God(s)

[nothing]

Then your stance is negated by the fallacy of equivocation where "A" can replaced by "All" with belief being a subset of all.

Hello, Merry Christmas and welcome back.

You are absolutely correct about "belief" being a subset of "All" (ie. alpha).
(All belief-based ignorance resides in the 'state' of 'belief')
What you catastrophically neglect is the reciprocal "Not" (ie. omega).
(All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance)

to Know "All" "Not" to Believe = circle expands indefinitely (CKIIT: -A approaches √-A from *A)
to Believe "All" "Not" to Know = circle contracts indefinitely (CKIIT: +A approaches √+A from *A)

You claim "belief vs unbelief" or rather "believers vs unbelievers"; unless you admit belief to something you are creating a dichotomy of yourself vs others.

I only believe in possibilities I know are possible.

World peace, for example.

What self? The self is intrinsically empty repeating patterns.

The self that believes to be something it is not.

Even if a being believes (in) something that is 100% true, it is still not knowledge.

[Eodnhoj7]

Then your stance is negated by the fallacy of equivocation where "A" can replaced by "All" with belief being a subset of all.

Hello, Merry Christmas and welcome back.

Same.


You are absolutely correct about "belief" being a subset of "All" (ie. alpha).
(All belief-based ignorance resides in the 'state' of 'belief')
What you catastrophically neglect is the reciprocal "Not" (ie. omega).
(All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance)

Not really as all beleifs are grounded in some knowledge, thus we are left with all beleifs being grounded in unbelief.

to Know "All" "Not" to Believe = circle expands indefinitely (CKIIT: -A approaches √-A from *A)
to Believe "All" "Not" to Know = circle contracts indefinitely (CKIIT: +A approaches √+A from *A)

You claim "belief vs unbelief" or rather "believers vs unbelievers"; unless you admit belief to something you are creating a dichotomy of yourself vs others.

I only believe in possibilities I know are possible.

Possibilities cannot be known or unknown fully unless actualized.

World peace, for example.

What self? The self is intrinsically empty repeating patterns.

The self that believes to be something it is not.

And what is that?

Even if a being believes (in) something that is 100% true, it is still not knowledge.

All knowledge as subject to infinite regress is relegated to base assumptions eventually.

[nothing]

Not really as all beleifs (?) are grounded in some knowledge, thus we are left with all beleifs being grounded in unbelief.

(!)

"i before e except after c"

Certainly not all beliefs are grounded in some knowledge.
All beliefs are certainly grounded in some lack of knowledge.

Possibilities cannot be known or unknown fully unless actualized.

They need not be: hence, possibility.

And what is that?

Any-and-everything any such being believes itself to be, but is certainly not.
It depends on the being and the substance(lessness) of their belief.

All knowledge as subject to infinite regress is relegated to base assumptions eventually.

Knowledge and infinite regress do not coalesce: the former mandates a cessation of the latter.
Infinite regress is practically meaningless: death intervenes.

Like eating from both the Tree of Living (Forever) and
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil such to bring suffering and death into the world.

Eternity + Suffering and Death = Eternity of Suffering and Death

GENESIS 3:22
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"

Death is thus a consequence of bringing suffering and death into the world
(ie. ignorance of the admonishment of Genesis 2:17)
viz. eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
viz. BELIEF
viz. "Believer vs. Unbeliever" = Root of Edenic "Fall"

Solving this conflict reverses the Fall, hence CKIIT.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not really as all beleifs (?) are grounded in some knowledge, thus we are left with all beleifs being grounded in unbelief.

(!)

"i before e except after c"

Certainly not all beliefs are grounded in some knowledge.
All beliefs are certainly grounded in some lack of knowledge.

Actually all beleifs are grounded in some specific knowledge, ie a "flying spaghetti monster" is composed of three facts of existence.

Possibilities cannot be known or unknown fully unless actualized.

They need not be: hence, possibility.

And believing in an unproven fact, which is later proven to be true is possible.

And what is that?

Any-and-everything any such being believes itself to be, but is certainly not.
It depends on the being and the substance(lessness) of their belief.


It is possible to believe in a fact which is not yet proven.

All knowledge as subject to infinite regress is relegated to base assumptions eventually.

Knowledge and infinite regress do not coalesce: the former mandates a cessation of the latter.
Infinite regress is practically meaningless: death intervenes.

False, as the facts as subject to infinite regress become "immortal".

