Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

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.
Philosophy is the observation of being.

Science is observation.

Philosophy is the science of being.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 1:35 am
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.
To say there is a distinction between knowledge and belief is to create a distinction between non believers (those who know) and believers (those who do not know). The believer/non-believer dichotomy is a result of the distinction between knowledge and belief. This distinction is purely assumed thus necessitating belief.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by nothing »

commonsense wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 3:09 pm
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.
You can only "believe" in something if you don't actually know it.
Confusing belief for knowledge is like confusing darkness with light.
DPMartin wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:32 am 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.
Adam got kicked out of Eden because he could not account for his own actions.
"Beliefs" are like fruits - they represent what people merely want to be true according to their mundane desire.
By contrast, knowledge entails knowing what is merely a product(s) of mundane desire (ie. not real) and what is real.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:30 pm You ignored what I said and diverted the argument elsewhere. I said "Provide an example of something which is not observed through time."
Any/all matters related to "truth" exist outside of "time" - this was stated prior.
"Observation" requires time, whereas "realization" is a matter(s) of time until arrived (at).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:19 pm Philosophy is the observation of being.

Science is observation.

Philosophy is the science of being.
Philosophy is not necessarily the (accurate) observation of being.
Science requires (accurate) observation(s) for the purposes of falsification(s).
Philosophy is not science/scientific unless it endeavors to falsify basic underlying assumptions.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:23 pm To say there is a distinction between knowledge and belief is to create a distinction between non believers (those who know) and believers (those who do not know). The believer/non-believer dichotomy is a result of the distinction between knowledge and belief. This distinction is purely assumed thus necessitating belief.
Unbelievers may also include those who do not know.
Believers certainly do not know, they merely "believe" to.

The believer/unbeliever dichotomy is a result of the distinction between being unconscious and conscious.
One does not assume they are conscious (or not), they anyways are (and/or are not).

"Believing" the polar opposite of what is true is a/the measure of unconsciousness.
Knowledge (such to negate) is only attained because one is conscious.
"Belief" is only attained because one is not.

Knowledge is thus mundane by comparison to consciousness.
It is not about being knowledgeable, it is about being conscious.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by commonsense »

nothing wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:21 am
commonsense wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 3:09 pm
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.
You can only "believe" in something if you don't actually know it.
That’s correct. And since you cannot know what you think you know, you can only believe what you think you know.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:21 am
commonsense wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 3:09 pm
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.
You can only "believe" in something if you don't actually know it.
Confusing belief for knowledge is like confusing darkness with light.
DPMartin wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:32 am 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.
Adam got kicked out of Eden because he could not account for his own actions.
"Beliefs" are like fruits - they represent what people merely want to be true according to their mundane desire.
By contrast, knowledge entails knowing what is merely a product(s) of mundane desire (ie. not real) and what is real.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:30 pm You ignored what I said and diverted the argument elsewhere. I said "Provide an example of something which is not observed through time."
Any/all matters related to "truth" exist outside of "time" - this was stated prior.
"Observation" requires time, whereas "realization" is a matter(s) of time until arrived (at).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:19 pm Philosophy is the observation of being.

Science is observation.

Philosophy is the science of being.
Philosophy is not necessarily the (accurate) observation of being.
Science requires (accurate) observation(s) for the purposes of falsification(s).
Philosophy is not science/scientific unless it endeavors to falsify basic underlying assumptions.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:23 pm To say there is a distinction between knowledge and belief is to create a distinction between non believers (those who know) and believers (those who do not know). The believer/non-believer dichotomy is a result of the distinction between knowledge and belief. This distinction is purely assumed thus necessitating belief.
Unbelievers may also include those who do not know.
Believers certainly do not know, they merely "believe" to.

The believer/unbeliever dichotomy is a result of the distinction between being unconscious and conscious.
One does not assume they are conscious (or not), they anyways are (and/or are not).

"Believing" the polar opposite of what is true is a/the measure of unconsciousness.
Knowledge (such to negate) is only attained because one is conscious.
"Belief" is only attained because one is not.

Knowledge is thus mundane by comparison to consciousness.
It is not about being knowledgeable, it is about being conscious.
1. Still ignoring, give an example of a truth which is not observed through time.

2. All scientific facts are subject to change in light of new evidence. Science is the observation of truth under a specific context. With the change of context comes a change of truth. Science is dependent upon the test, with the change in tests comes a change in results. Science is the philosophy of nature.

