Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by commonsense »

nothing, this post is for you. It’s just one more attempt to help you understand what nearly everyone else understands.

Whenever you know something is true, how can you be sure that it is true? How can you be sure that you know it?

Well, you just have to believe that you know correctly that it’s true. There’s actually no way to know 100% that you are right that it’s true.

You just have to believe you’re right.

But wait, there’s more.

Your belief has to be justifiable and in fact justified in order for it to be reasonable that you correctly know what is true.

In other words, knowledge is based on a belief—a justified belief—that your knowledge is correct or true.

Belief on the other hand doesn’t have to be based on anything other than blind faith. Justified belief, however, is based on something more than blindness.

So knowledge is different than, but not separate from, belief. If you don’t believe that a bit of knowledge is reliable, then you can’t consider it to be knowledge.

You have to believe it’s reliable in order to accept it as knowledge because you can’t know that it’s reliable, you can’t prove that it’s a correct bit of knowledge.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by nothing »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:33 pm (Propositional) knowledge being justified true belief is a standard philosophical view going all the way back to Plato at least. So there's nothing "new age" about it. It's a view that goes back almost 2500 years, and that has persisted until the present. In fact, it's one of the least controversial, most persistent philosophical views.
Just as belief is not actually knowledge, philosophy is not actually science.
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:33 pm "Knowledge" doesn't imply certainty, by the way, and "belief" doesn't imply a lack of certainty.
You need to at least attempt to justify your position.
Knowledge affords one the capacity to make predictions which turn out to be "true" to no degree(s) of uncertainty.
That's the practical utility of science: to make accurate predictions.
Belief, conversely, carries no such certainty as the "believer" is themselves uncertain (!)
If they had true knowledge, they would not "believe" for being certain of the outcome(s).
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:33 pm Re common language usage, it makes little sense to say something like, "I know that the Earth revolves around the sun, but I do not believe that the Earth revolves around the sun." If you said something like that in a casual conversation people would think you're incoherent if not fit for a loony bin.
Replace "but" with "therefor" and add "merely" such to be proper:

"I know that the Earth revolves around the sun, therefor I do not merely believe that the Earth revolves around the sun."

If one believe the earth goes around the sun, it can only be so because the "believer" is themselves uncertain.
If they were certain, they would know the earth revolves around the sun and "belief" is rendered redundant.

You shouldn't speak on behalf of others - only speak for yourself. I don't care what other people "think"
& likewise don't care for your attempts to tacitly imply those who think not like you are fit for a loony bin.
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:33 pm Believing that P is a requirement for knowing that P ("P" is a proposition--(the meaning of) a declarative statement.) But belief isn't sufficient for knowledge. Other requirements are that one has some justification that P, and the third requirement is that P is true. So to know that P, one must believe that P, one must have some justification for P, and P must be true. Hence, justified true belief.
If P is a definite proposition, P is either: definitely true, or definitely not necessarily.
One need not "believe" anything about P - one may simply acknowledge P.
Once P is acknowledged, P can be tried/tested and either "truthified" or "falsified" (to coin the former).
Whichever P is, it is either known to be true or not necessarily.

If one "believes" P is either true or not necessarily, one knows not P.
All-knowing entails knowing all: not to "believe" (ie. any/all propositional beliefs which are not necessarily true).

The problem can be seen in modern-day Western "Philosophy":
All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
All knowing is (in) the negation of all (false) belief. Corrected:

All knowing is (by way of) consciously trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of consciously trying to know all.

Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm Rubbish. You have to use the language you are given.
Nonsensical.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm Rubbish. Einstein did not beleive in general relativity. does that make sense to you?
Yes - he himself doubted it. He had good reason to - it is not necessarily true.
He didn't know how/why it was/is not necessarily true, otherwise he would have known where it breaks down.
It is possible to know how/why GR breaks down (along with Western science as a whole).
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm That is exactly what you said.
No, it's not. I now no longer believe you have a reading comprehension problem(s). I now know it to be true.
Please quote me if you can wherein I stated anything to the effect of:

"...if you believe in a thing, it is necessarily false."

