The tree of knowledge

[Immanuel Can]

God wants you to choose G1 which is good but you choose G2 which is good too so you can choose against God while not being punished).

Well, let's see if that's true.

Give me an example you're happy with.

[Dontaskme]

The real question is: WHO told you you exist at all?

Well, that's not MY question. If you want to ask it, go ahead. I'm not troubled by that.

Descartes covered it, actually.

Alright then, by using what is not your thought, rather, it is Descartes thought known by you as ''I think therefore I am''

Then it was you who told you exist because Descartes already covered it, so it was Descartes that told you you exist, is that correct?

[Immanuel Can]

... it was Descartes that told you you exist, is that correct?

No, actually. Descartes only made articulate that which is both intuitive and rational for all people.

He put into words the simple fact that it's simply not possible to (rationally) doubt one's own existence, because there is then no doubter to make the doubt happen. That realization is so basic that it doesn't really require a philosophical explanation...but Descartes was helpful in making it clear to us what we were already doing...taking our own existence as a 'given.' It IS a given.

[bahman]

no, absolutely not

the Life that God gave Adam (Luk 3:38 "Adam, which was the son of God.") which included God's image and likeness, requires belief and trust (faith) in the Lord God's Word to live it. so no you're incorrect. the tree of Life was also available to A&E before the trouble began.

he believed and or trusted her, and she believed and or trust in the words of the serpent.

So Serpent sinned first for lying to Eve? They were fooled by Serpent.

read it for yourself

I read it several times.

[bahman]

God wants you to choose G1 which is good but you choose G2 which is good too so you can choose against God while not being punished).

Well, let's see if that's true.

Give me an example you're happy with.

God asks me to choose between Vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream. I know that He wants me to choose vanilla ice cream because He told me. But I choose chocolate ice cream to exercise my free will. Both are happy. You can replace ice creams with any other good things or actions.

[Dontaskme]

... it was Descartes that told you you exist, is that correct?

No, actually. Descartes only made articulate that which is both intuitive and rational for all people.

But it was You IC who was being asked to answer the question ''WHO told you you exist''
Then you replied you wasn't bothered by the question, and yet went on to answer the question only because you knew someone else who knew the answer to the original question I asked you, the one that you said you were not bothered about. . it's like you were not bothered about the question, meaning you could not be bothered about answering it. And yet you did bother to answer it by saying someone else knew the answer that we all already know intuitively anyway.
So why couldn't you have just answered the question directly yourself. Why quote another persons answer? do you have an issue with copyrighting other peoples thoughts or something?

[Immanuel Can]

God wants you to choose G1 which is good but you choose G2 which is good too so you can choose against God while not being punished).

Well, let's see if that's true.

Give me an example you're happy with.

God asks me to choose between Vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream.

Well, it's not a moral choice...that's just aesthetic.

I know that He wants me to choose vanilla ice cream because He told me.

Aha. Now you've made it into a moral issue...but not because of ice cream at all. What you've said is, "Is it okay for me to go against the explicit commandments of God." The issue now becomes disobedience, not taste. And the answer is that to disobey God is to violate one's relationship with Him.

It's the same as if your wife asked you not to put your feet on the coffee table. You might decide that putting your feet on the coffee table is fine, and that you like to do it, and that you want to exercise your free will to do it. But you won't be surprised if you wife feels that your decision to ignore her preferences and to carry on as if she doesn't exist is somewhat insulting to her...and violates your duty to be caring about what she desires. You've now turned a coffee table into a battleground over more important issues.

So now you're not talking about merely neutral choices at all. One is genuinely good (to respect your wife), and one is genuinely evil (to treat her as if she doesn't matter), and you can't be surprised if your relationship with her goes bad as a result.

[Immanuel Can]

... it was Descartes that told you you exist, is that correct?

No, actually. Descartes only made articulate that which is both intuitive and rational for all people.

But it was You IC who was being asked to answer the question ''WHO told you you exist''

The problem was just that the question was ill-formed. It presupposed that a person can't know she exists without somebody telling her she does. But that's obviously wrong.

So I have to reject the presupposition...to continue with it will not yield a logical or true result. And I presume we're looking for truth here, no?

