God(s)

[nothing]

our explanation of knowledge is a continuum.

1. And this cessation, void, is the grounding of all continuums.

2. All variables, empirical and abstract, are intrinsically empty in and of themselves and as such manifests through continuums.

3. A to B whether it be a cow to a new cow or a cow walking to point A to point B or a cow waking up then eating...continuums as well as the ever present "now" which observes all of these things.

1. Therefor knowledge is not a continuum: it relies on it.
2. Which is a property that can be known, thus has practical use.
3. Meaning not known

If I do not know, I am simply not assuming any pattern whatsever.

Thus your example is absolutely meaningless and of no practicality.

Assumption is a continuum, we and all of nature, does it naturally. It cannot be avoided or embraced as it is beyond either.

It takes assumption to assume one is not themselves in such a continuum.

1. There is no genius.

2. Your methodology is made up beliefs you are in the middle of justifying...but require the belief in order to do it. You contradict yourself by process alone.

3. You connected a bunch of dots, called it a method and failed to see that methodology is just connecting and separating dots...its not deep at all. People want it to be deep because its simplicity makes us look stupid.

1. a. I do not use the word genius it is your own thinking/product and b. well attested to nonetheless
2. It is made up of trying others' beliefs
3. That it is not deep is a good thing: surface and accessible

And this still requires antithetical qualities that are assumed by nature. Your above statement can be negated by it's own terms.

...you actually just did that to yourself.

1. Through a new set of negative patterns....one can call these fallacies in logic, or discipline in action, etc.

2. We assume it because we see those around us, who are variations of us on form, experience it.

3. False, entropy and negentropy alternate....[/quote]

1. Negative is relative, remember?
2. We need not assume anything
3. Hence: they are antithetical

Void does not act as void is nothing. Void voids itself, is strictly saying there is no void.

Void voids itself is incoherent and meaningless.

Acknowledging any set of symbols requires assuming them from a point of view where this subjective nature of assumption, as inherently void, causes the symbol to diverge from on interpretation to many.

Your own "subjective nature of assumption" is causing your own regress to relentlessly call upon it. You are as unreal as any by way of it.

You assume they are not, either way we make an assumption.

I do not assume they are not - I know they are not. The assumption is yours again.

You still assume perspectives and that is all they are.

You assume that is all there is.

CKIIT is an assumed pattern of interpretation, as a form of interpretation it becomes an image more or less.

CKIIT negates any/all assumed pattern(s) of interpretation by drawing out / revealing their relative finitude(s). It has practical application(s) that can be used to predict patterns, owing to it assuming a predefined one.

CKIIT is a finite system as well thus negates itself.

Finiteness is strictly multiple indefinite states. If I have a finite number of points I have multiple indefinite states I am observing. Finiteness is the opposite of a singularity as it necessitates a nature subject to change.

Not necessarily true.

A singularity is infinite: it has an infinitude variety of possible expressions (thus, contexts) of the same single thing. Ckiit elaborates this out as to what this singularity definitely is such to allow it to be so: problem-in-and-of-itself has any infinite number of expressions all owing to the same single problem, thus any/all gradation(s) can be traversed indefinitely when any/all context(s) is/are assumed.

It is active, effective and working, due to:

P =/= P
P = *P.

It's beautiful because P can become a known either way.

And I know it holds.

An all knowing God would have to be omnipresent thus also know and experience beleif as well.

i. An all-knowing god would not necessarily have to be omnipresent
An all know God would have to be aware fully of multiple "nows" through which the human condition manifests through various perspectives. He would have to be able to be aware of what everyone is seeing through their eyes if he is omnipresent. [/color]

ii. An all-knowing god can not experience belief-based ignorance(s) while/as knowing they are such - contradiction.

He would have to experience the beliefs and irrational nature of seperation the people observe.

God is not a he - regarding the context concerned, the Hebrew word for 'GOD' is effectively equivalent to a folded circle, which can be equivalent to halving a line. Circle-in-a-circle is an important component of CKIIT because it is definite: relative to any fixed observer, the sun circles the observer in fixed cycles. These cycles define a circle, and a circle has area, thus is spacial, thus time is spacial and space is temporal.

Beliefs replicate beliefs as knowledge replicate knowledge, this replication is inevitable.

i. because they have a shared property does not indicate they can not be distinguished.
ii. beliefs are negated by knowledge

Distinguishing is strictly a process of multiplication and division.[/color]

All beliefs are grounded in knowledge. A unicorn may be believed in, but that composes the unicorn are empirically know parts of a horse and horn rearranged into one pattern which does not align in empirical reality.

This is not necessarily true. Please no more unicorns: they are unreal.

Unreal as empirical entities.

Real as symbols.
Real as dreams.
Real as art.
Real as the word you use above.

I may believe "Sally goes to the bank on wednesdays", but even of this is false it does not negate "Sally", "bank", "Wednesday" exists.