3. You are dirverting the subject, in creating a distinction between knowledge and belief one creates a distinction between the unbeliever and believer. You are creating the distinction and this distinction is a matter of belief as it cannot be proven in its totality. An omnipresent God would exist both inside and outside of time thus necessitating God existing under your definition of knowledge as well as belief.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Wed May 05, 2021 3:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

commonsense wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:29 am
nothing wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:21 am
commonsense wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 3:09 pm

Yes, all knowledge negates all belief-based ignorances by replacing them with belief-based truisms.
You can only "believe" in something if you don't actually know it.
That’s correct. And since you cannot know what you think you know, you can only believe what you think you know.
False, belief based ignorance is based upon beleif based justifications.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by commonsense »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:32 am
commonsense wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:29 am
nothing wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:21 am

You can only "believe" in something if you don't actually know it.
That’s correct. And since you cannot know what you think you know, you can only believe what you think you know.
False, belief based ignorance is based upon beleif based justifications.
Yes, but what you say about ignorance says nothing to address the belief that something is actually known.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

commonsense wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:32 am
commonsense wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:29 am

That’s correct. And since you cannot know what you think you know, you can only believe what you think you know.
False, belief based ignorance is based upon beleif based justifications.
Yes, but what you say about ignorance says nothing to address the belief that something is actually known.
Knowledge is grounded in justified belief with these justifications being beliefs. Knowledge is connected beliefs. What determines one belief as false and one belief as true is how and if these beliefs connect. Connection determines truth value and connection is symmetry between beliefs as the repetition of common elements amidst the beliefs.

For example I know a hot cup of coffee burns because of the repetition of being burned by hot coffee. This repetition is the grounding of truth values.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by nothing »

commonsense wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:29 am That’s correct. And since you cannot know what you think you know, you can only believe what you think you know.
Yes you can - you can know you merely think and/or believe something(s) while consciously knowing you truly know not.
Knowing one knows not is a valid knowledge. In fact, it is the most important knowledge one can have.
Otherwise, one is liable to unconsciously think/believe to know while actually knowing not indefinitely / ad infinitum (ie. until death).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:31 am 1. Still ignoring, give an example of a truth which is not observed through time.

2. All scientific facts are subject to change in light of new evidence. Science is the observation of truth under a specific context. With the change of context comes a change of truth. Science is dependent upon the test, with the change in tests comes a change in results. Science is the philosophy of nature.

3. You are dirverting the subject, in creating a distinction between knowledge and belief one creates a distinction between the unbeliever and believer. You are creating the distinction and this distinction is a matter of belief as it cannot be proven in its totality. An omnipresent God would exist both inside and outside of time thus necessitating God existing under your definition of knowledge as well as belief.
1. Truth is not "observed", it is realized & exists outside of any/all confines of "time". Universal constants such as π and Φ never change as their application(s) is (are) space/time-invariant: they are "true" regardless of where/when one exists. One can observe the ratios without realizing the truth(s) they imply. Their union in/as 1 = Φ(π/4)² solves the problem implied by 3.
2. Not all "facts" involves that which is true but also involves that which is not. The truths themselves can/do not change.
3. The "believer vs. unbeliever" division/distinction existed long before I arrived - were it not for the presence of it, I would/could not draw attention to it. The presence of it can be explained via. the dynamics in/of the belief/knowledge dichotomy esp. as it relates to (un)consciousness. It is not a matter of "belief" that the world contains such a division - it can be known. An omnipresent all-knowing god would all-knowingly know any/all belief(s) past/present/future which are not necessarily true.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:32 am False, belief based ignorance is based upon beleif based justifications.
Belief-based ignorance is rooted in being unconscious.
Unconscious beings concoct "justifications" according to mundane desire.
Those who endorse the notion of "justified true belief" commit this error: they seek to "justify"/solidify their ignorance as knowledge.
commonsense wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:40 am Yes, but what you say about ignorance says nothing to address the belief that something is actually known.
Believing to know is fundamentally a belief.

One has a choice between two trees:

to Know all (thus) not Believe <- approaches all-knowing, god or no god.
to Believe all (thus) not Know <- captures any/all belief-based ignorance(s) causing suffering/death.

The first is the tree of the living, the second is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Only a "believer" can "believe" one is the other / the other is the one (ie. eat from the tree).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:56 am Knowledge is grounded in justified belief with these justifications being beliefs. Knowledge is connected beliefs. What determines one belief as false and one belief as true is how and if these beliefs connect. Connection determines truth value and connection is symmetry between beliefs as the repetition of common elements amidst the beliefs.

For example I know a hot cup of coffee burns because of the repetition of being burned by hot coffee. This repetition is the grounding of truth values.
Knowledge is grounded by falsification(s) of any/all false belief(s) associated with that knowledge. Knowledge is falsified beliefs known to be not necessarily true. Beliefs which are true and beliefs which are false are both still belief & not knowledge. Once one knows, "belief" is rendered redundant/irrelevant.

