Two Trees

I am...
...I know I am...
...I believe I am...
...I am... I am... two trees.

If all-knowing implies knowing any/all,
does all-believing imply believing any/all..?

...I am...
...I am...
two trees.

If belief is (in and of itself) a state of being in which ignorance resides,
is knowledge (in and of itself) a state of being in which ignorance resides, not..?

...I am...
...I am...
two trees.

If all-believing begets all belief-based ignorance, what purpose might knowledge serve (to protect against)?
If any all-knowing god exists, would it not all-knowingly know what all not to believe (and knowingly why)?

...I am...
...I am...
two trees.

If any/all belief-based ignorance *requires* belief itself (would that any believer believe so-called evil is good),
does any/all knowledge-based-knowing *require* (so as to never confuse) knowing any/all of what not to "believe"?

...I believe I am...
...one tree...
I know I am...
...one tree...
I am... I am...
...two trees...
and in between
them is a 'that'
so know I am
to know 'that':
else is belief.

Any/all knowledge is by way of trying any/all belief, but
not any/all belief is by way of trying to know all.