Like eating from both the Tree of Living (Forever) and
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil such to bring suffering and death into the world.

Eternity + Suffering and Death = Eternity of Suffering and Death

Thay resulted in the story from an absence of belief in the Creator's words.

GENESIS 3:22
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"

Death is thus a consequence of bringing suffering and death into the world
(ie. ignorance of the admonishment of Genesis 2:17)
viz. eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
viz. BELIEF
viz. "Believer vs. Unbeliever" = Root of Edenic "Fall"

Solving this conflict reverses the Fall, hence CKIIT.

That is a belief.

[nothing]

Actually all beleifs are grounded in some specific knowledge, ie a "flying spaghetti monster" is composed of three facts of existence.

(!)

Not all beliefs are grounded in some specific knowledge, as "flying spaghetti monster" is neither a "fact" nor composed of three facts of existence (whatever a "fact of existence" is).

And believing in an unproven fact, which is later proven to be true is possible.

It is possible to believe in a fact which is not yet proven.

It is still not knowledge.

False, as the facts as subject to infinite regress become "immortal".

Nonsensical.

Thay (?) resulted in the story from an absence of belief in the Creator's words.

(!)

Replace 'an absence of belief in' with 'ignorance of' and you are correct.

GENESIS 3:12 (KJV)
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

Adam knew not not to blame the woman for "believing" his own actions were on account of the woman.

That is a belief.

It would take a believer to believe otherwise.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually all beleifs are grounded in some specific knowledge, ie a "flying spaghetti monster" is composed of three facts of existence.

(!)

Not all beliefs are grounded in some specific knowledge, as "flying spaghetti monster" is neither a "fact" nor composed of three facts of existence (whatever a "fact of existence" is).


"Flying", "spaghetti" and "monster" exist as is, a beleif in anything requires the reorganziation of prior "as is" states of being.

And believing in an unproven fact, which is later proven to be true is possible.

It is possible to believe in a fact which is not yet proven.

It is still not knowledge.

Knowledge cannot be defined except through knowledge resulting in a fallacy of circularity.

False, as the facts as subject to infinite regress become "immortal".

Nonsensical.

Facts as infinitely regressive always exist. For example this moment will always exist through the moments prior too and after it...with the infinite continuum justifying it.

Thay (?) resulted in the story from an absence of belief in the Creator's words.

(!)

Replace 'an absence of belief in' with 'ignorance of' and you are correct.

Uh no, they where told not to touch it.

GENESIS 3:12 (KJV)
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

Adam knew not not to blame the woman for "believing" his own actions were on account of the woman.

That is a belief.

No again, he used an excuse.

It would take a believer to believe otherwise.

No because the story can be taken as a metaphor as well.

[nothing]

"Flying", "spaghetti" and "monster" exist as is, a beleif (?) in anything requires the reorganziation of prior "as is" states of being.

(!)

Monsters do not exist - the entire expression is unreal.

Knowledge cannot be defined except through knowledge resulting in a fallacy of circularity.

Absence of belief-based ignorance.

Facts as infinitely regressive always exist. For example this moment will always exist through the moments prior too and after it...with the infinite continuum justifying it.

There is no such real phenomena as infinite regression unless it is locally assumed by a particular being (the case here).

Uh no, they where told not to touch it.

They were never told not to "touch" it.

No again, he used an excuse.

He blamed someone else for his own actions.

No because the story can be taken as a metaphor as well.

It is a metaphor.

[Eodnhoj7]

"Flying", "spaghetti" and "monster" exist as is, a beleif (?) in anything requires the reorganziation of prior "as is" states of being.

(!)

Monsters do not exist - the entire expression is unreal.

They exist as symbols and concepts.

Knowledge cannot be defined except through knowledge resulting in a fallacy of circularity.

Absence of belief-based ignorance.

All knowledge is grounded in an undefined assumption, unless it is self referencing at which point the whole string is assumed as is.

We believe our senses to be true based upon prior memories.

Facts as infinitely regressive always exist. For example this moment will always exist through the moments prior too and after it...with the infinite continuum justifying it.

There is no such real phenomena as infinite regression unless it is locally assumed by a particular being (the case here).

False, assumption is continuous in an ever present now, now is infinite. Finiteness is multiple infinities.

Uh no, they where told not to touch it.

They were never told not to "touch" it.

Actually they where told not to touch it.