Certain prediction: you can't, because I never once stated anything of the sort.
What I did/do state was/is: if you "believe" something, you do not actually "know" it.

You can "believe" something that happens to be true, however that doesn't necessarily mean you "know" it to be true.
If you actually know something to be true, you can't merely "believe" it - it is a knowledge, not a mere "belief".
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm You are suffering from a category error.
The accuser is the accused - this is precisely what you are suffering.
Because you can not account for the same within yourself, you are projecting/externalizing it.
Look:
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm An apples is not a banana.
An apple is fruit.
This does NOT mean a banana is not a fruit.
What apple is to belief, banana is to knowledge.
Where on earth did you get the third parent category "fruit" from?
There is no such parent category to which both knowledge and belief belong.

You effectively introduced your own "category error" by assuming both knowledge and belief have a parent category.
You did this to suit your own a priori assumption that belief and knowledge are "the same". They are not.
They can not be because knowledge negates belief.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm LIve with it. They are not.
What light is to knowledge, dark is to belief:
just as light dispels darkness
knowledge dispels belief-based ignorance(s).

The difference between belief and knowledge is night and day resp.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm MY way of dealing with this is to never say that I beleive anything.
What you say and what you actually do can be two completely different things.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm ...For things I think are true. I call that knoweldge.
And that's precisely how/why you wantonly conflate/confuse knowledge with belief.
Thinking something is true is certainly not knowledge - it is just a thought.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm But I beleive nothing.
For other people I have to accept that the word is not the way I think it ought to be
It's a very good thing it's not the way you "think" it ought to be.
One need not "think" about it to know what the word means/implies.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by nothing »

commonsense wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:58 pm nothing, this post is for you. It’s just one more attempt to help you understand what nearly everyone else understands.
If "nearly everyone" understood the difference between knowledge and belief, the "believer vs. unbeliever" division could/would not exist.
This division exists precisely because "nearly everyone" is totally ignorant of how/why such a division exists in the first place.

On the contrary: "nearly everyone" understands not.
commonsense wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:58 pm Whenever you know something is true, how can you be sure that it is true? How can you be sure that you know it?
If one is ever in any state of doubt(s) and/or uncertainty(s), that's how one can know they don't know.
Knowing one knows not is a perfectly valid "knowledge" and relates to how "conscious" one is.
commonsense wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:58 pm Well, you just have to believe that you know correctly that it’s true. There’s actually no way to know 100% that you are right that it’s true.
Wow - if only you knew how incredibly wrong you are here - it is telling.
If you "believe" to know anything, that itself is a "belief", not knowledge. That should be "common sense".
If/when you state there's no way to know 100%, that too is a "belief" because there is a way(s) to know 100%.
commonsense wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:58 pm You just have to believe you’re right.
Believing to be right is the very condition necessary to ever believe the polar opposite of what is true.
If one believes to be right about knowing good and evil, and one is wrong, one may believe evil is good and be "dead wrong".
That's the whole reason for the warning re: the knowledge of good and evil - people who "believe" eat and "die" accordingly.
Better: you have to know if/when you're not right such to avoid ever "believing" the polar opposite of what is true.
commonsense wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:58 pm But wait, there’s more.
Oh dear.
commonsense wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:58 pm Your belief has to be justifiable and in fact justified in order for it to be reasonable that you correctly know what is true.
By who? One's own fallible being? Where is there a fact machine that circumvents the stupidity of humans themselves?
They will just "believe" whatever "facts" (which may, in fact, be lies) what they want to be true.
If you have a mere belief, it is only because you don't actually know.
If you actually know, you thus know all what not to otherwise "believe" about that same thing.

