God's Knowledge

[Tetsugaku]

Strawman. Okay, but I am not arguing that am I, but YOU are. Understand?

You misunderstand. I am not arguing for knowledge being a form of belief. I am pointing out that this is what logically follows from the premises of your argument.

I am arguing belief is knowledge.

No, you are erroneously concluding that belief is a form of knowledge based on premises which instead prove the opposite.

No, you just keep strawmanning, because you can't deal with the argument directly.

You don't seem to understand when someone is dealing directly with your argument, as I am doing right now.

Huge strawman. Okay. But I am NOT arguing for any of that. So, why do you think I have to justify and answer questions for something that I am not arguing to begin with; but you are? That's called strawmanning. Understand? Focus, focus man.

I didn't say you were arguing for this. What you have been arguing for is an invalid inference of the form "X forms Y, therefore X is a form of Y". What I just gave you was a list of counterexamples proving that you have the grammar backwards. Here are those examples again. Notice how they are all in the reverse direction, i.e. "X forms Y, therefore Y is a form of X":

1. Clay forms the statue, therefore the statue is a form of the clay.
2. Carbon forms coal, therefore coal is a form of carbon.
3. H2O forms ice, therefore ice is a form of H2O.
4. Thinking forms mental images, therefore mental images are a form of thought.
5. Life forms mammals, therefore mammals are a form of life.

Do you disagree with any of these examples? Because they all show how you are using "a form of" backwards.

A - Belief in reality = Trump was president of the US in 2019
B - Knowledge of reality = Trump was president of the US in 2019

A = B

A belief in reality = knowledge of reality

This doesn't address what you were replying to. Focus, Tercon! If you disagree with the correct grammar illustrated by my examples, then please provide a single supporting example - other than the belief/knowledge one currently in dispute - supporting your alternate and backwards usage of <X forms Y, therefore X is a form of Y>.

 

[Tercon]

You misunderstand. I am not arguing for knowledge being a form of belief. I am pointing out that this is what logically follows from the premises of your argument.

No, I don't "misunderstand". I am quite sure that you are strawmanning, because I am NOT arguing for "knowledge being a form of belief". So, why do you think I have to justify and answer for something that I am not arguing to begin with?

No, you are erroneously concluding that belief is a form of knowledge based on premises which instead prove the opposite.

But your strawmanning didn't refute any of my premises, so what are you referring to silly?

You don't seem to understand when someone is dealing directly with your argument, as I am doing right now.

No you're not, as you saying that my argument concludes "knowledge being a form of belief", when my argument didn't conclude nor say that to begin with isn't "dealing directly with" my "argument" at all, rather that's called a strawman. Understand? Focus

 

[Temujin]

No, I don't "misunderstand". I am quite sure that you are strawmanning, because I am NOT arguing for "knowledge being a form of belief". So, why do you think I have to justify and answer for something that I am not arguing to begin with?

because you have just been proved wrong.

But your strawmanning didn't refute any of my premises, so what are you referring to silly?

On the contrary. It proves that you are wrong. You just haven't the nouse to recognise it.

No you're not, as you saying that my argument concludes "knowledge being a form of belief", when my argument didn't conclude nor say that to begin with isn't "dealing directly with" my "argument" at all, rather that's called a strawman. Understand? Focus

That's because your argument is wrong. Your argument doesn't prove what you say it does. It proves the opposite, that knowledge is a form of belief. You have refused to face up to the clear fact, shown multiple times now that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Saying that it does, doesn't make it so. You need to demonstrate the truth of your argument, not just state it.

Quote apart from anything else, the fact that you believe this cockamamie nonsense is itself proof that what you believe is not always true.

 

[Tetsugaku]

No, I don't "misunderstand". I am quite sure that you are strawmanning, because I am NOT arguing for "knowledge being a form of belief".

You do misunderstand. I am not strawmanning because I am not attributing to you the conclusion that knowledge is a form of belief. I am rather explaining that this is the only conclusion supported by your premises.

But your strawmanning didn't refute any of my premises, so what are you referring to silly?

I am not disputing your premises. I am disputing the backwards conclusion you are erroneously drawing from them.

No you're not, as you saying that my argument concludes "knowledge being a form of belief", when my argument didn't conclude nor say that to begin with isn't "dealing directly with" my "argument" at all, rather that's called a strawman.

That's not what I was saying. Focus, Tercon! My point was that knowledge being a form of belief is a conclusion that you could validly derive from your premises. The conclusion you have instead actually derived (i.e. that belief is a form of knowledge) is invalid and does not follow from your premises. The examples you just ignored prove this beyond any doubt, which is probably why you haven't even tried to address them.