The tree of knowledge

[Immanuel Can]

But the knower of I is not known.

If there is a knower, then the knower knows that there is a knower. She may no be sure what kind of knower that is, but she can no longer rationally doubt that there is a knower...for then, there would be nobody to doubt it.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

That's a great point.

A "robot" is the opposite of a "free agent." A "free agent" has to have at least the real option to choose something she wants, that God does not want. That does not mean she has to choose to disobey God; but it does mean that if she did decide to disobey God, she would be allowed to do that. And my suggestion is that God wants agents who can freely choose to have a relationship with Him; but that would entail that they also would have to have the freedom NOT to choose God, and NOT to relate to Him.

However, we don't thing much of forced "relationships," do we? I mean, we have names for such things, but they aren't polite names... So apparently God wants genuine relationship-having beings, not robots. And having such beings means allowing them a choice...even if one of those choices is a very bad idea.

But is ice cream a genuine "good"? It's certainly not a moral "good." So maybe the example wasn't such a great one. Are you inclined to think of another...maybe something that has a moral dimension to it?

[Dontaskme]

But the knower of I is not known.

If there is a knower, then the knower knows that there is a knower. She may no be sure what kind of knower that is, but she can no longer rationally doubt that there is a knower...for then, there would be nobody to doubt it.

IC...what's being said here is KNOWN

Can the Known know?

[bahman]

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


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.

That's a great point.

A "robot" is the opposite of a "free agent." A "free agent" has to have at least the real option to choose something she wants, that God does not want. That does not mean she has to choose to disobey God; but it does mean that if she did decide to disobey God, she would be allowed to do that. And my suggestion is that God wants agents who can freely choose to have a relationship with Him; but that would entail that they also would have to have the freedom NOT to choose God, and NOT to relate to Him.

However, we don't thing much of forced "relationships," do we? I mean, we have names for such things, but they aren't polite names... So apparently God wants genuine relationship-having beings, not robots. And having such beings means allowing them a choice...even if one of those choices is a very bad idea.

But is ice cream a genuine "good"? It's certainly not a moral "good." So maybe the example wasn't such a great one. Are you inclined to think of another...maybe something that has a moral dimension to it?

I know that you believe in Heaven. Don't you think that only good things available there?

[Immanuel Can]

Can the Known know?

Now were speaking in vague cyphers. If we do that, we're going to lose our way here. Let's keep it plain.

Are you asking if a person who knows something can be known? Or what is it you are actually asking: I'm having trouble decoding it.

[Immanuel Can]

I know that you believe in Heaven. Don't you think that only good things available there?

Well, I hesitate to use the word "Heaven," because so much secular mythology, misinformation and just plain ignorance of the Scriptures attaches to that term. It makes it hard for me to know what you mean when you ask about "Heaven" -- I can't guess which idea is in your mind without knowing you better. So I don't quite know how to respond to that.

But I think maybe you're trying to say, "If people are, in the afterlife, given only good things to do, does that mean they have no free will anymore," or something like that...am I getting close?

[bahman]

I know that you believe in Heaven. Don't you think that only good things available there?

Well, I hesitate to use the word "Heaven," because so much secular mythology, misinformation and just plain ignorance of the Scriptures attaches to that term. It makes it hard for me to know what you mean when you ask about "Heaven" -- I can't guess which idea is in your mind without knowing you better. So I don't quite know how to respond to that.

But I think maybe you're trying to say, "If people are, in the afterlife, given only good things to do, does that mean they have no free will anymore," or something like that...am I getting close?

Yes.

[Dontaskme]

Can the Known know?

Now were speaking in vague cyphers. If we do that, we're going to lose our way here. Let's keep it plain.

Are you asking if a person who knows something can be known? Or what is it you are actually asking: I'm having trouble decoding it.

I'm trying to keep it as plain as possible IC ..are you thinking that I am complicating the heck out of this debate?
I find the idea that there is a God that we can have a loving everlasting relationship with, very complicated.

I'm asking can a thing that is known..aka a ''Known Thing'' know it exists? can a thing known know it knows it is a thing?

[Immanuel Can]

I know that you believe in Heaven. Don't you think that only good things available there?

Well, I hesitate to use the word "Heaven," because so much secular mythology, misinformation and just plain ignorance of the Scriptures attaches to that term. It makes it hard for me to know what you mean when you ask about "Heaven" -- I can't guess which idea is in your mind without knowing you better. So I don't quite know how to respond to that.