No again, he used an excuse.

He blamed someone else for his own actions.

No because the story can be taken as a metaphor as well.

It is a metaphor.

For a literal point in time where man decided to seek equality with a higher power, thus breaking themselves from it and becoming unequal.

[nothing]

They exist as symbols and concepts.

Symbols and concepts are born in time, thus die in time, thus are temporary.

All knowledge is grounded in an undefined assumption, unless it is self referencing at which point the whole string is assumed as is.

All belief (not knowledge) is grounded in assumption.

Of course knowledge is self-referencing: the first knowledge/ignorance relates to one's own being. If the being is assumed, it is not knowledge, as knowledge would entail there is no choice but not to assume (!).

We believe our senses to be true based upon prior memories.

Who is "we"?

False, assumption is continuous in an ever present now, now is infinite. Finiteness is multiple infinities.

Do you continually assume you will never die? If so, that assumption will certainly cease.

Assumption is no more continuous than life is: death intervenes such to cease what may otherwise be an infinite regress. This is precisely why one can not both eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (such to bring suffering/death into the world) and the tree of living (forever): the product would be suffering forever.

Infinite regress is clearly absurd.

Actually they where told not to touch it.

Demonstrate anywhere god (not Eve) states not to touch it. If you are referencing Eve recounting to the serpent what she was told by Adam, what she was told by Adam does clearly not reflect anything god said, but what Adam (man) said.

One must eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the same way one must try/test/falsify belief. This is whence true knowledge.

For a literal point in time where man decided to seek equality with a higher power, thus breaking themselves from it and becoming unequal.

This would be believing to know, while knowing not to believe such to be so.
Each has their own local "fall" according to their own eating.

CKIIT can be used to explicitly pinpoint what degree(s) to which a being is fallen if/when using the book of Genesis as a backdrop. Do not worry - it is contextual, as the scope of CKIIT only extends to Judaism/Christianity/Islam (despite having efficacy regardless). If I had made the scope of CKIIT universal (which it technically is regardless) people would certainly whine and squeal about that.

[Eodnhoj7]

They exist as symbols and concepts.

Symbols and concepts are born in time, thus die in time, thus are temporary.

No because the symbols are grounded in the point, line and circle. These forms are self referencing.

All knowledge is grounded in an undefined assumption, unless it is self referencing at which point the whole string is assumed as is.

All belief (not knowledge) is grounded in assumption.

Of course knowledge is self-referencing: the first knowledge/ignorance relates to one's own being. If the being is assumed, it is not knowledge, as knowledge would entail there is no choice but not to assume (!).

Not to assume is to ignore, to ignore is to cease to observe, so yes.

We believe our senses to be true based upon prior memories.

Who is "we"?

People, all knowledge and experience is grounded in memory.

False, assumption is continuous in an ever present now, now is infinite. Finiteness is multiple infinities.

Do you continually assume you will never die? If so, that assumption will certainly cease.

Death is the inversion of one state of awareness to another, it can be observed as the expansion or contraction of the "eternal now".

Assumption is no more continuous than life is: death intervenes such to cease what may otherwise be an infinite regress. This is precisely why one can not both eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (such to bring suffering/death into the world) and the tree of living (forever): the product would be suffering forever.

Infinite regress is clearly absurd.

False, because now is continuous thus infinite.

Actually they where told not to touch it.

Demonstrate anywhere god (not Eve) states not to touch it. If you are referencing Eve recounting to the serpent what she was told by Adam, what she was told by Adam does clearly not reflect anything god said, but what Adam (man) said.

God said thout shall eat of all the trees, except the tree of Life and the tree of good and evil.

One must eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the same way one must try/test/falsify belief. This is whence true knowledge.

Not really, as knowledge necessitates unity and the original state was one of unity, hence the synonymous words conscience and consciousness.

For a literal point in time where man decided to seek equality with a higher power, thus breaking themselves from it and becoming unequal.

This would be believing to know, while knowing not to believe such to be so.
Each has their own local "fall" according to their own eating.

CKIIT can be used to explicitly pinpoint what degree(s) to which a being is fallen if/when using the book of Genesis as a backdrop. Do not worry - it is contextual, as the scope of CKIIT only extends to Judaism/Christianity/Islam (despite having efficacy regardless). If I had made the scope of CKIIT universal (which it technically is regardless) people would certainly whine and squeal about that.