It's all irrelevant: belief less knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty pertaining to that belief, is ignorance. "I believe..." and "I do not know to a certainty..." are equivalent statements: both contain ignorance(s). The problem with belief is it garments the latter.

You are going to have to reword this: "Sally may be know to herself believe..." what does this mean?

As above: intrinsically ignorant statement. "Sally may be know (sic) to herself believe..." means:

to me: you made another incoherent type
to CKIIT: it grows stronger

This is an assumed belief.

If by this you mean: it assumes a belief, it must assume a belief in order to try it: to believe, or not to believe.

It doesn't generate its own assumption(s), it tries any/all generated by others and holds them to their own. That is how it draws out any/all finitude(s) (ie. absurdities) that further defines the singularity ignorance-in-and-of-itself, which is only one single thing that CKIIT relentlessly points back to.

The inverse of any assumption is still an assumption.

And in any known dichotomy it only takes one assumption to produce a known result: yay/nay. No regress: one and done.

You do understand your system, is a system of belief correct? Considering you do not know or not know it works?

You do not understand CKIIT, and have taken to your own assumption(s) which you relentlessly project onto others. This is not different from what CKIIT has already predicted of the same militant religious type: projection. Interestingly, the Hebrew word rendered "satan" describes an definite indefinite. This will be elaborated later on.

No that is your assumption. Your argument does not align literally so it is figurative, thus still valid. You cannot negate metaphors.

i. It certainly aligns literally. Genesis 1:1 is an equation describing a generic torus field. It is self-referencing and loops back through itself, and uses the form of the torus to depict the 22 Hebrew letters as 22 different perspectives of the same basic form. The form is the same the defines micro- and macro-bodies.

ii. It is a basic system of orientation: it fixes itself towards a real-existential dichotomy of any/all knowledge negating any/all belief. It was built using a known reference-frame: Judaism/Christianity/Islam (all, in all, as-is and/or as-is-not) and derives/constructs the tautology according to that reference-frame (relative, not empirical despite empiricism being subjective). Then it voids itself, like a void garment requiring a being to suit. Once suited, it assumes the belief-assumption-state of that being and draws from its finitude(s).

It therefor has a need to itself be void and allow for any/all possible relative (e)motion(s) that highlight the singularity.

The void voided itself into "All".

Assumption is instrincially void, it has no substance..."it" is just a reference to multiple forms through we see emptiness...this is not different than saying the form of a glass is empty because of its multiple dimensions.

This is your own assumption. You keep projecting it outward as if it is a fault of others. It is your blunder.

Assumption has practicality, efficacy, potency, not to mention: is needed for empathy. If one is to take assumption as intrinsically void, one may as well self-admit to having absolutely no regard for neither others nor self, and collapses into, what I will call, the CKIIT singularity. All possible context(s) collapse into it.

Ckiit therefor can be used to predict the singularity solution by establishing an orientation: one tends towards suffering/death (according to the context of Judaism/Christianity/Islam) thus finds its inverse: hence, Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance Inference Theorem which tends towards (the inverse of) perpetual conflict due to the problem-in-and-of-itself of "GOOD vs. EVIL": BELIEF.

That is your belief, you have no proof.

It is your belief it is my belief: hands to thy own self.

Your statements about Good and Evils are beliefs unless you observed them in their totatlity.

And what do you suppose knowing the original sin grants? Something less? Root of any/all human suffering? What did I tell you was the genesis of this entire theorem? From whence any/all human suffering? As if it is not possible to infer any/all gradation(s) from the original? It certainly follows that knowing the first "gradation(s)" can be used as a universal access point to infer "downward". Ckiit takes this approach: it therefor is able to 'orient' the global conflict(s) accordingly as it pertains to: definitely tending towards/away from 'peace'.

It takes any/all knowledge of any/all not to believe, to have any/all knowledge of good and evil. Ckiit can practically demonstrate this and elaborate it ad nauseum.

Empiricism is an abstraction about the senses. Strict empiricism negates itself under it's own definition. Empiricism is negatable.

I don't care much for so-called empiricism: it strikes me as egocentrically male and thus "empirically" unreal by definition.

Speaking of definition, it needs its own thread.

[Eodnhoj7]

our explanation of knowledge is a continuum.

1. And this cessation, void, is the grounding of all continuums.

2. All variables, empirical and abstract, are intrinsically empty in and of themselves and as such manifests through continuums.

3. A to B whether it be a cow to a new cow or a cow walking to point A to point B or a cow waking up then eating...continuums as well as the ever present "now" which observes all of these things.

1. Therefor knowledge is not a continuum: it relies on it.
2. Which is a property that can be known, thus has practical use.
3. Meaning not known

If I do not know, I am simply not assuming any pattern whatsever.

Thus your example is absolutely meaningless and of no practicality.