If I showed you ten X's and only one were "true" and nine were "false",
if/when you know which X is "true" you immediately know which are "false".
Knowledge is like that: once you know what a thing actually is, you know all it is not.
Belief is like this: once you know something, you know what not to "believe" about it.
Without such knowledge, you may be lead to "believe" a false X is a true X.
If you know the true one, the false ones can't deceive you.
Only if you believe (in) false one can you be deceived.
commonsense wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:58 pm In other words, knowledge is based on a belief—a justified belief—that your knowledge is correct or true.
Knowledge is based on a falsified belief(s) - one knows what not to "believe".
commonsense wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:58 pm Belief on the other hand doesn’t have to be based on anything other than blind faith.
Correct.
commonsense wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:58 pm Justified belief, however, is based on something more than blindness.
People can & do "justify" whatever want, however they want. It will always be according to their own desire.
That's the problem with "belief" - people will always be tempted to "believe" what they desire to be true.

For example: "believing" Muhammadan men want it to be true that Muhammad was a prophet of god because his conduct "justifies" such behaviors as polygamy/pedophilia/rape/genocide. Sexually degenerated pedophile men are thus naturally drawn to the idol of Muhammad which acts as a stamp-of-approval "justification" to sexually abuse women/children. They do this"believing" their actions are "justified" because Muhammad' did the very same & he was/is a "prophet" whose actions were/are endorsed/sanction by (a) god. If they otherwise KNEW the nature of Muhammad's illness, they would know Islam is man-made & the "believer vs. unbeliever" jihad can stop costing more lives than the hundreds of millions it has costed already.
commonsense wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:58 pm So knowledge is different than, but not separate from, belief.
Correct: knowledge takes the form of a negation of belief.
commonsense wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:58 pm If you don’t believe that a bit of knowledge is reliable, then you can’t consider it to be knowledge.
It is possible to know whether or not a "bit of knowledge" is reliable.
It requires trial/testing/falsification. If it can't be falsified, it lends itself to being true.
commonsense wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:58 pm You have to believe it’s reliable in order to accept it as knowledge because you can’t know that it’s reliable, you can’t prove that it’s a correct bit of knowledge.
You can know it's reliable if/when it can not be falsified.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Terrapin Station »

nothing wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 12:28 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:33 pm (Propositional) knowledge being justified true belief is a standard philosophical view going all the way back to Plato at least. So there's nothing "new age" about it. It's a view that goes back almost 2500 years, and that has persisted until the present. In fact, it's one of the least controversial, most persistent philosophical views.
Just as belief is not actually knowledge, philosophy is not actually science.
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:33 pm "Knowledge" doesn't imply certainty, by the way, and "belief" doesn't imply a lack of certainty.
You need to at least attempt to justify your position.
Knowledge affords one the capacity to make predictions which turn out to be "true" to no degree(s) of uncertainty.
That's the practical utility of science: to make accurate predictions.
Belief, conversely, carries no such certainty as the "believer" is themselves uncertain (!)
If they had true knowledge, they would not "believe" for being certain of the outcome(s).
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:33 pm Re common language usage, it makes little sense to say something like, "I know that the Earth revolves around the sun, but I do not believe that the Earth revolves around the sun." If you said something like that in a casual conversation people would think you're incoherent if not fit for a loony bin.
Replace "but" with "therefor" and add "merely" such to be proper:

"I know that the Earth revolves around the sun, therefor I do not merely believe that the Earth revolves around the sun."

If one believe the earth goes around the sun, it can only be so because the "believer" is themselves uncertain.
If they were certain, they would know the earth revolves around the sun and "belief" is rendered redundant.

You shouldn't speak on behalf of others - only speak for yourself. I don't care what other people "think"
& likewise don't care for your attempts to tacitly imply those who think not like you are fit for a loony bin.
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:33 pm Believing that P is a requirement for knowing that P ("P" is a proposition--(the meaning of) a declarative statement.) But belief isn't sufficient for knowledge. Other requirements are that one has some justification that P, and the third requirement is that P is true. So to know that P, one must believe that P, one must have some justification for P, and P must be true. Hence, justified true belief.
If P is a definite proposition, P is either: definitely true, or definitely not necessarily.
One need not "believe" anything about P - one may simply acknowledge P.
Once P is acknowledged, P can be tried/tested and either "truthified" or "falsified" (to coin the former).
Whichever P is, it is either known to be true or not necessarily.

