much assign anything using any standard. It starts off as neutral but we as rational agents (even if we are not rational all the time) state whether something is good or bad (whatever the variation of the two words). I think you are bogged down way too much that the thread starter didn't include what occurs before we assign things in a certain light instead of what occurs during and after the standard is used.

C is the absurdist approach.

It has no practical meaning like what the first part of how you defined absurdity to mean. I say this because not in any kind of thing we do we don't just state that thing has no weight to my standard.

Now you might be saying well I would like to refrain from judgement until I assign it to be good or bad but by you saying that you are eventually accepting that you will answer whether that thing is good or bad. Example:

Another mass shooting has occurred. You don't have enough information on the day of the event to know what happened. You wait and find out more information then realize an self-proclaimed incel killing 10 people. You find that wrong/bad because you consider non-defensive killings bad. 

Basically what I ask of you when has the C option been used practically.

Care to elaborate?

from whence any/all human suffering?

BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER

Define absurdity and demonstrate it to be the case.

Explain with a real world example.

The first thing I asked is more important so I want to see what you say there before I say something here.

Even if that is the case it isn't an argument against there being 2 options. 

The reason why I changed the way I gave my arguments as in instead of suing your framework I made my own, I chose to not to speak about that entirely given the new information you gave which was this:

What is the purpose of the argument if, in reality, there is more than "only" two choices?

P1: Any attempt to use something more valid than in valid or vice verse is inherently contradictory.

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

Okay tell me in the specific case of finding what is good or bad, what would the third option?

If not tell me why it is unfair to limit it to 2 options. 

GENESIS 2:17 (KJV)

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Yes it is a given but not a reason why there is a 3rd option for a closed well metric I guess. Basically the equivalent to a closed question.

Doesn't mean there is a 3rd option.

This isn't about choices, it is reflecting on the metrics we use for what we consider good or bad. In this instance valid or invalid. Please keep talking like this. No more maths and small words.

Given your reasoning I don't really agree with this. You can bring it up when you have told me the problem with what I said before.

I am guessing you are emphasizing neither but this isn't relevant given you gave more important in a more easier to understand way. No point in speaking about this until it becomes the most relevant in the discussion. 

But for the purpose of his arguments there was only 2 choices. 

I think having a third option would still have him reach the same conclusion. I don't think it is a good enough defense to discredit what he did.

All the person has to do is add in a thing can be either logical or illogical or on a spectrum. This would be for P1.

After this he would need to add another premise and conclusion in between Conclusion 2 and 3

As follows:

P1: Any attempt to use something more valid than in valid or vice verse is inherently contradictory.

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

I am probably missing your much better argument because I don't understand it which is why I didn't answer it. Hopefully someone else decides to talk about it. 

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.

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.

Have you heard of him? I think you both would get along.

So basically you are saying a third option?

Is this correct way of seeing what you said:

A= Yes

B= No

C= Yes until x but No until y

Even if that is the case when you call people retards you are attributing them to having a slow process of growth. This would be comparing them to people who have a slow process of growth.

Are you ebuc?

Don't understand. Can you make it simpler?

Don't say retard. You are using a someones non-changeable problem as your insult.

How is this an unnecessary boundary?

In the arena of logic, "valid" means that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set premises, combined with logical inferences such that, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true.

So the question becomes whether all forms of logical inferences are necessarily true in all cases.

But this is a trap.

The key is to realize that "logic" is just a framework in which we decide and define what the "valid" logical inferences are. Something is valid within that logical framework (of which there are many, there isn't just a single "logic") if it adheres to the rules define for that framework.

Not all logical frameworks use the same set of logical inferences, so something that may be valid in one framework is not valid in another.

(hidden P1) There is no way to be certain that logic is valid.

(hidden P2) We can divide any possible argument into the two categories of logical and illogical.

(hidden P3) Since anything that is not logical is by definition illogical, and vice versa, these are the only two possible categories.

(hidden P4) My argument follows inevitably from these simple and indisputable premises.

P1: Every argument is either logical or illogical.

....

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.

P =/= P

P = (-)P and/or (+)P

P = *P

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.

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 ...

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.

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. 

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.  

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? 

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.

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.

It takes a believer to believe anything, right?

So you know that belief is evil?

You really believe that?

"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." 

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.

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. 

Leaving only knowledge, which is a true justified belief. An absent belief of one thing is a belief on the contrary or opposite thing. 

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 a true, justified belief.

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. 

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? 

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

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.

Where do you find this revealed in Scripture or are you just reading it in?

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?"

"I have never seen anyone suffer like the believing woman."

-A'isha

Male central figure orator military leader who used oration as a means to attain to power, weaponized the state against his political adversaries while expanding militarily and subsequently used the power of the state to commit organized genocide against Jews.

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.

They do indeed but you won't convince the apologist that this is the case.

Yes they are and one has to wonder if this is intentional or simply out of pure ignorance.

I couldn't agree more. The barbaric  ideology that is Islam makes no secret of its goals &  intentions as you have pointed out above as does the quran itself: 

Quran 8:39

 And fight them until there is no fitnah and[until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed,Allah is Seeing of what they do.

shaytan:

...any definite expression(s) of being wherein the being is indefinitely bound (ie. to believe) in an ongoing (indefinite) state...

I know I am... <-*first fundamental knowledge

I believe I am... <-*first fundamental ignorance

"I have never seen anyone suffer like the believing woman."

-A'isha; "favorite" wife of Muhammad

Yes it is all the non believers fault simply for not choosing to believe what it is muslims believe. Indeed when an aid worker chooses to go to these war torn conflict and have their head removed it is their own fault.

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.

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

***

You have to justify what is the case to know it.

I know therefore I am!

I am therefore I know!

Which comes first?

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)...

knowledge is justifiable true belief

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

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.

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?

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. 

He wanted it but a person was not required to believe him.  Satan was a liar.

The Bible discusses the very Person you are ignorant of and of whom you are such a self-proclaimed expert on.

That is why you are not a believer in the Christian God, because you do not know Him.

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

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.

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

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

You have to believe something to know anything. Knowledge does not happen in a vacuum.

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!

You make a blanket and fallacious statement that no sane believer in the biblical God would believe, only a crack-pot.

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.

They are diametrically opposite beliefs.

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. 

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

Again, who are you addressing this post to, Mopac or me?

Who is this addressed to, Mopac or me?

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

Knowledge is not obtained until the belief is a true belief and relates to what is the case. 

A pure heart doesn't care if it is exploited... A pure heart sees God.

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.

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.

Islam is right about women

Then your belief is justified!

Do you believe that it need not enter the equation?

Then, since you KNOW this, prove I am delusional!

Is that a belief? 

***

What is "good"?

What is your standard of good?

Where does good come from?

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?

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?

May be false or is false? If you know it then it corresponds to the truth and there is no doubt in that belief.

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.

God calls the believer to...

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 follow what you are trying to say.

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. 

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 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.

What is your reference from, and what of Satan?

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. 

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. 

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

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

I have never seen anyone suffer like the believing woman.

-A'isha ("favorite" wife of the self-proclaimed prophet)