Assumption is a continuum, we and all of nature, does it naturally. It cannot be avoided or embraced as it is beyond either.

It takes assumption to assume one is not themselves in such a continuum.

1. There is no genius.

2. Your methodology is made up beliefs you are in the middle of justifying...but require the belief in order to do it. You contradict yourself by process alone.

3. You connected a bunch of dots, called it a method and failed to see that methodology is just connecting and separating dots...its not deep at all. People want it to be deep because its simplicity makes us look stupid.

1. a. I do not use the word genius it is your own thinking/product and b. well attested to nonetheless
2. It is made up of trying others' beliefs
3. That it is not deep is a good thing: surface and accessible

And this still requires antithetical qualities that are assumed by nature. Your above statement can be negated by it's own terms.

...you actually just did that to yourself.

1. Through a new set of negative patterns....one can call these fallacies in logic, or discipline in action, etc.

2. We assume it because we see those around us, who are variations of us on form, experience it.

3. False, entropy and negentropy alternate....

1. Negative is relative, remember?
2. We need not assume anything
3. Hence: they are antithetical

Void does not act as void is nothing. Void voids itself, is strictly saying there is no void.

Void voids itself is incoherent and meaningless.

Acknowledging any set of symbols requires assuming them from a point of view where this subjective nature of assumption, as inherently void, causes the symbol to diverge from on interpretation to many.

Your own "subjective nature of assumption" is causing your own regress to relentlessly call upon it. You are as unreal as any by way of it.

You assume they are not, either way we make an assumption.

I do not assume they are not - I know they are not. The assumption is yours again.

You still assume perspectives and that is all they are.

You assume that is all there is.

CKIIT is an assumed pattern of interpretation, as a form of interpretation it becomes an image more or less.

CKIIT negates any/all assumed pattern(s) of interpretation by drawing out / revealing their relative finitude(s). It has practical application(s) that can be used to predict patterns, owing to it assuming a predefined one.

CKIIT is a finite system as well thus negates itself.

Finiteness is strictly multiple indefinite states. If I have a finite number of points I have multiple indefinite states I am observing. Finiteness is the opposite of a singularity as it necessitates a nature subject to change.

Not necessarily true.

A singularity is infinite: it has an infinitude variety of possible expressions (thus, contexts) of the same single thing. Ckiit elaborates this out as to what this singularity definitely is such to allow it to be so: problem-in-and-of-itself has any infinite number of expressions all owing to the same single problem, thus any/all gradation(s) can be traversed indefinitely when any/all context(s) is/are assumed.

It is active, effective and working, due to:

P =/= P
P = *P.

It's beautiful because P can become a known either way.

And I know it holds.

An all knowing God would have to be omnipresent thus also know and experience beleif as well.

i. An all-knowing god would not necessarily have to be omnipresent
An all know God would have to be aware fully of multiple "nows" through which the human condition manifests through various perspectives. He would have to be able to be aware of what everyone is seeing through their eyes if he is omnipresent. [/color]

ii. An all-knowing god can not experience belief-based ignorance(s) while/as knowing they are such - contradiction.

He would have to experience the beliefs and irrational nature of seperation the people observe.

God is not a he - regarding the context concerned, the Hebrew word for 'GOD' is effectively equivalent to a folded circle, which can be equivalent to halving a line. Circle-in-a-circle is an important component of CKIIT because it is definite: relative to any fixed observer, the sun circles the observer in fixed cycles. These cycles define a circle, and a circle has area, thus is spacial, thus time is spacial and space is temporal.

Beliefs replicate beliefs as knowledge replicate knowledge, this replication is inevitable.

i. because they have a shared property does not indicate they can not be distinguished.
ii. beliefs are negated by knowledge

Distinguishing is strictly a process of multiplication and division.[/color]

All beliefs are grounded in knowledge. A unicorn may be believed in, but that composes the unicorn are empirically know parts of a horse and horn rearranged into one pattern which does not align in empirical reality.

This is not necessarily true. Please no more unicorns: they are unreal.

Unreal as empirical entities.

Real as symbols.
Real as dreams.
Real as art.
Real as the word you use above.

I may believe "Sally goes to the bank on wednesdays", but even of this is false it does not negate "Sally", "bank", "Wednesday" exists.

It's all irrelevant: belief less knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty pertaining to that belief, is ignorance. "I believe..." and "I do not know to a certainty..." are equivalent statements: both contain ignorance(s). The problem with belief is it garments the latter.

You are going to have to reword this: "Sally may be know to herself believe..." what does this mean?

As above: intrinsically ignorant statement. "Sally may be know (sic) to herself believe..." means:

to me: you made another incoherent type
to CKIIT: it grows stronger

This is an assumed belief.

If by this you mean: it assumes a belief, it must assume a belief in order to try it: to believe, or not to believe.