If one "believes" P is either true or not necessarily, one knows not P.
All-knowing entails knowing all: not to "believe" (ie. any/all propositional beliefs which are not necessarily true).

The problem can be seen in modern-day Western "Philosophy":
All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
All knowing is (in) the negation of all (false) belief. Corrected:

All knowing is (by way of) consciously trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of consciously trying to know all.

Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm Rubbish. You have to use the language you are given.
Nonsensical.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm Rubbish. Einstein did not beleive in general relativity. does that make sense to you?
Yes - he himself doubted it. He had good reason to - it is not necessarily true.
He didn't know how/why it was/is not necessarily true, otherwise he would have known where it breaks down.
It is possible to know how/why GR breaks down (along with Western science as a whole).
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm That is exactly what you said.
No, it's not. I now no longer believe you have a reading comprehension problem(s). I now know it to be true.
Please quote me if you can wherein I stated anything to the effect of:

"...if you believe in a thing, it is necessarily false."

Certain prediction: you can't, because I never once stated anything of the sort.
What I did/do state was/is: if you "believe" something, you do not actually "know" it.

You can "believe" something that happens to be true, however that doesn't necessarily mean you "know" it to be true.
If you actually know something to be true, you can't merely "believe" it - it is a knowledge, not a mere "belief".
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm You are suffering from a category error.
The accuser is the accused - this is precisely what you are suffering.
Because you can not account for the same within yourself, you are projecting/externalizing it.
Look:
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm An apples is not a banana.
An apple is fruit.
This does NOT mean a banana is not a fruit.
What apple is to belief, banana is to knowledge.
Where on earth did you get the third parent category "fruit" from?
There is no such parent category to which both knowledge and belief belong.

You effectively introduced your own "category error" by assuming both knowledge and belief have a parent category.
You did this to suit your own a priori assumption that belief and knowledge are "the same". They are not.
They can not be because knowledge negates belief.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm LIve with it. They are not.
What light is to knowledge, dark is to belief:
just as light dispels darkness
knowledge dispels belief-based ignorance(s).

The difference between belief and knowledge is night and day resp.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm MY way of dealing with this is to never say that I beleive anything.
What you say and what you actually do can be two completely different things.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm ...For things I think are true. I call that knoweldge.
And that's precisely how/why you wantonly conflate/confuse knowledge with belief.
Thinking something is true is certainly not knowledge - it is just a thought.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 pm But I beleive nothing.
For other people I have to accept that the word is not the way I think it ought to be
It's a very good thing it's not the way you "think" it ought to be.
One need not "think" about it to know what the word means/implies.
Hey, it's someone typing as if they're teaching something . . . about a topic they're completely ignorant about. That's a new one on a message board.

Not.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Sculptor »

nothing wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 12:28 am
It's a very good thing it's not the way you "think" it ought to be.
One need not "think" about it to know what the word means/implies.
You are getting desperate now.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by commonsense »

But how do you know that you don’t know something if you merely make empirical observations? A good skeptic would warn you that the next observation could be opposite to the results you’ve witnessed up to that point of.
Last edited by commonsense on Sun May 02, 2021 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by nothing »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 3:42 am
Hey, it's someone typing as if they're teaching something . . . about a topic they're completely ignorant about. That's a new one on a message board.

Not.
You're accusing others of what you are yourself guilty of.
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 11:04 am
nothing wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 12:28 am
It's a very good thing it's not the way you "think" it ought to be.
One need not "think" about it to know what the word means/implies.
You are getting desperate now.
You're doing the same as Age/Terrapin.