[DPMartin]

So Serpent sinned first for lying to Eve? They were fooled by Serpent.

read it for yourself

I read it several times.

then what are you asking us for if you know already

how about something worthy of thought, that applies to what you've read

[Dontaskme]

No, actually. Descartes only made articulate that which is both intuitive and rational for all people.

But it was You IC who was being asked to answer the question ''WHO told you you exist''

The problem was just that the question was ill-formed. It presupposed that a person can't know she exists without somebody telling her she does. But that's obviously wrong.

So I have to reject the presupposition...to continue with it will not yield a logical or true result. And I presume we're looking for truth here, no?

IC..I'm just asking you HOW all of us, not just you...how we know we exist. That's all.

Just be honest and direct...how does a human being know it exists? I'm talking about knowing here, I'm talking about knowledge. The action of knowing. Who is knowing this action of knowing?

If that's a presupposition..then the answer is no one is knowing the action of knowing, it's just an assumption, or belief that a person knows it is a person. So then that still does not touch the knower does it, because now ''the knower'' must also be a presupposition.

[Immanuel Can]

IC..I'm just asking you HOW all of us, not just you...how we know we exist. That's all.

And I'm answering "Intuitively and rationally. We all just know."

We take it for granted the minute we come our of our mothers' wombs, and we never forget it. Descartes explained to us rationally why it is we do that; he did not make it happen, nor did he make it rational to do so. It was already rational. He just explained what we already knew.

[Dontaskme]

IC..I'm just asking you HOW all of us, not just you...how we know we exist. That's all.

And I'm answering "Intuitively and rationally. We all just know."

No IC..we only think we know...remember... I think therefore I am

Am I a thought ? - Or is thought who I am ?

Has a thought ever been SEEN? .. NO, a thought is only KNOWN ... The thinker has never be seen. You are a thought without a thinker.

We take it for granted the minute we come our of our mothers' wombs, and we never forget it. Descartes explained to us rationally why it is we do that; he did not make it happen, nor did he make it rational to do so. It was already rational. He just explained what we already knew.

Descartes was wrong. We know nothing except what is perceived to be conceived and then believed....without ever once clapping eyes on the assumed perceiver, conceiver, believer...it is only as and through the organic biological sense organs that we are tricked into knowing the action of knowing, as reflexive reaction .. and just as pain and odour and touch and taste is NEVER SEEN...there is no one to own those senses and call them mine.

We observe and experience senses and thoughts to come and go, so we are not the same as them.The one who observes the senses and thoughts and experiences them...is known only as and through a material body, and when that body dies everything known collapses and returns to the nothingness from which it appeared.

[Immanuel Can]

IC..I'm just asking you HOW all of us, not just you...how we know we exist. That's all.

And I'm answering "Intuitively and rationally. We all just know."

No IC..we only think we know...

No, you say we only think we know. I say we all know.

[Dontaskme]

And I'm answering "Intuitively and rationally. We all just know."

No IC..we only think we know...

No, you say we only think we know. I say we all know.

Your argument is weak.

There I is known.

But the knower of I is not known.

[bahman]

Well, let's see if that's true.

Give me an example you're happy with.

God asks me to choose between Vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream.

Well, it's not a moral choice...that's just aesthetic.

I know that He wants me to choose vanilla ice cream because He told me.

Aha. Now you've made it into a moral issue...but not because of ice cream at all. What you've said is, "Is it okay for me to go against the explicit commandments of God." The issue now becomes disobedience, not taste. And the answer is that to disobey God is to violate one's relationship with Him.

It's the same as if your wife asked you not to put your feet on the coffee table. You might decide that putting your feet on the coffee table is fine, and that you like to do it, and that you want to exercise your free will to do it. But you won't be surprised if you wife feels that your decision to ignore her preferences and to carry on as if she doesn't exist is somewhat insulting to her...and violates your duty to be caring about what she desires. You've now turned a coffee table into a battleground over more important issues.

So now you're not talking about merely neutral choices at all. One is genuinely good (to respect your wife), and one is genuinely evil (to treat her as if she doesn't matter), and you can't be surprised if your relationship with her goes bad as a result.

So why God bother to create a free agent if the agent cannot even decide between two good things. Just make a robot.