It has to extend past it as Islam has potentially vedic origins according to some experts. Orthodox christianity has many similarities to taoism and buddhism.

[nothing]

No because the symbols are grounded in the point, line and circle. These forms are self referencing.

Point, line and circle reference themselves as preceding symbols upon which symbols are constructed.
Moreover: points lines and circles are themselves mathematical constructs and not real.

Not to assume is to ignore, to ignore is to cease to observe, so yes.

False (one-sided): not to assume may be a valid
conscientious abstinence - not to believe, thus ignore inclination
to continue trying.

I assume not: belief x, knowing it is certainly not necessarily true, thus ignore the preacher on the street.

People, all knowledge and experience is grounded in memory.

Null point (insufficient): so is belief-based ignorance and the people that suffer them.
Intelligence has the capacity to transcend memory entirely, thus not subject to it.

Death is the inversion of one state of awareness to another, it can be observed as the expansion or contraction of the "eternal now".

Believing to have known and realizing one is dead wrong, for example.


√-A = Tree of Living: all-knowledges ceasing suffering/death
√+A = Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil: all-belief-based-ignorance(s) causing suffering/death
*A → -A → √-A = expansion (indefinite)
*A → +A → √+A = collapse (definite)

False, because now is continuous thus infinite.

Continuity neither necessitate nor implies infinitude.

God said thout shall eat of all the trees, except the tree of Life and the tree of good and evil.

Incredibly false (!) Where in the book of Genesis do you see such nonsense?

God indicated one may freely eat from any tree less: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Elohim indicated because man has eaten, less he eat also from the tree of living (forever)
(such to bring suffering and death into the world forever).

√+A suffering x √-A living forever = living suffering forever
hence: death.



Can not do both: death intervenes.

Not really, as knowledge necessitates unity and the original state was one of unity, hence the synonymous words conscience and consciousness.

conscience = self science
+choice
=consciousness

Knowledge necessitates choosing correctly: to / not to BELIEVE.

It has to extend past it as Islam has potentially vedic origins according to some experts. Orthodox christianity has many similarities to taoism and buddhism.

The Vedas depict Muhammad as a master illusionist whose religion is to "make loud noises" and "consume everything".

In any event: there is a knowledge threshold that, if/when reached, collapses Judaism/Christianity/Islam under a gravity that renders such null.

[Eodnhoj7]

No because the symbols are grounded in the point, line and circle. These forms are self referencing.

Point, line and circle reference themselves as preceding symbols upon which symbols are constructed.
Moreover: points lines and circles are themselves mathematical constructs and not real.

False they are really as spatial movement. All repetitive phenomenon loop. The movement of a particle, even under a curve, is linear as movement from A to B.

Not to assume is to ignore, to ignore is to cease to observe, so yes.

False (one-sided): not to assume may be a valid
conscientious abstinence - not to believe, thus ignore inclination
to continue trying.

I assume not: belief x, knowing it is certainly not necessarily true, thus ignore the preacher on the street.
False, there is not proof that one cannot believe. All habits and plans are grounded in beliefs.

People, all knowledge and experience is grounded in memory.

Null point (insufficient): so is belief-based ignorance and the people that suffer them.
Intelligence has the capacity to transcend memory entirely, thus not subject to it.

People suffer from knowledge as well...there is no evidence of a complete absence of suffering in the world. Your belief that suffering can be completely eradicated due to a theory is well... a belief.

I haven't read the rest.

Death is the inversion of one state of awareness to another, it can be observed as the expansion or contraction of the "eternal now".

Believing to have known and realizing one is dead wrong, for example.


√-A = Tree of Living: all-knowledges ceasing suffering/death
√+A = Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil: all-belief-based-ignorance(s) causing suffering/death
*A → -A → √-A = expansion (indefinite)
*A → +A → √+A = collapse (definite)

False, because now is continuous thus infinite.

Continuity neither necessitate nor implies infinitude.

God said thout shall eat of all the trees, except the tree of Life and the tree of good and evil.

Incredibly false (!) Where in the book of Genesis do you see such nonsense?

God indicated one may freely eat from any tree less: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Elohim indicated because man has eaten, less he eat also from the tree of living (forever)
(such to bring suffering and death into the world forever).

√+A suffering x √-A living forever = living suffering forever
hence: death.



Can not do both: death intervenes.