Both of you are drawing from your own nature & projecting it into others (the very same the psychopathy of the Left/Muhammad).
You're not conscious you're doing this because the same is a natural consequence of failing to account for what is inside of yourselves.
commonsense wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 5:15 pm But how do you know that you don’t know something if you merely repeat empirical observations? A good skeptic would warn you that the next observation could be opposite to the results you’ve witnessed up to that point of.
This is a much better response than Age/Terrapin and Sculptor - they're reduced to strictly personal attacks because they have nothing else.
But how do you know that you don’t know something if you merely repeat empirical observations?
The highlighted part is problematic - to "repeat empirical observations". The only way in which one can "repeat empirical observations" is if they have the capacity to fully account for any/all of their own local distortions in/of their own perception. In other words: if you are looking at something through a distorted lens, it is not possible to "repeat empirical observations" because the observations themselves are subject/limited to the (in)fidelity of the lens. It is only possible to "repeat empirical observations" if the lens is without fidelity loss. This is how/why it is imperative that one have a conscious knowledge of their own distortions/limitations before deeming anything "empirical". Mistaking that which is not empirical for that which is empirical is the same polar problem the OP is addressing.

For example: if you are yourself 180-degrees upside-down "believing" the polar opposite of what is true, how/what you see is not empirically accurate - it is upside-down to you but without your conscious awareness of it being so. If you do not know you are yourself 180-degrees upside-down, you will "believe" that what you are seeing is "empirical" however it is not.

As to the first part of the question "But how do you know that you don’t know something?" - this is not a matter of knowledge, but a matter of consciousness. If you are not conscious if/when you do not know something, you're simply lacking the conscious capacity to admit "I don't know". Those who "believe" to know will never pursue knowing because they've already reached a conclusion(s). Knowing one knows not is a/the measure of consciousness as: to whatever degree(s) to which one is consciously willing to admit "I don't know..." the same is a/the measure of their capacity to grow/expand and become something greater than they presently are. By contrast: if you "believe" something without allowing for the possibility that what you "believe" is false, the same is a/the barrier beyond which a being can not grow (ie. stagnation).

A practical example of such stagnation induced by way of "belief" is Islam - it has remained stagnant for 1400 years because the "believers" are unwilling to consciously confront the reality they do not know. Instead, they "believe" to know, thus are stuck/dead. This relates back to eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: those who "believe" to know good and evil (universal absolutes) "surely die" because eventually they will hit that wall of no longer growing/expanding. They will always "surely die" due to "believing" the polar opposite of what is true.

All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum. An all-knowing god would know all: not to "believe". It's that simple.
As one consciously endeavors to know all not to "believe", they definitely indefinitely approach any possible all-knowing state of being.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Sculptor »

nothing wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 1:42 am All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum. An all-knowing god would know all: not to "believe". It's that simple.
As one consciously endeavors to know all not to "believe", they definitely indefinitely approach any possible all-knowing state of being.

Wow, now Nothing knows the mind of god too.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by commonsense »

nothing wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 1:42 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 3:42 am
Hey, it's someone typing as if they're teaching something . . . about a topic they're completely ignorant about. That's a new one on a message board.

Not.
You're accusing others of what you are yourself guilty of.
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 11:04 am
nothing wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 12:28 am
It's a very good thing it's not the way you "think" it ought to be.
One need not "think" about it to know what the word means/implies.
You are getting desperate now.
You're doing the same as Age/Terrapin.