I too know a hot cup of coffee burns, therefor I do not merely "believe" it.
I know this because I know it would take some state of "belief" to "believe" otherwise.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by DPMartin »

nothing wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:21 am

Adam got kicked out of Eden because he could not account for his own actions.

no, absolutely not, Adam did what God said Adam did and fell for the reason said by God who is the judge of men's hearts and actions:

Gen 3:17  And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,(hence not the Word of God) and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 

the faith is required (belief and or trust) in the Word of God, to live the life given Adam before the tree, which is:
Luk 3:38  Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

son of God is the life Adam died from, after he ate of the tree, hence that day as the Lord God said. and was left with dust to dust as the animals already had, seeing man is also flesh. which, as you may notice, doesn't require trust and belief in the Word of God. dust to dust is the life you receive from Adam when you come into the world. all that christain stuff is supposed to be about the restoration of that life that was lost.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:58 am
commonsense wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:29 am That’s correct. And since you cannot know what you think you know, you can only believe what you think you know.
Yes you can - you can know you merely think and/or believe something(s) while consciously knowing you truly know not.
Knowing one knows not is a valid knowledge. In fact, it is the most important knowledge one can have.
Otherwise, one is liable to unconsciously think/believe to know while actually knowing not indefinitely / ad infinitum (ie. until death).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:31 am 1. Still ignoring, give an example of a truth which is not observed through time.

2. All scientific facts are subject to change in light of new evidence. Science is the observation of truth under a specific context. With the change of context comes a change of truth. Science is dependent upon the test, with the change in tests comes a change in results. Science is the philosophy of nature.

3. You are dirverting the subject, in creating a distinction between knowledge and belief one creates a distinction between the unbeliever and believer. You are creating the distinction and this distinction is a matter of belief as it cannot be proven in its totality. An omnipresent God would exist both inside and outside of time thus necessitating God existing under your definition of knowledge as well as belief.
1. Truth is not "observed", it is realized & exists outside of any/all confines of "time". Universal constants such as π and Φ never change as their application(s) is (are) space/time-invariant: they are "true" regardless of where/when one exists. One can observe the ratios without realizing the truth(s) they imply. Their union in/as 1 = Φ(π/4)² solves the problem implied by 3.
2. Not all "facts" involves that which is true but also involves that which is not. The truths themselves can/do not change.
3. The "believer vs. unbeliever" division/distinction existed long before I arrived - were it not for the presence of it, I would/could not draw attention to it. The presence of it can be explained via. the dynamics in/of the belief/knowledge dichotomy esp. as it relates to (un)consciousness. It is not a matter of "belief" that the world contains such a division - it can be known. An omnipresent all-knowing god would all-knowingly know any/all belief(s) past/present/future which are not necessarily true.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:32 am False, belief based ignorance is based upon beleif based justifications.
Belief-based ignorance is rooted in being unconscious.
Unconscious beings concoct "justifications" according to mundane desire.
Those who endorse the notion of "justified true belief" commit this error: they seek to "justify"/solidify their ignorance as knowledge.
commonsense wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:40 am Yes, but what you say about ignorance says nothing to address the belief that something is actually known.
Believing to know is fundamentally a belief.

One has a choice between two trees:

to Know all (thus) not Believe <- approaches all-knowing, god or no god.
to Believe all (thus) not Know <- captures any/all belief-based ignorance(s) causing suffering/death.

The first is the tree of the living, the second is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Only a "believer" can "believe" one is the other / the other is the one (ie. eat from the tree).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:56 am Knowledge is grounded in justified belief with these justifications being beliefs. Knowledge is connected beliefs. What determines one belief as false and one belief as true is how and if these beliefs connect. Connection determines truth value and connection is symmetry between beliefs as the repetition of common elements amidst the beliefs.

For example I know a hot cup of coffee burns because of the repetition of being burned by hot coffee. This repetition is the grounding of truth values.
Knowledge is grounded by falsification(s) of any/all false belief(s) associated with that knowledge. Knowledge is falsified beliefs known to be not necessarily true. Beliefs which are true and beliefs which are false are both still belief & not knowledge. Once one knows, "belief" is rendered redundant/irrelevant.

I too know a hot cup of coffee burns, therefor I do not merely "believe" it.
I know this because I know it would take some state of "belief" to "believe" otherwise.
1. Pi and Phi are observed through time as they are irrational numbers which are continuous. Each observation of PI and Phi observes a newer state as they are continous numbers.

2. A truth observed from a new angle through time necessitates the expression of truth as changing. All facts are a relationship between contexts, change the context and the fact changes.

3. Yet creating the distinction between knowledge and belief creates the dualism of believer vs non believer from a new angle.

4. Give an example of something that exists without belief. Even Pi as an irrational number is believed to be continous.

5. You believe the hot coffee will burn you based upon past experience. Because the act of being burn by coffee exists through time the knowledge of being burn by the coffee requires belief based on prior experience.
Post Reply