Absurdity of any/all "Belief"-based Theology

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Absurdity of any/all "Belief"-based Theology

Post by nothing »

Hello,

I am independently working on a theorem that predicts an absurdity in any/all "belief"-based theology which I will try to outline here. The theorem is tentatively called the Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance Inference Theorem (CKIIT, as in seek-it).

It derives an epistemological top-down view of creation based on (what the theorem predicts is) a Primordial Antithetical Dichotomous Dipole (PADD) which is a "singularity" comprised of two poles: knowledge and "belief"-based ignorance. The "singularity" of it is predicted in the following example:
black: "belief"-in-and-of-itself as required for any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s) to exist
white: "knowledge"in-and-of-itself as required to negate any/all such "belief"-based ignorance(s)
consuming one another ad infinitum
which reflects the so-called satan and god dichotomy, respectively (due to their being a primordial antithetical dichotomy). This allows for a construction of the two Edenic trees (so-called) as an up/down bi-directional dispersion starting from 'I AM (willing to)...' needing only five components:

2- any/all <-* infinitude/boundlessness
1- KNOW <-* TREE OF LIVING
0- ^v I AM (willing to)... <-* any (un)conscious being
4- BELIEVE <-* TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL
3- *not to* <-* negation

___
wherein beginning from 0 tracing both up/down routes:
0-1-2-3-4 (up) = I am willing to KNOW, any/all *not to* BELIEVE...= tends towards any possible all-knowing god negating "belief"-based satan
0-4-3-2-1(down) = I am willing to BELIEVE, *not to* any/all KNOW...= tends towards any possible all-believing *satan confusing good/evil
___
*satan would certainly require "belief"-in-and-of-itself in order for any "believer" to possibly "believe":
i. BELIEF-in-and-of-itself is a virtue (?)
ii. evil is good (without the need to define them)
iii. satan is god (without the need to define them)
and using the theorem to infer the inverse (ie. negate):

god would certainly require "knowledge"-in-and-of-itself in order for any "knowing" to possibly "know":
i. BELIEF-in-and-of-itself is *not* necessarily a virtue due to so-called satan certainly requiring it to confuse evil with good
ii. evil is *not* good (ie. knowledge of)
iii. satan is *not* god (ie. knowledge of)


which globally calls for "god" being a 'true' negation of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s) (ie. functionally identical to knowledge-in-and-of-itself). This will predict a truth by way of negation method which seems equivalent to the Christian "truth of the way of the living" which is not a MAN to be "believed" in, but a practical "method" that can be used to try/test (ie. find) for falsity in any "belief"-based assertions, thus indicating not to "believe" in them at all. This knowing of any/all *not* to "believe" satisfies any/all conditions for an all-knowing god: antithetical to satan.
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.
I am willing to BELIEVE, *not to* any/all KNOW... leads to this.

I rendered an as-simple-as-A-B-C example highlighting this problem of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:
A: We are on the side of GOOD, and B is on the side of EVIL!
B: NO, WE are on the side of GOOD, and A is on the side of EVIL!!
C: Both A and B are ignorantly eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
It is because A and B have no conscious knowledge of their own ignorance (hence the theorem) that they become entangled, else: C. In other words:
One ignorant one
can not defeat
another ignorant one:
for ignorance defeats them both.
Finally this sets up enough to highlight the absurdity: any/all "belief" in any god is necessarily ignorant as any all-knowing god must certainly know:

that "belief"-in-and-of-itself is fundamentally *required* to ever confuse so-called evil with good,

thus knowing to never "believe" to know anything (ie. good/evil) to a certainty is a knowledge-in-and-of-itself that demands any/all "beliefs" be constantly tried/tested ad infinitum for "belief"-based ignorance(s). This "knowledge"-in-and-of-itself is the counter-part to "belief"-in-and-of-itself:
What any/all knowledge is to the absence of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s),
"belief"-based ignorance is to the absence of any/all knowledge
ad infinitum.
which, plugging back into the earlier findings:
What any/all KNOWLEDGE is to the absence of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s),
I am willing to KNOW, any/all *not to* BELIEVE...= tends towards any possible all-knowing god negating "belief"-based satan/ignorance

"BELIEF"-based ignorance is to the absence of any/all knowledge
I am willing to BELIEVE, *not to* any/all KNOW...= tends towards any possible all-believing *satan confusing good/evil
and predicts a method to perpetually convert "belief"-based ignorance(s) into knowledge(s) ad infinitum found here:
| Any/all knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, but |<-* truth by way of negation / conscious knowledge...
| not any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all. |
<-*...of ignorance

and establishes the pursuit of truth by way of perpetual negation as an infallible "method" to be left with only whatever can not be falsified (ie. tending towards truth having withstood any/all attempts to falsify). I understand this method is not what "believers" are used to, but this theorem finds that it takes a "believer" to ever "believe" evil is good (without the need to define them: the primordial problem-in-and-of-itself).
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Absurdity of any/all "Belief"-based Theology

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:57 pm Hello,

I am independently working on a theorem that predicts an absurdity in any/all "belief"-based theology which I will try to outline here. The theorem is tentatively called the Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance Inference Theorem (CKIIT, as in seek-it).