It doesn't generate its own assumption(s), it tries any/all generated by others and holds them to their own. That is how it draws out any/all finitude(s) (ie. absurdities) that further defines the singularity ignorance-in-and-of-itself, which is only one single thing that CKIIT relentlessly points back to.

The inverse of any assumption is still an assumption.

And in any known dichotomy it only takes one assumption to produce a known result: yay/nay. No regress: one and done.

You do understand your system, is a system of belief correct? Considering you do not know or not know it works?

You do not understand CKIIT, and have taken to your own assumption(s) which you relentlessly project onto others. This is not different from what CKIIT has already predicted of the same militant religious type: projection. Interestingly, the Hebrew word rendered "satan" describes an definite indefinite. This will be elaborated later on.

No that is your assumption. Your argument does not align literally so it is figurative, thus still valid. You cannot negate metaphors.

i. It certainly aligns literally. Genesis 1:1 is an equation describing a generic torus field. It is self-referencing and loops back through itself, and uses the form of the torus to depict the 22 Hebrew letters as 22 different perspectives of the same basic form. The form is the same the defines micro- and macro-bodies.

ii. It is a basic system of orientation: it fixes itself towards a real-existential dichotomy of any/all knowledge negating any/all belief. It was built using a known reference-frame: Judaism/Christianity/Islam (all, in all, as-is and/or as-is-not) and derives/constructs the tautology according to that reference-frame (relative, not empirical despite empiricism being subjective). Then it voids itself, like a void garment requiring a being to suit. Once suited, it assumes the belief-assumption-state of that being and draws from its finitude(s).

It therefor has a need to itself be void and allow for any/all possible relative (e)motion(s) that highlight the singularity.

The void voided itself into "All".

Assumption is instrincially void, it has no substance..."it" is just a reference to multiple forms through we see emptiness...this is not different than saying the form of a glass is empty because of its multiple dimensions.

This is your own assumption. You keep projecting it outward as if it is a fault of others. It is your blunder.

Assumption has practicality, efficacy, potency, not to mention: is needed for empathy. If one is to take assumption as intrinsically void, one may as well self-admit to having absolutely no regard for neither others nor self, and collapses into, what I will call, the CKIIT singularity. All possible context(s) collapse into it.

Ckiit therefor can be used to predict the singularity solution by establishing an orientation: one tends towards suffering/death (according to the context of Judaism/Christianity/Islam) thus finds its inverse: hence, Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance Inference Theorem which tends towards (the inverse of) perpetual conflict due to the problem-in-and-of-itself of "GOOD vs. EVIL": BELIEF.

That is your belief, you have no proof.

It is your belief it is my belief: hands to thy own self.

Your statements about Good and Evils are beliefs unless you observed them in their totatlity.

And what do you suppose knowing the original sin grants? Something less? Root of any/all human suffering? What did I tell you was the genesis of this entire theorem? From whence any/all human suffering? As if it is not possible to infer any/all gradation(s) from the original? It certainly follows that knowing the first "gradation(s)" can be used as a universal access point to infer "downward". Ckiit takes this approach: it therefor is able to 'orient' the global conflict(s) accordingly as it pertains to: definitely tending towards/away from 'peace'.

It takes any/all knowledge of any/all not to believe, to have any/all knowledge of good and evil. Ckiit can practically demonstrate this and elaborate it ad nauseum.

Empiricism is an abstraction about the senses. Strict empiricism negates itself under it's own definition. Empiricism is negatable.

I don't care much for so-called empiricism: it strikes me as egocentrically male and thus "empirically" unreal by definition.

Speaking of definition, it needs its own thread.
[/quote]
I didn't bother reading.

After the conclusion that you are working on CKIIT to eradicate belief, but in doing so you need to believe in CKIIT because it is not proven yet, you believe in CKIIT and thus contradict your founding premise.

[nothing]

After the conclusion that you are working on CKIIT to eradicate belief, but in doing so you need to believe in CKIIT because it is not proven yet, you believe in CKIIT and thus contradict your founding premise.

Your conclusion is definitely arrived at via false assumption. According to the theorem itself, one couldn't eradicate belief (even if they willed to) anymore than one can eradicate knowledge, as knowledge is by way of trying belief, thus in need of.

You first need soil to grow fruit: you need belief to try for knowledge.

You might do well to try for your own assumption esp. before trying at regress of assumption (though you proved true: assumption is void) and thus it duly follows given your void regard to CKIIT having already derived it: your choice.

[Eodnhoj7]

After the conclusion that you are working on CKIIT to eradicate belief, but in doing so you need to believe in CKIIT because it is not proven yet, you believe in CKIIT and thus contradict your founding premise.

Your conclusion is definitely arrived at via false assumption. According to the theorem itself, one couldn't eradicate belief (even if they willed to) anymore than one can eradicate knowledge, as knowledge is by way of trying belief, thus in need of.

You first need soil to grow fruit: you need belief to try for knowledge.