Both of you are drawing from your own nature & projecting it into others (the very same the psychopathy of the Left/Muhammad).
You're not conscious you're doing this because the same is a natural consequence of failing to account for what is inside of yourselves.
commonsense wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 5:15 pm But how do you know that you don’t know something if you merely repeat empirical observations? A good skeptic would warn you that the next observation could be opposite to the results you’ve witnessed up to that point of.
This is a much better response than Age/Terrapin and Sculptor - they're reduced to strictly personal attacks because they have nothing else.
But how do you know that you don’t know something if you merely repeat empirical observations?
The highlighted part is problematic - to "repeat empirical observations". The only way in which one can "repeat empirical observations" is if they have the capacity to fully account for any/all of their own local distortions in/of their own perception. In other words: if you are looking at something through a distorted lens, it is not possible to "repeat empirical observations" because the observations themselves are subject/limited to the (in)fidelity of the lens. It is only possible to "repeat empirical observations" if the lens is without fidelity loss. This is how/why it is imperative that one have a conscious knowledge of their own distortions/limitations before deeming anything "empirical". Mistaking that which is not empirical for that which is empirical is the same polar problem the OP is addressing.

For example: if you are yourself 180-degrees upside-down "believing" the polar opposite of what is true, how/what you see is not empirically accurate - it is upside-down to you but without your conscious awareness of it being so. If you do not know you are yourself 180-degrees upside-down, you will "believe" that what you are seeing is "empirical" however it is not.

As to the first part of the question "But how do you know that you don’t know something?" - this is not a matter of knowledge, but a matter of consciousness. If you are not conscious if/when you do not know something, you're simply lacking the conscious capacity to admit "I don't know". Those who "believe" to know will never pursue knowing because they've already reached a conclusion(s). Knowing one knows not is a/the measure of consciousness as: to whatever degree(s) to which one is consciously willing to admit "I don't know..." the same is a/the measure of their capacity to grow/expand and become something greater than they presently are. By contrast: if you "believe" something without allowing for the possibility that what you "believe" is false, the same is a/the barrier beyond which a being can not grow (ie. stagnation).

A practical example of such stagnation induced by way of "belief" is Islam - it has remained stagnant for 1400 years because the "believers" are unwilling to consciously confront the reality they do not know. Instead, they "believe" to know, thus are stuck/dead. This relates back to eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: those who "believe" to know good and evil (universal absolutes) "surely die" because eventually they will hit that wall of no longer growing/expanding. They will always "surely die" due to "believing" the polar opposite of what is true.

All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum. An all-knowing god would know all: not to "believe". It's that simple.
As one consciously endeavors to know all not to "believe", they definitely indefinitely approach any possible all-knowing state of being.
See my edited post above. Perhaps I could have expressed it differently yet, such as “make different empirical observations” or “make observations” or “make multiple observations” or “make multiple different observations”.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Terrapin Station »

nothing wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 1:42 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 3:42 am
Hey, it's someone typing as if they're teaching something . . . about a topic they're completely ignorant about. That's a new one on a message board.

Not.
You're accusing others of what you are yourself guilty of.
Just where are you getting the info about my background from?
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by commonsense »

nothing wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 1:42 am All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum.
Yes, all knowledge negates all belief-based ignorances by replacing them with belief-based truisms.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by DPMartin »

nothing wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:57 pm
I agree with the example/premise however do not see it relating to Adam.
God was testing whether or not Adam could consciously account for his own actions.
He couldn't as he blamed both the woman and god "it's this woman that you gave me!".
Blaming others for one's own actions is the "evil" Adam could not see within himself.
This is elaborated by Cain who was a tiller of the soil - he drew from his own nature.
People who can not account for what is inside of themselves have an unconscious tendency to project & scapegoat the same onto others.
Muhammad did this as he pathologically accused "Jews" of absolutely everything he was himself guilty of (rendering Muhammad the real "Jew").
nope

the life given Adam required faith in God his Maker via God's Word to live it and stay alive therein. after the tree they died of that life and was left with dust to dust. the life all men receive when they come into the world. and dyeing of the life God gave him (which is son of God) was an evil thing to Adam. not to the serpent, who gained the world, but it was evil to Adam.

again to know requires no faith. faith (belief/trust) is placed on an expected fulfilment of which is after fulfillment is known (experienced) not requiring that trust or belief for. could be the coming of Christ, or stepping on the break peddle with the expectation of stopping.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by commonsense »