It derives an epistemological top-down view of creation based on (what the theorem predicts is) a Primordial Antithetical Dichotomous Dipole (PADD) which is a "singularity" comprised of two poles: knowledge and "belief"-based ignorance. The "singularity" of it is predicted in the following example:
black: "belief"-in-and-of-itself as required for any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s) to exist
white: "knowledge"in-and-of-itself as required to negate any/all such "belief"-based ignorance(s)
consuming one another ad infinitum
which reflects the so-called satan and god dichotomy, respectively (due to their being a primordial antithetical dichotomy). This allows for a construction of the two Edenic trees (so-called) as an up/down bi-directional dispersion starting from 'I AM (willing to)...' needing only five components:

2- any/all <-* infinitude/boundlessness
1- KNOW <-* TREE OF LIVING
0- ^v I AM (willing to)... <-* any (un)conscious being
4- BELIEVE <-* TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL
3- *not to* <-* negation

___
wherein beginning from 0 tracing both up/down routes:
0-1-2-3-4 (up) = I am willing to KNOW, any/all *not to* BELIEVE...= tends towards any possible all-knowing god negating "belief"-based satan
0-4-3-2-1(down) = I am willing to BELIEVE, *not to* any/all KNOW...= tends towards any possible all-believing *satan confusing good/evil
___
*satan would certainly require "belief"-in-and-of-itself in order for any "believer" to possibly "believe":
i. BELIEF-in-and-of-itself is a virtue (?)
ii. evil is good (without the need to define them)
iii. satan is god (without the need to define them)
and using the theorem to infer the inverse (ie. negate):

god would certainly require "knowledge"-in-and-of-itself in order for any "knowing" to possibly "know":
i. BELIEF-in-and-of-itself is *not* necessarily a virtue due to so-called satan certainly requiring it to confuse evil with good
ii. evil is *not* good (ie. knowledge of)
iii. satan is *not* god (ie. knowledge of)


which globally calls for "god" being a 'true' negation of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s) (ie. functionally identical to knowledge-in-and-of-itself). This will predict a truth by way of negation method which seems equivalent to the Christian "truth of the way of the living" which is not a MAN to be "believed" in, but a practical "method" that can be used to try/test (ie. find) for falsity in any "belief"-based assertions, thus indicating not to "believe" in them at all. This knowing of any/all *not* to "believe" satisfies any/all conditions for an all-knowing god: antithetical to satan.
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.
I am willing to BELIEVE, *not to* any/all KNOW... leads to this.

I rendered an as-simple-as-A-B-C example highlighting this problem of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:
A: We are on the side of GOOD, and B is on the side of EVIL!
B: NO, WE are on the side of GOOD, and A is on the side of EVIL!!
C: Both A and B are ignorantly eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
It is because A and B have no conscious knowledge of their own ignorance (hence the theorem) that they become entangled, else: C. In other words:
One ignorant one
can not defeat
another ignorant one:
for ignorance defeats them both.
Finally this sets up enough to highlight the absurdity: any/all "belief" in any god is necessarily ignorant as any all-knowing god must certainly know:

that "belief"-in-and-of-itself is fundamentally *required* to ever confuse so-called evil with good,

thus knowing to never "believe" to know anything (ie. good/evil) to a certainty is a knowledge-in-and-of-itself that demands any/all "beliefs" be constantly tried/tested ad infinitum for "belief"-based ignorance(s). This "knowledge"-in-and-of-itself is the counter-part to "belief"-in-and-of-itself:
What any/all knowledge is to the absence of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s),
"belief"-based ignorance is to the absence of any/all knowledge
ad infinitum.
which, plugging back into the earlier findings:
What any/all KNOWLEDGE is to the absence of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s),
I am willing to KNOW, any/all *not to* BELIEVE...= tends towards any possible all-knowing god negating "belief"-based satan/ignorance

"BELIEF"-based ignorance is to the absence of any/all knowledge
I am willing to BELIEVE, *not to* any/all KNOW...= tends towards any possible all-believing *satan confusing good/evil
and predicts a method to perpetually convert "belief"-based ignorance(s) into knowledge(s) ad infinitum found here:
| Any/all knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, but |<-* truth by way of negation / conscious knowledge...
| not any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all. |
<-*...of ignorance

and establishes the pursuit of truth by way of perpetual negation as an infallible "method" to be left with only whatever can not be falsified (ie. tending towards truth having withstood any/all attempts to falsify). I understand this method is not what "believers" are used to, but this theorem finds that it takes a "believer" to ever "believe" evil is good (without the need to define them: the primordial problem-in-and-of-itself).
Look up the definition of "proposition" if you are interested in understanding absurdity.

Anyhow, the "double positives" thread as well as the double negation principle of intuitionist logic, may be some directions for you to explore.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Absurdity of any/all "Belief"-based Theology

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Is there an alternative to non-belief-based theology?

Theology is based on faith, i.e. belief without proofs nor justified arguments.
Theology is absurd when it insist that what-it-believed is real [empirically and philosophically] when its grounds is merely based on faith.

On the other hand what is most realistic should be based on justified-true-beliefs [JTBs] that are testable and their results repeatable with consistency.
Post Reply