You might do well to try for your own assumption esp. before trying at regress of assumption (though you proved true: assumption is void) and thus it duly follows given your void regard to CKIIT having already derived it: your choice.

Assumption is void and the assumption of assumptions voids this void. No contradiction, double negation.

To assume something is to void it, as it is inverted from one state to another when assumed.

Anyhow:



Than what is the purpose of the theory....I mean what is its use?

You want to negate everything, fine, but you end up manifesting what you negate.

[nothing]

Assumption is void and the assumption of assumptions voids this void. No contradiction, double negation.

Assumption is a noun - it is already dead, you do not need to invoke any void at all. It has nothing to do with anything but acts locally.

To assume is different: it is active, and can be done knowledgeably/consciously, thus is not "void".

To assume something is to void it, as it is inverted from one state to another when assumed.

Is this why you assume so much?

Than what is the purpose of the theory....I mean what is its use?

Addresses two questions:
i. Whence any/all human suffering? (which leads to:)
ii. What is the problem/solution to the Abrahamic Believer vs. Unbeliever conflict(s)?

You want to negate everything, fine, but you end up manifesting what you negate.

I have no idea what you are talking about re: 'negate everything'. Is it rooted in/from more assumption?

Any useful theoretical endeavor must collapse into/for a practical purpose(s) once exhausted. Otherwise, what the hell is one even doing?

[Eodnhoj7]

Assumption is void and the assumption of assumptions voids this void. No contradiction, double negation.

Assumption is a noun - it is already dead, you do not need to invoke any void at all. It has nothing to do with anything but acts locally.

To assume is different: it is active, and can be done knowledgeably/consciously, thus is not "void".


Words can be used as nouns and verbs. Color is both a noun and verb, creation/create, drawing/draw, etc.

Assumption/assume are both observations of one form subject to inversion/inverting. This inversion occurs by observing a state of unity to multiplicity.

See below.

Thus when saying something is voided, and void is a self negating term that does not mean anything in itself, we are observing a phenomenon moving from one state to many. We cannot observe void except as multiplicity.

/color]

To assume something is to void it, as it is inverted from one state to another when assumed.

Is this why you assume so much?

And you don't?

Than what is the purpose of the theory....I mean what is its use?

Addresses two questions:
i. Whence any/all human suffering? (which leads to:)
ii. What is the problem/solution to the Abrahamic Believer vs. Unbeliever conflict(s)?

Who said the believers where any different than eachother, they both act the same way the majority of the time./color]

You want to negate everything, fine, but you end up manifesting what you negate.

I have no idea what you are talking about re: 'negate everything'. Is it rooted in/from more assumption?

Annhilate.

Any useful theoretical endeavor must collapse into/for a practical purpose(s) once exhausted. Otherwise, what the hell is one even doing?

This is a statement of belief.

Beleif cannot be eradicated because of time.

[nothing]

Words can be used as nouns and verbs. Color is both a noun and verb, creation/create, drawing/draw, etc.

Assumption is a noun.

Who said the believers where any different than eachother, they both act the same way the majority of the time.

I have no idea what you are trying to ask. Believers and unbelievers certainly do not act "the same way", if that is what you were trying to imply.

Annhilate.

This is a statement of belief.

Annihilation is only one part of the total equation.

There is nothing wrong with belief - it is just not a virtue in-and-of-itself.

Beleif cannot be eradicated because of time.

It's the other way around: time (ie. the effects of) can be eradicated because of (lack of) belief. The theorem predicts it: time can be "negated" such that the aging process is of no consequence and can even be reversed. I'd like to prove it true, but I don't think people will stop killing one another over books and idols.

[Eodnhoj7]

Words can be used as nouns and verbs. Color is both a noun and verb, creation/create, drawing/draw, etc.

Assumption is a noun.

And assume is a verb. Assumption is static. Assume is dynamic. Nouns are static. Verbs are dynamic.

Who said the believers where any different than eachother, they both act the same way the majority of the time.

I have no idea what you are trying to ask. Believers and unbelievers certainly do not act "the same way", if that is what you were trying to imply.

Yeah they do, they both lie, steal, kill, f""" eachother's wives, both hide behind rituals (one is a church/mosque the other a football game: both worshipping superhuman qualities minimum).

Annhilate.

This is a statement of belief.

Annihilation is only one part of the total equation.

There is nothing wrong with belief - it is just not a virtue in-and-of-itself.

There is nothing that is a virtue in and of itself.

Beleif cannot be eradicated because of time.

It's the other way around: time (ie. the effects of) can be eradicated because of (lack of) belief.

It's circular. Time can be negated because of a lack of beleif, beleif requires times as it is "evidence of things unseen", so where no beleif exists then a singularity results.

The theorem predicts it: time can be "negated" such that the aging process is of no consequence and can even be reversed. I'd like to prove it true, but I don't think people will stop killing one another over books and idols.

