I'm a Theist

[Immanuel Can]

Remember the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. From the tree of knowledge.

Sorry, A.,...I have to correct your quotation: it's "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". In other words, its' knowledge of the quality of evil in things (because "good" already existed, but was only not known because everything was good).

You'll also find that knowledge of other things is nowhere forbidden, and was in fact, encouraged.

I agree that plumbing the depths of evil is a bad idea. But other than that, I disagree that knowledge is forbidden or dangerous.

[attofishpi]

I agree that plumbing the depths of evil is a bad idea. But other than that, I disagree that knowledge is forbidden or dangerous.

Nice. But when you DO eat of the Tree of Know_Ledge, there R consequences ...as Ansiktsburk said...there are thoughts that you definitely do not want to find.

Oh, I forgot to add - those thoughts when analysed are MORE knowledge.

Have you ever eaten from the Tree IC?

[Immanuel Can]

Nice. But when you DO eat of the Tree of Know_Ledge, there R consequences

Check again, Atto: Genesis 2:17 "...but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

It's not "the tree of knowledge." It's "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." There is NO "tree of knowledge."

[bahman]

I cannot follow you here. Could you please elaborate?

Xeno treated zero as if it were a real point, and motion as if it were a series of separate lines between points. And so long as one thinks of the situation that way, it's impossible not to think of motion as impossible. But motion IS possible, so Xeno was flummoxed. But his problem was in his basic supposition that motion could be described as segmented action.

Time is not what you are supposing it is. That's why it looks to you as if there had to be a time before time existed. But even put that way, it's an absurd conclusion, you can see. So like Xeno, your problem is in your supposition.

Please read this: https://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/#H2

[attofishpi]

Nice. But when you DO eat of the Tree of Know_Ledge, there R consequences ...as Ansiktsburk said...there are thoughts that you definitely do not want to find.

Oh, I forgot to add - those thoughts when analysed are MORE knowledge.

Have you ever eaten from the Tree IC?

Check again, Atto: Genesis 2:17 "...but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

It's not "the tree of knowledge." It's "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." There is NO "tree of knowledge."

I really do implore that you do not discard my points\questioning. ...but moving on.

You always have to digress into semantics and avoid direct questioning, when it is should be understood as implied that YES I know it is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. FFS. I could go on this point further into the true Hebrew of it that counters your stance - and we would end up in tangents so digressed and so pathetic from the course of reasoning that we venture upon twatness as usual.

Let's stick to the crux of the conversation.

So I'll simple readdress so that you can feel comfortable:-

......when you DO eat of the Tree of Know_Ledge (of good AND evil), there R consequences ...as Ansiktsburk said...there are thoughts that you definitely do not want to find.

Oh, I forgot to add - those thoughts when analysed are MORE knowledge.

Have you ever eaten from the Tree of knowledge of good AND evil IC?

Ergo - there IS a Tree of knowledge. Knowledge of Good AND Evil. - you pedantic fool.

[Immanuel Can]

Check again, Atto: Genesis 2:17 "...but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

It's not "the tree of knowledge." It's "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." There is NO "tree of knowledge."

I really do implore that you do not discard my points\questioning. ...but moving on.

I didn't. I showed you that your premise was wrong. I gave you the respect of presuming you were interested in forming a true argument. Was I unkind to do that? Of course not.

If you want to say, "knowledge is sometimes dangerous," you can, of course. But why would you invoke talk of a "tree"? It's unnecessary, and doesn't refer to the Biblical story you appear to want to cite.

[Immanuel Can]

Please read this: https://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/#H2

It shows that Xeno was wrong. It suggests different ways of showing that, but over the matter of his wrongness, is of one mind. So it doesn't really help your case, because your argument that zero is a point is also wrong. Zero is a mathematical concept.

And you can see this very simply. I can ask you to give me one, two or three euros. But you can't give me zero euros...you can only not-give me any euros. "Zero" is a concept, not a number.

[attofishpi]

Check again, Atto: Genesis 2:17 "...but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

It's not "the tree of knowledge." It's "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." There is NO "tree of knowledge."

I really do implore that you do not discard my points\questioning. ...but moving on.

I didn't. I showed you that your premise was wrong.

What premise? I stated the Tree of Knowledge.
You state NO - that is wrong - implying that it is not a Tree of Knowledge!

How is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil...NOT a Tree of Knowledge?