But I think maybe you're trying to say, "If people are, in the afterlife, given only good things to do, does that mean they have no free will anymore," or something like that...am I getting close?

Yes.

Well, the answer to that is simply that free will entails that one has no less than one opportunity for genuine choice (but possibly more) to do something other than what God chooses. But beyond that, a choice, once made, is a choice.

It's like what happens at a wedding: two people freely agree to "forsaking all others, as long as they both shall live." That choice is made freely; but once made, it sticks. The fact that they keep to it afterwards does not mean the choice to forsake others was forced or not genuinely free. In fact, it is all the more significant, because it shows that it was genuinely the choice they committed to.

[Immanuel Can]

I find the idea that there is a God that we can have a loving everlasting relationship with, very complicated.

I accept that. But is there a particular reason that it is "complicated" to you?

can a thing known know it knows it is a thing?

I'm doing it right now.

I know that I am a human being. I know that I am knowing I am a human being.

[bahman]

Well, I hesitate to use the word "Heaven," because so much secular mythology, misinformation and just plain ignorance of the Scriptures attaches to that term. It makes it hard for me to know what you mean when you ask about "Heaven" -- I can't guess which idea is in your mind without knowing you better. So I don't quite know how to respond to that.

But I think maybe you're trying to say, "If people are, in the afterlife, given only good things to do, does that mean they have no free will anymore," or something like that...am I getting close?

Yes.

Well, the answer to that is simply that free will entails that one has no less than one opportunity for genuine choice (but possibly more) to do something other than what God chooses. But beyond that, a choice, once made, is a choice.

It's like what happens at a wedding: two people freely agree to "forsaking all others, as long as they both shall live." That choice is made freely; but once made, it sticks. The fact that they keep to it afterwards does not mean the choice to forsake others was forced or not genuinely free. In fact, it is all the more significant, because it shows that it was genuinely the choice they committed to.

So you agree that a world that everything is good in it is possible. Like a Paradise without the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes.

Well, the answer to that is simply that free will entails that one has no less than one opportunity for genuine choice (but possibly more) to do something other than what God chooses. But beyond that, a choice, once made, is a choice.

It's like what happens at a wedding: two people freely agree to "forsaking all others, as long as they both shall live." That choice is made freely; but once made, it sticks. The fact that they keep to it afterwards does not mean the choice to forsake others was forced or not genuinely free. In fact, it is all the more significant, because it shows that it was genuinely the choice they committed to.

So you agree that a world that everything is good in it is possible.

Such a world is possible: but such a world, with there having been no other kind of world, but with free will in it, is not. We already saw that you can't have free will if there's no point at which you had any opportunity to depart from the will of another. But once you have had such an opportunity, free will is thereafter possible.

[bahman]

Well, the answer to that is simply that free will entails that one has no less than one opportunity for genuine choice (but possibly more) to do something other than what God chooses. But beyond that, a choice, once made, is a choice.

It's like what happens at a wedding: two people freely agree to "forsaking all others, as long as they both shall live." That choice is made freely; but once made, it sticks. The fact that they keep to it afterwards does not mean the choice to forsake others was forced or not genuinely free. In fact, it is all the more significant, because it shows that it was genuinely the choice they committed to.

So you agree that a world that everything is good in it is possible.

Such a world is possible: but such a world, with there having been no other kind of world, but with free will in it, is not. We already saw that you can't have free will if there's no point at which you had any opportunity to depart from the will of another. But once you have had such an opportunity, free will is thereafter possible.

Why did God bother creating the tree? What do you think?

[Immanuel Can]

Why did God bother creating the tree? What do you think?

The existence of, at minimum, one forbidden thing was the minimal requirement necessary if mankind was going to make a free choice of relationship with God. Without such an option, there would have been no free will possible. The relationship between God and man could never have been anything but volitionless on the the human side.

In other words, we would have been robots.

The risk of giving mankind a genuinely free choice was that mankind would not choose the good, but would choose the evil. And, of course, mankind did that. But was the possibility of volitional relationship worth it? Yes.

[Impenitent]

Hahaha!!

Not sure about the squirrels, but the problem is, if you've been a naughty boy and keep returning to eat from the tree, the medical profession might end up with a visit from you, and deem you insane. (which has certain advantages though!)

btw Are there more pens or pennies in tents? Is it intense or intents being Impenitent?

that's a question for Lemmy

-Imp

Ah, the dude that works on the line for God...Lemmy Hem Dicks. (I thought you were talking about that cannibal rock dude for a moment there!)

cannibal rock? no remorse

-Imp