People kill because killing is fun. It is fun because it relieves tension. There is tension because of thwarted desire. People cultivate desires because it allows for excitement.
Excitement is a disturbance of an equilibrium. People do not want order.

The evidence is the American dream. It is not about, well once was at least, the house and white picket fence with a hot wife (speaking about the past version).

It is about saying:

"Look at my fort motherf""""", I have more than you!
The white picket fence? A white washed "fu"" you" stay away "neighbor".
The hot trophy wife? "Look at where my semen goes...noone wants your semen, they want you to die".



You see the great grounding of why people work so hard is envy. Envy is what cause war. Cause is just a mask.

[nothing]

And assume is a verb. Assumption is static. Assume is dynamic. Nouns are static. Verbs are dynamic.

Yes - nouns are already 'dead' thus invoking void is meaningless.

I have no idea what you are trying to ask. Believers and unbelievers certainly do not act "the same way", if that is what you were trying to imply.

Yeah they do, they both lie, steal, kill, f""" eachother's wives, both hide behind rituals (one is a church/mosque the other a football game: both worshipping superhuman qualities minimum).

That's all chaos. Now separate the chaos from what is known. What distinguishes them? What fixed properties/characteristics are there of each? What is either one incapable of ever doing? What does the other necessarily require? etc.

You have to try harder.

There is nothing that is a virtue in and of itself.

I think this is unsound and not necessarily true: ckiit found something that is.

It's circular (!). Time can be negated because of a lack of beleif, beleif requires times as it is "evidence of things unseen", so where no beleif exists then a singularity (!) results.

And that singularity can define an infinite number of contexts (!). It allows for anyone/everyone to have their own "kingdom of heaven" as they themselves any/all envision it, so long as it satisfies this one 'singular' condition in relation to all else that exists (!) (viz. as it revolves around this one thing: the 'singularity').

This is what ckiit finds is the tree of the living (opposite the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). Once it is 'known', the other is obsolete.

This applies equally to 'knowledge' and belief thus:

All knowing is belief (?), but not all belief is knowing.

is absolutely absurd (!)

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.

Belief is indefinite.
Knowledge is definite.

How can all knowing be belief?

ABSURD !

[Eodnhoj7]

And assume is a verb. Assumption is static. Assume is dynamic. Nouns are static. Verbs are dynamic.

Yes - nouns are already 'dead' thus invoking void is meaningless.

Void is an empty term except when define through other terms, thus as empty it follows it's own nature. Considering nothing cannot be observed, except through multiplicity (ie the cup is empty because of water is one example), we are left with void necessitating a multiplicity of phenomenon.

I have no idea what you are trying to ask. Believers and unbelievers certainly do not act "the same way", if that is what you were trying to imply.

Yeah they do, they both lie, steal, kill, f""" eachother's wives, both hide behind rituals (one is a church/mosque the other a football game: both worshipping superhuman qualities minimum).

That's all chaos. Now separate the chaos from what is known. What distinguishes them? What fixed properties/characteristics are there of each? What is either one incapable of ever doing? What does the other necessarily require? etc.

They all act the same, what varies are interpretations but even interpretations (embodied through rituals) have many similarities. For example both Catholics and Satanistics have a Eucharist type ritual, where the secular world reflects this in communal eating of the various sorts (parties, buffets, etc.).



You have to try harder.

There is nothing that is a virtue in and of itself.

I think this is unsound and not necessarily true: ckiit found something that is.
Not really because one virtue effectively is tied to another. Honesty and theft are connected by the ownership of truth, with this ownership of truth, merely being an integration. For example if I say "x person did y" when the event never really happened, I am stealing a part of there reputation.

It's circular (!). Time can be negated because of a lack of beleif, beleif requires times as it is "evidence of things unseen", so where no beleif exists then a singularity (!) results.

Yes, that is why your argument, though standard linear logic, is absurd.

And that singularity can define an infinite number of contexts (!).
Still subject to a context, with the context being a loop.

It allows for anyone/everyone to have their own "kingdom of heaven" as they themselves any/all envision it, so long as it satisfies this one 'singular' condition in relation to all else that exists (!) (viz. as it revolves around this one thing: the 'singularity').

ROFL...that is a belief.

This is what ckiit finds is the tree of the living (opposite the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). Once it is 'known', the other is obsolete.

This applies equally to 'knowledge' and belief thus:

All knowing is belief (?), but not all belief is knowing.

is absolutely absurd (!)

Your subjective notion of what is absurd and not absurd, is absurd.

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.

Belief is indefinite.
Knowledge is definite.

Knowledge is not completely definite as it is grounded in the connection of indefinite states. It is both definite and in definite.

How can all knowing be belief?

ABSURD !

Yelling things are absurd will get you know where, and quite literally is absurd. Best just to assume reality for what it is and acknowledge paradox as inevitable.

