Why did God create the tree of knowledge?

[Iacchus]

I don't think you understand the words I'm using.

Not that that's anything new.

It must be a different language then, huh?

 

[scribble]

It must be a different language then, huh?

I can think of at least one other possibility:

You are an ignoramus.

 

[Piscivore]

And yet do you realize that the whole of the English language is nothing but an equivocation?

Used properly, the opposite is true. It is only when one uses vague words that there is a problem. Let me illustrate with the playground rejoinder:

"I love tunafish." - "Well, why don't you marry it!"

See how that works? Now If I'd said "I really enjoy eating tunafish", the equivocation is not possible.

So what are you doing equivocating with me? Because I can assure you, that's exactly what it feels like.

Tell me how I seem to be equivocating. I am going out of my way to use clear, precise language.

Do you believe in right and wrong?

"Right" and "wrong" are not matters of belief in themselves- they are subjective value judgements. On can only "beleive" in the validity of the application of these judgements to actions.

Or, is meaning pretty much a matter of what we wish to ascribe to it?

"Meaning" is unrelated to "right and wrong"; but yes- meaning is also subjective. The "meaning" of the attack on NY in 2001 is going to be signifigantly different for me, who live 2000mi away and knew no one in NYC at the time, than for someone who lived in NYC at the time and lost a friend or family member in the attack. And both of those will differ than its meaning to a member of Al-Qaeda, which may in turn differ from its meaning to bin Laden. There is no more "absolute meaning" than there is absolute space or absolute time. I'd tell you to read "that book by that wheelchair guy" to see why I say that- but you won't. There's a video, I don't know your stand on that.

In other words what do you know, outside of that which has no meaning?

Knowing that meaning is subjective, trying to claim that there is either universal, absolute meaning or none at all is naive and/or dishonest. So by repeating this over and over, you are showing yourself to be a fool or a liar.

We are giving you the benefit of the doubt here, Iacchus, and that's why scribble calls you "such a cute aspiring little sophist."

 

[The Cats Venm]

Why? Because if there were no absolute standards to existence would we exist? What would keep the Universe from "winking out" at any time now? And why hasn't it winked out before in the last 20 billion years?

I was just making a joke in reference to the biblical God.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[scribble]

We are giving you the benefit of the doubt here, Iacchus, and that's why scribble calls you "such a cute aspiring little sophist."

It's true. I really want to believe that if Iacchus dropped the attempt at sophistry, act or not, he might come across as a cool guy. Maybe he'd at least make some points that are interesting.

 

[Iacchus]

It's true. I really want to believe that if Iacchus dropped the attempt at sophistry, act or not, he might come across as a cool guy. Maybe he'd at least make some points that are interesting.

Unfortunately I have a short attention span, and if I do express anything meaningful, it's not me that's expressed it. Meaning doesn't exist outside of the present moment by the way. So, just pretend like I was never here, Okay?

 

[Piscivore]

Unfortunately I have a short attention span, and if I do express anything meaningful, it's not me that's expressed it. Meaning doesn't exist outside of the present moment by the way. So just pretend like I was never here, Okay?

Trying to pull a Heraclitus on us? I thought you didn't read, man?

 

[Iacchus]

Trying to pull a Heraclitus on us? I thought you didn't read, man?

Have heard of him, but am unfamiliar with his works. Same thing with the Sophists. Neither was I too familiar with Aristotle, until someone started calling me Aristotle in another thread. But then again, maybe I just watched Kung Fu too much when I was a kid?

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, but how it is possible that we can even agree to that? Even if we said meaning was relative, that would still be an absolute wouldn't it?

I don't get what you are saying, if it is relative to personal perspective then it can't be absolute.

 

[Dancing David]

Unfortunately I have a short attention span, and if I do express anything meaningful, it's not me that's expressed it. Meaning doesn't exist outside of the present moment by the way. So, just pretend like I was never here, Okay?

Truer words were never spoke.

 

[Piscivore]

So, by resorting to jokes, Iacchus, is that tacit admission you have no answers to those questions, then?

 

[Iacchus]

So, by resorting to jokes, Iacchus, is that tacit admission you have no answers to those questions, then?

Which questions were those? Am afraid I left the building on that one a long time ago.

By the way, the only meaning which is to be had is by you.

 

[LostAngeles]

Unfortunately I have a short attention span, and if I do express anything meaningful, it's not me that's expressed it. Meaning doesn't exist outside of the present moment by the way. So, just pretend like I was never here, Okay?

So do I! Big deal!

My head's so stuffed full of crap, it's come full circle and amounts to nothing, and I can express something meaningful or a contribution once in a while. A blue moon. All right, a millenia.

Come on, man. Stop being the Semantics From Hell Dude. Scribble might be right. You might actually be a pretty funny guy.

 

[Iacchus]

I don't get what you are saying, if it is relative to personal perspective then it can't be absolute.

By saying everything is relative, you're saying relativity is absolute. In which case it must be more than just that, because we can also hold that other axioms are true. So maybe in that sense there's a whole world of axioms which entail perfection itself, of which the physical world is the relative manifestation of?

 

[Piscivore]

Which questions were those? Am afraid I left the building on that one a long time ago.

Don't worry about it. I'm used to people making jokes when they don't understand what I say. It's a defense mechanism- I see it all the time in my job, and it's one I had to deal with as a child. Even my kids are getting it now, because I've taught them an extensive vocabulary. You don't know how many times we've been in Walmart and I've watched their conversations with me (they are 10 and 8) go right over the heads of adults nearby- you can see it on the adults' faces.

Anyway. Proud dad = Me.