DPMartin wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:32 am
nothing wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:57 pm
I agree with the example/premise however do not see it relating to Adam.
God was testing whether or not Adam could consciously account for his own actions.
He couldn't as he blamed both the woman and god "it's this woman that you gave me!".
Blaming others for one's own actions is the "evil" Adam could not see within himself.
This is elaborated by Cain who was a tiller of the soil - he drew from his own nature.
People who can not account for what is inside of themselves have an unconscious tendency to project & scapegoat the same onto others.
Muhammad did this as he pathologically accused "Jews" of absolutely everything he was himself guilty of (rendering Muhammad the real "Jew").
nope

the life given Adam required faith in God his Maker via God's Word to live it and stay alive therein. after the tree they died of that life and was left with dust to dust. the life all men receive when they come into the world. and dyeing of the life God gave him (which is son of God) was an evil thing to Adam. not to the serpent, who gained the world, but it was evil to Adam.

again to know requires no faith. faith (belief/trust) is placed on an expected fulfilment of which is after fulfillment is known (experienced) not requiring that trust or belief for. could be the coming of Christ, or stepping on the break peddle with the expectation of stopping.
What is that expectation of stopping when breaking if not a belief?
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by DPMartin »

commonsense wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 4:40 pm
DPMartin wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:32 am
nothing wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:57 pm
I agree with the example/premise however do not see it relating to Adam.
God was testing whether or not Adam could consciously account for his own actions.
He couldn't as he blamed both the woman and god "it's this woman that you gave me!".
Blaming others for one's own actions is the "evil" Adam could not see within himself.
This is elaborated by Cain who was a tiller of the soil - he drew from his own nature.
People who can not account for what is inside of themselves have an unconscious tendency to project & scapegoat the same onto others.
Muhammad did this as he pathologically accused "Jews" of absolutely everything he was himself guilty of (rendering Muhammad the real "Jew").
nope

the life given Adam required faith in God his Maker via God's Word to live it and stay alive therein. after the tree they died of that life and was left with dust to dust. the life all men receive when they come into the world. and dyeing of the life God gave him (which is son of God) was an evil thing to Adam. not to the serpent, who gained the world, but it was evil to Adam.

again to know requires no faith. faith (belief/trust) is placed on an expected fulfilment of which is after fulfillment is known (experienced) not requiring that trust or belief for. could be the coming of Christ, or stepping on the break peddle with the expectation of stopping.
What is that expectation of stopping when breaking if not a belief?
right, but once stopped, the belief or trust isn't required do to the experience of the fulfillment of that belief. it may not be the best example but its there.


there's a difference between believing information, and knowing its true.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:06 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:14 pm We observe through time. Any phenomenon which is observed, including the totality of being, is observed through time thus necessitating belief. Provide an example of something which is not observed through time.
As stated: it is possible to observe phenomena which is not bound to space/time.
We can observe "through time" but also can observe not through time.

As stated: all "matters" related to truth are intrinsically space/time-invariant as matters of truth indiscriminately apply to (ie. in) all places at all times, resulting not in any mundane "observation" (subject to/of local distortions) but "realization" containing no such distortions. The realized state thus necessitates having a/the capacity to consciously account for one's own distortions, else: "observed" phenomena is bound (ie. to space and/or time) according to those same distortions.

In other words: if you "believe" that "belief" is "necessary" whereas in reality it is not, the same is your impasse.
One may be grounded in "belief" but the same implies an absence(s) of true knowledge (hence observation through time is inescapable).
However, one may conversely be grounded in "knowledge" implying an absence(s) of false "belief".

Stating "belief" is "necessary" catastrophically discriminates against the alternative state (of being): knowledge
as arrived at by way of consciously falsifying any/all false "beliefs" (the same one would otherwise be "grounded" in).
You ignored what I said and diverted the argument elsewhere. I said "Provide an example of something which is not observed through time."
Post Reply