[nothing]

They all act the same, what varies are interpretations but even interpretations (embodied through rituals) have many similarities. For example both Catholics and Satanistics have a Eucharist type ritual, where the secular world reflects this in communal eating of the various sorts (parties, buffets, etc.).

If there are shared characteristics, they can be further reduced to, using them as a common base to try further.

These rituals are bi-products of psycopathies that gives rise to religion, rather than religion giving rise to them.

Not really because one virtue effectively is tied to another. Honesty and theft are connected by the ownership of truth, with this ownership of truth, merely being an integration. For example if I say "x person did y" when the event never really happened, I am stealing a part of there reputation.

Theft is not a real virtue; it would be the inverse of one.

Knowledge of ignorance: I know I know not, is a virtue that allows for any/all knowledge(s).
Ignorance as knowledge: I believe I know, is a vice that allows for any/all suffering.

Yes, that is why your argument, though standard linear logic, is absurd.

It is actually your (non) refutation which is absurd.

Still subject to a context, with the context being a loop.

Which is not a problem: the loop could be a perfect circle with any/all else a gradation therefrom.

ROFL...that is a belief.

I believe in possibilities that I know are possible. Ignorance would be ignoring them.

Your subjective notion of what is absurd and not absurd, is absurd.

It would be absurd to state a fire extinguisher is the same as fire.
All knowing is belief, is absurd. Knowledge negates belief.

Knowledge is not completely definite as it is grounded in the connection of indefinite states. It is both definite and in definite.

Wrong - knowledge of self can be definite. That is what knowledge is: definite. Belief is indefinite.

If you believe knowledge can not be definite, you are definitely not knowing of yourself.

Yelling things are absurd will get you *know where, and quite literally is absurd. Best just to assume reality for what it is and acknowledge paradox as inevitable.

*nowhere - indicating something as absurd is not absurd.

All knowing is belief, (?)

There is a gravity in this statement that weighs true: the above
is absurd (!) and is the greatest blunder philosophy has ever made.

Contained in its clarification is the truth-by-way-of-negation method:

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.

Which correctly calls for all belief to be tried
for all ignorance/knowledge indefinitely.

Paradox need not be assumed: it can be known as a fixed property
thus if/when seen, used to resolve any/all related matters. In fact,
resolving a paradox lead to my own personal endeavor to solve
the problem of 'from whence human suffering?' It is a kind of paradox:
human beings suffer themselves.

[Eodnhoj7]

They all act the same, what varies are interpretations but even interpretations (embodied through rituals) have many similarities. For example both Catholics and Satanistics have a Eucharist type ritual, where the secular world reflects this in communal eating of the various sorts (parties, buffets, etc.).

If there are shared characteristics, they can be further reduced to, using them as a common base to try further.

These rituals are bi-products of psycopathies that gives rise to religion, rather than religion giving rise to them.

Not really because one virtue effectively is tied to another. Honesty and theft are connected by the ownership of truth, with this ownership of truth, merely being an integration. For example if I say "x person did y" when the event never really happened, I am stealing a part of there reputation.

Theft is not a real virtue; it would be the inverse of one.

Knowledge of ignorance: I know I know not, is a virtue that allows for any/all knowledge(s).
Ignorance as knowledge: I believe I know, is a vice that allows for any/all suffering.

Yes, that is why your argument, though standard linear logic, is absurd.

It is actually your (non) refutation which is absurd.

Still subject to a context, with the context being a loop.

Which is not a problem: the loop could be a perfect circle with any/all else a gradation therefrom.

ROFL...that is a belief.

I believe in possibilities that I know are possible. Ignorance would be ignoring them.

Your subjective notion of what is absurd and not absurd, is absurd.

It would be absurd to state a fire extinguisher is the same as fire.
All knowing is belief, is absurd. Knowledge negates belief.

Knowledge is not completely definite as it is grounded in the connection of indefinite states. It is both definite and in definite.

Wrong - knowledge of self can be definite. That is what knowledge is: definite. Belief is indefinite.

If you believe knowledge can not be definite, you are definitely not knowing of yourself.

Yelling things are absurd will get you *know where, and quite literally is absurd. Best just to assume reality for what it is and acknowledge paradox as inevitable.

*nowhere - indicating something as absurd is not absurd.

All knowing is belief, (?)

There is a gravity in this statement that weighs true: the above
is absurd (!) and is the greatest blunder philosophy has ever made.

Contained in its clarification is the truth-by-way-of-negation method:

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.

Which correctly calls for all belief to be tried
for all ignorance/knowledge indefinitely.

Paradox need not be assumed: it can be known as a fixed property
thus if/when seen, used to resolve any/all related matters. In fact,
resolving a paradox lead to my own personal endeavor to solve
the problem of 'from whence human suffering?' It is a kind of paradox:
human beings suffer themselves.

Truth by way of negation results in the continual use of fallacies to negate all beliefs until we are left with "knowledge". The problem occurs, as these negotiations are grounded in fallacies, the fallacies can be negated as well leaving us with truth statements.