Not really, as knowledge necessitates unity and the original state was one of unity, hence the synonymous words conscience and consciousness.

conscience = self science
+choice
=consciousness

Knowledge necessitates choosing correctly: to / not to BELIEVE.

It has to extend past it as Islam has potentially vedic origins according to some experts. Orthodox christianity has many similarities to taoism and buddhism.

The Vedas depict Muhammad as a master illusionist whose religion is to "make loud noises" and "consume everything".

In any event: there is a knowledge threshold that, if/when reached, collapses Judaism/Christianity/Islam under a gravity that renders such null.

[nothing]

False they are really as spatial movement. All repetitive phenomenon loop. The movement of a particle, even under a curve, is linear as movement from A to B.

Points, lines and circles are not "really as spatial movement".
It's fine to model creation - not fine to mistake the model for creation.
Repetition is qualitative, not quantitative.
I don't know what one could possibly mean by a particle moving "under a curve".

False, there is not proof that one cannot believe. All habits and plans are grounded in beliefs.

Clearly nonsense - human development could not have / can not occur if not for the capacity to try not to / cease belief.
Habits and plans can be broken - the same with the belief(s) which sustains them.

People suffer from knowledge as well...there is no evidence of a complete absence of suffering in the world. Your belief that suffering can be completely eradicated due to a theory is well... a belief.

People suffer from lack of knowledge. Example: you suffer somehow believing that I believe there is and/or ever has been a complete absence of suffering in the world, and that suffering can be completely eradicated. I have never indicated anything of the sort: CKIIT is an orientation system that tends towards the cessation of suffering according to the capacity of that being, thus not the eradication of it.

I haven't read the rest.

I know not to believe that - there is no contention, thus playing ignorant is the only way out.

[Eodnhoj7]

False they are really as spatial movement. All repetitive phenomenon loop. The movement of a particle, even under a curve, is linear as movement from A to B.

Points, lines and circles are not "really as spatial movement".

"Real"...my bad.

And yes spatial movement, movement is the inversion of one static state to another, thus movement is multiplicity.

The line is the progression of one point to another, the same with the circle, with both observing the progression of the point from one state to another.

It's fine to model creation - not fine to mistake the model for creation.

False, all models of creation exist as a subset of creation thus are "creation" itself.

Repetition is qualitative, not quantitative.

All numbers are variations of 1 and themselves through 1, numbers are recursive.

I don't know what one could possibly mean by a particle moving "under a curve".

Curvature is the projection of one point to another position through multiple position. If point A moves to point B under a curve, it is manifesting an infinite number of directions through its progress in one direction.

In moving one direction it is moving in multiple directions.

False, there is not proof that one cannot believe. All habits and plans are grounded in beliefs.

Clearly nonsense - human development could not have / can not occur if not for the capacity to try not to / cease belief.

False that is an assertion based upon belief, much of science was grounded in trying to understand (a) God(s) the scientist(s) believed in.

Habits and plans can be broken - the same with the belief(s) which sustains them.

Knowledge can be broken as well, there is no proof of knowing everything as proof is knowledge and a fallacy of circularity results.

People suffer from knowledge as well...there is no evidence of a complete absence of suffering in the world. Your belief that suffering can be completely eradicated due to a theory is well... a belief.

People suffer from lack of knowledge.

False, a person can suffer for having knowledge of a loved one's betrayal. They may also suffering from knowing they will die. Wisdom and sorrow go hand in hand.

Example: you suffer somehow believing that I believe there is and/or ever has been a complete absence of suffering in the world, and that suffering can be completely eradicated. I have never indicated anything of the sort: CKIIT is an orientation system that tends towards the cessation of suffering according to the capacity of that being, thus not the eradication of it.

I haven't read the rest.

I know not to believe that - there is no contention, thus playing ignorant is the only way out.

No, I just can't take your theory seriously and my evidence is the number of responses your theory has merited online here. It is gibberish, for such a ground breaking theory is appears only you understand it.

[Systematic]

An actual God would require a minimum of two characteristics - they must be capable of existence [ so not metaphysical ]
and possess at least one ability that is significantly superior to that of humans or any other member of the animal kingdom

Why not make people feel good about themselves? A god that goes to work. Works a full day. Then he rides the train home. Then he discusses other people discussing events on the television. Then he takes a shower. Then he goes to bed. And he wakes up to do it all again.

We'll call him Normis—the god of doing everything by the book. He's extremely popular. His addiction is hard to break—like that of Venus or Mammon.