The questions as they now stand:

Explain how "perfection" is perceivable.

You've said is that "perfect" is a standard. A standard measuring what?

If it is a standard that is human-created- why must we "look for" it?

Explain what "it's influx into our minds" means. Is perfection just a concept, or an actual force or entity?

How does a human relate to the "standard" of "perfection"?

Are there humans that are "more perfect"?

In what ways?

How does an axiom, such as 1 + 1 = 2, allude to perfection?

 

[Iacchus]

Please read the above reply (before yours).

 

[Piscivore]

By saying everything is relative, you're saying relativity is absolute.

Heh, hazards of (near-)simultaneaous postings.

Let's get the definition up first:

ab·so·lute
adj.

1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
2. Not mixed; pure. See Synonyms at pure.
3a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
3b. Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence.
4. Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an absolute ruler.
5. Not to be doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof.

Yes, you actually have a point here: Relativity is absolute. But in sense Three only. One, Two and Four are just nonsensical relating to this concept, and Five is the antithesis of science.

In which case it must be more than just that, because we can also hold that other axioms are true.

Here is where you go wrong: One concept being absolute does not give it any relationship at all with another concept that may or may not be absolute.

Note that this does not presuppose that no relationship exists, only that it is not based on their "absoluteness".

So maybe in that sense there's a whole world of axioms which entail perfection itself,

Which definition of "perfection"? By "perfection itself" are you saying that "perfection is a discrete entity, rather than just an idea? If so, how do axioms (which are just intellectual constructs themselves) "entail" perfection?

of which the physical world is the relative manifestation of?

So, in other words, you are subscribing to Platonic realism?

 

[Earthborn]

Why did God create the tree of knowledge?

Yes, and why did God create the Serpent to entice Adam and Eve to disobey him?

I've thought about this, and I can come to only one conclusion: God wanted Adam and Eve to disobey Him. The Tree of Knowledge was a test: a test to see whether they were disobedient enough to His liking.

We read that people were created in God's image. Then when we disobey Him, He tells us that we are 'like one of Us to know of Good and Evil.' Apperently God's mission is accomplished: we are created in his image.

Perhaps it is easier to understand if we assume that God is not a single entity, but instead a group of beings that had a long history like ourselves. God is described as Elohim, which is plural, and describes Himself in plural.
Perhaps we can imagine Them as aliens. We can imagine how the crew of the Enterprise is worshipped as Gods if they meet a less advanced species. Certainly a highly technologically advanced species is indistinguishable from deities.

So suppose this species came to Earth and created humans and They hope that we will become like Them in the future. So They set up a test: we get a choice between obeying Them and living in Paradise for ever, or disobeying Them, showing Them our independence and our desire to shape our own lives. If we choose the latter, we will be put into the real world where hardship will neccessitate us to create our own destiny and because of that we will eventually evolve into a species just like Them.

If you look at it like that, neither of the two choices is a punishment. Adam and Eve could have chosen to obey and they would have lived happily for the rest of eternity while being cared for by Them. But instead they yearned for knowledge, and because of that we end up where we are today.

I think the story symbolizes the choice all of us are faced with in our lives: we can choose to remain ignorant and if we do life seems simple and we can be happy as long as we follow rules we believe come from God. But we can also choose to search for knowledge, but if we do we will learn that Good and Evil are very complex issues and faced with this complexity we won't necessarily be happy.

Some people choose to simply follow the rules and they are convinced they have enternal life. For them the world is simple: Good is what God tells them is good, Evil is what God tells them is evil. All they have to do to be happy is follow what God tells them to do.

Other people prefer to take the opposite route and prefer to find knowledge of the truth. They will however find that the world is complicated and they will remain confused as to what Good and Evil actually are. They also don't have any certainty that they will live forever. Faced with this uncertainty all they can do is try to make their lives as easy as they can and perhaps in doing so, they will create their own paradise or become as powerful as Gods.

In short, the story of Adam and Eve is the story of the triumph of human inquisitiveness. That despite people's enormous conformism and obedience, their Godlike need to create their own destiny will win out in the end.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, you actually have a point here: Relativity is absolute. But in sense Three only. One, Two and Four are just nonsensical relating to this concept, and Five is the antithesis of science.

Here is where you go wrong: One concept being absolute does not give it any relationship at all with another concept that may or may not be absolute.

Note that this does not presuppose that no relationship exists, only that it is not based on their "absoluteness".

What we are talking about are immutable laws here. And yes, immutable laws do have a relationship with other immutable laws.

Which definition of "perfection"? By "perfection itself" are you saying that "perfection is a discrete entity, rather than just an idea? If so, how do axioms (which are just intellectual constructs themselves) "entail" perfection?

Perfection is like the glue which holds the Universe together. Without it, we would not be here.

So, in other words, you are subscribing to Platonic realism?

What is that? Am not altogether familiar with that either?

 

[Radrook]

Why did God create the tree of knowledge?

Yes, and why did God create the Serpent to entice Adam and Eve to disobey him?

Your conclusion is wrong because your premise is untrue.
The serpent was merely another animal in Eden.
As I have repeatedly explained, and as it is generally agreed among biblical scholars of all Christian denominations, it was a spirit son of God called Lucifer who decided to use the serpent as a puppet.

Revelation 12:9
The great dragon was hurled down–that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

This rebel angel had chosen to rebel and entice God's earthly children to join him in that rebellion. His choice was his and his alone. It was not forced upon him.

Accusing God of being in league with the Devil has absolutely no scriptural support and is a concept completely alien to both Judaism and Christianity.

Where did you derive that concept from--the Satanic Bible?