Thus we are left with all contexts as being both true and false.

[nothing]

Truth by way of negation results in the continual use of fallacies

This is not necessarily true: it is a fallacy to assume as much, given:

to negate all beliefs until we are left with "knowledge". The problem occurs, as these negotiations are grounded in fallacies, the fallacies can be negated as well leaving us with truth statements.

Thus we are left with all contexts as being both true and false.

Is this really a contradiction?

True and false can be definite relative to any specified context containing no necessary-to-be-known unknown variables necessarily required to know as much: true, or false? There are milestone discoveries unique to each query which, if/when acknowledged, reveals falsification that scales with knowledge-negating-belief.

Like good and evil, relativity to context does not necessarily mean there is not a single particular context wherein a subject is not both. There is another valid 'state' that is not both, or one, or the other. It mandates two beings and is a conscious act wherein certain conditions must be invariably satisfied and fully acknowledged by both. If/when such conditions are satisfied, so-called good/evil can be locally neutralized resulting in the inverse of 'both' which is not 'neither', because their neutralization requires both be present-to-begin.

In other words: so-called "knowing good and evil" is in consciously knowing (first of all) how/where/when it is transacted. This goes into a topic I'm not sure the forum would be comfortable hosting, so I will abstain. Nevertheless,

Truth-by-way-of-negation commits no more fallacious activity than any other conscious discipline:

o. To AcKNOWledge (any/all (uncertainty in/of any/all) BELIEF)
i. To Try: to BELIEVE (+) and/or not to BELIEVE(-)
ii. To Test (to CONSCIOUSLY try to falsify)
iii. To keep trying to KNOW (to / not to) or KNOW not to: BELIEVE

Whether about truth-by-way-of-negation, or the topic I can not get into, two-become-one, such to render the true/false good/evil dichotomy of no consequence given it is all one-direction instead of a variable state of two.

[Eodnhoj7]

Truth by way of negation results in the continual use of fallacies

This is not necessarily true: it is a fallacy to assume as much, given:

All fallacies are assumed, we pull them out of thin air. To negate it to assume a phenomenon and invert it against itself or another phenomenon.

Assumption is both a fallacy and an act of creating fallacies.

to negate all beliefs until we are left with "knowledge". The problem occurs, as these negotiations are grounded in fallacies, the fallacies can be negated as well leaving us with truth statements.

Thus we are left with all contexts as being both true and false.

Is this really a contradiction?

Yes and No.

True and false can be definite relative to any specified context containing no necessary-to-be-known unknown variables necessarily required to know as much: true, or false? There are milestone discoveries unique to each query which, if/when acknowledged, reveals falsification that scales with knowledge-negating-belief.

Like good and evil, relativity to context does not necessarily mean there is not a single particular context wherein a subject is not both. There is another valid 'state' that is not both, or one, or the other. It mandates two beings and is a conscious act wherein certain conditions must be invariably satisfied and fully acknowledged by both. If/when such conditions are satisfied, so-called good/evil can be locally neutralized resulting in the inverse of 'both' which is not 'neither', because their neutralization requires both be present-to-begin.

In other words: so-called "knowing good and evil" is in consciously knowing (first of all) how/where/when it is transacted. This goes into a topic I'm not sure the forum would be comfortable hosting, so I will abstain. Nevertheless,

Truth-by-way-of-negation commits no more fallacious activity than any other conscious discipline:

o. To AcKNOWledge (any/all (uncertainty in/of any/all) BELIEF)
i. To Try: to BELIEVE (+) and/or not to BELIEVE(-)
ii. To Test (to CONSCIOUSLY try to falsify)
iii. To keep trying to KNOW (to / not to) or KNOW not to: BELIEVE

Whether about truth-by-way-of-negation, or the topic I can not get into, two-become-one, such to render the true/false good/evil dichotomy of no consequence given it is all one-direction instead of a variable state of two.

One becomes two and two becomes one, it is a triad of dualisms.

[nothing]

All fallacies are assumed, we pull them out of thin air. To negate it to assume a phenomenon and invert it against itself or another phenomenon.

Assumption is both a fallacy and an act of creating fallacies.

They still have gravity (if even temporary) - if even pulled from thin air. To assume is to allow its gravity to act on, thus knowing the properties of the gravity a priori allows for knowledgeable assumptions that need only last as needed in trying for knowledge.

One becomes two and two becomes one, it is a triad of dualisms.

It's also an orientation system to traverse dimensions: their existing at 90-degree angles to one another means a fold exists in as many as three:

I am <-* as above
that <-* tat tvam asi
I am <-* so below

So if having:

as above: "good" from the higher in equivalence to the lower
acting against a being P
so below: "evil" from the lower in equivalence to the higher

Whatever P believes is good/evil ...

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.

... ends up with what?