[bahman]

Please read this: https://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/#H2

It shows that Xeno was wrong. It suggests different ways of showing that, but over the matter of his wrongness, is of one mind. So it doesn't really help your case, because your argument that zero is a point is also wrong. Zero is a mathematical concept.

And you can see this very simply. I can ask you to give me one, two or three euros. But you can't give me zero euros...you can only not-give me any euros. "Zero" is a concept, not a number.

Zero, of course, is a point as 1 is as 2 is, etc.

[uwot]

It's not "the tree of knowledge." It's "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." There is NO "tree of knowledge."

It's a moot point, Mr Can. It may be that "good and evil" is a figure of speech meaning 'everything'. See here for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of ... d_and_evil

[henry quirk]

You need the energy/mass to cause it (time [or space]) to bend therefore it is a substance.

Space-time is an abstraction, a 'context' for the actions of real objects and forces. It, space-time, is not a substance or a dimension or dimensions. Space is not (like) a deformable latex sheet and time is not (like) a river. Objects and forces act on and interact with other objects and forces, not on space-time.

A massive object in space, for example, bends light, not space; massive enough, such an object can even affect the changes in matter that we measure, not the measurement itself. That is: the the measurable changes in objects and forces slow but the measuring itself, is unaffected.

Bluntly: space is emptiness, time is a measure of change.You can only fill emptiness and you can only record the passage of time (measure change). Neither can be altered or shaped or bent. Only real objects and forces can be altered, shaped or bent.

[henry quirk]

And, btw: space is analog, not digital...seamless, smooth (mebbe a little lumpy here and there); time is a measure, not a substance or dimension.

Space must be binary\digital at its most infinitesimally finite scale - a point where there is either an event or there isn't.

This makes no sense to me. Space is emptiness, it has no substance in itself. Stuff exists in space. Stuff may be digital, but space isn't. Hell, it's not even analog, as I said it was up-thread (that was me fallin' prey to a figure of speech).

Space is nothing, no-thing.

[henry quirk]

S
Expected reactions like this. What i mean is deep existential matters that can shake the fundamentals of existence itsef. Fear on a level unfathomable. Some thoughts should be avoided.

can't disagree more...lay 'em all on the table...examine 'em...find the diamonds, toss the dross

When you find the snakes among the diamonds they will bite you. And with a poison that cannot be sucked out. And in that area, therea are snakes.

No, there's no snakes, and no diamonds either (I'm throwin' off all them figures of speech for the duration): there are good ideas and bad ideas, truths and lies, facts and fictions. There are no gorgons or basilisks, and the Abyss is just a hole in the ground.

The Eldritch Abomination is ugly and wrong but not particularly mind-bending (Cthulhu might eat your body but he can't eat your soul).

Bottomline: there ain't no existential terror to confront, there's just ignorance to overcome.

And I'm gonna do that...as soon as I overcome my apathy.

[bahman]

You need the energy/mass to cause it (time [or space]) to bend therefore it is a substance.

Space-time is an abstraction, a 'context' for the actions of real objects and forces. It, space-time, is not a substance or a dimension or dimensions. Space is not (like) a deformable latex sheet and time is not (like) a river. Objects and forces act on and interact with other objects and forces, not on space-time.

A massive object in space, for example, bends light, not space; massive enough, such an object can even affect the changes in matter that we measure, not the measurement itself. That is: the the measurable changes in objects and forces slow but the measuring itself, is unaffected.

Bluntly: space is emptiness, time is a measure of change.You can only fill emptiness and you can only record the passage of time (measure change). Neither can be altered or shaped or bent. Only real objects and forces can be altered, shaped or bent.

I am afraid to say that all your interpretations are classical. For example, light has zero mass so according to classical physics it should not bend close to a massive object.

[henry quirk]

Please read this: https://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/#H2

It shows that Xeno was wrong. It suggests different ways of showing that, but over the matter of his wrongness, is of one mind. So it doesn't really help your case, because your argument that zero is a point is also wrong. Zero is a mathematical concept.

And you can see this very simply. I can ask you to give me one, two or three euros. But you can't give me zero euros...you can only not-give me any euros. "Zero" is a concept, not a number.

Zero, of course, is a point as 1 is as 2 is, etc.

Zero is placeholder/symbol for nothing, no-thing.

one, two, etc. are placeholders/symbols for sequence or quantity.

As for points: as they are being used in-thread, they're purely symbolic.

Zeno crafted clever hooey.