pantheory Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 18 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: Space cannot therefore just be a distance, no? Because if we define it as part of our reality, then we don't have all the pieces to the puzzle... Distance must have some qualities or it wouldn't be real. In science there are many different ideas of what reality is. Distances are defined by a measuring stick of some kind. Based upon such a measurement space is no more than the distance between matter, the measurement of which is determined by such a measuring stick. Accordingly there is no other meaning to space. Time can be defined as a rate of change such as in an atomic clock. Both time and Space accordingly are the simplest of concepts that can be understood by anyone of average intelligence. I believe all of reality is also very simple and can be understood by nearly everyone. The reasons why reality is not considered simple IMO is because of its detail, not because of the difficulty to understand its foundation concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 1, 2021 Author Share Posted February 1, 2021 18 minutes ago, Krowb said: It strikes me that "time" and all attendant terms are simply a construct for our observation of cause and effect. We had no conception and thus no words for magnetism before we "discovered" - notwithstanding it had always existed in our reality. Same thing for electromagnetic waves, etc... If eternity is being defined in relation to time, then to say eternal time without "cause and effect"/"in motion"/"acting upon one another" has no meaning. There may exist an eternity beyond us, but how we'd ever know is an open question. Our universe presently gives the impression it will spread out into a "heat death" unless something external acts upon our universe or some other, as yet unknown, force acts. In lieu of kooky emoticons, how about and explanation. He's saying to my understanding that space has no matter but has distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 1, 2021 Author Share Posted February 1, 2021 3 minutes ago, pantheory said: In science there are many different ideas of what reality is. Distances are defined by a measuring stick of some kind. Based upon such a measurement space is no more than the distance between matter, the measurement of which is determined by such a measuring stick. Accordingly there is no other meaning to space. Time can be defined as a rate of change such as in an atomic clock. Both time and Space accordingly are the simplest of concepts that can be understood by anyone of average intelligence. I believe all of reality is also very simple and can be understood by nearly everyone. The reasons why reality is not considered simple IMO is because of its detail, not because of its difficulty to understand its foundation. I don't have an issue with time. I'm thinking your idea of space is lacking. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ Krowb ◊ Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: In lieu of kooky emoticons, how about and explanation. He's saying to my understanding that space has no matter but has distance. @pantheory's definition seems perfectly reasonable to me. Not every concept requires a unique set of positive qualities. Darkness is generally defined as the absence of light. So to define space as the absence of matter strikes me as acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ Krowb ◊ Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 If you really want to bend your mind, try to realize there is more empty volume separating your protons/neutrons/electrons/atoms/molecules than the volume of that matter itself. We are more vacuum than solid. Crazy to ponder . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 25 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: I don't have an issue with time. I'm thinking your idea of space is lacking. ... That's OK. Many scientist believe that both space and time are not simple concepts and promote more complicated definitions of them. But a religion- based understanding of them IMO is no understanding at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 17 minutes ago, Krowb said: @pantheory's definition seems perfectly reasonable to me. Not every concept requires a unique set of positive qualities. Darkness is generally defined as the absence of light. So to define space as the absence of matter strikes me as acceptable. Thanks. I'm not alone in such ideas and definitions. "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Albert Einstein) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 1 hour ago, Edgarcito said: I assume she perceived an interpretation from the serpent. Can't see where it says she knew.... That's significant. I ask you about Adam and you reply to me about Eve. Looks like the Dodgers have a new star in Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 1, 2021 Author Share Posted February 1, 2021 3 minutes ago, WalterP said: That's significant. I ask you about Adam and you reply to me about Eve. Looks like the Dodgers have a new star in Texas. That’s what I get for trying. You asked please, I responded with a considered answer. You might try, hey Ed, I was wanting an answer specific to Adam, thx. I’ll see what I can do despite you being a prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: That’s what I get for trying. You asked please, I responded with a considered answer. You might try, hey Ed, I was wanting an answer specific to Adam, thx. I’ll see what I can do despite you being a prick. Great! Here's the question. Did god make Adam with a knowledge of both good and evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 1, 2021 Author Share Posted February 1, 2021 12 minutes ago, WalterP said: Great! Here's the question. Did god make Adam with a knowledge of both good and evil? Well, there are two things going on there...one, whether the verse describing the trees as pleasing to the eye and good for food, those qualities, were known by Adam. We can guess that Adam had the only eyes there... and good for food would also qualify because they are in the same statement. So I'm thinking that he understood limited good, and some level of understanding of death.....but not a more knowledgeable level of the good vs. evil dichotomy.... How's that, what do I win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 12 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: Well, there are two things going on there...one, whether the verse describing the trees as pleasing to the eye and good for food, those qualities, were known by Adam. We can guess that Adam had the only eyes there... and good for food would also qualify because they are in the same statement. So I'm thinking that he understood limited good, and some level of understanding of death.....but not a more knowledgeable level of the good vs. evil dichotomy.... How's that, what do I win. Sorry Edgarcito, but you don't win anything. In Genesis 1 and 2 god declares certain things to be good. But where does Adam do that? In 1 : 9 we see that the trees were pleasing to the eye and good for food. But this means good to eat and not morally good. Also, you need to factor in 2 : 7 and 2 : 22. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” The timeline clearly shows that god made Adam without the knowledge of (moral) good and (immoral) evil. Adam didn't acquire this knowledge until after he ate the fruit Eve gave him. God confirms this when he says 'the man has NOW become like one of us, knowing good and evil.' So Adam couldn't have recognized anything as morally good or evil. Not the garden, not the trees, not god and not Satan either. Wouldn't you agree that's what scripture says? Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ Krowb ◊ Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 @Edgarcito, I know you feel that pantheory's definition is lacking something. Are you talking about space as inclusive of all matter? I can see that being a reasonable definition as well. Just depends on the context. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 1, 2021 Author Share Posted February 1, 2021 9 minutes ago, WalterP said: Sorry Edgarcito, but you don't win anything. In Genesis 1 and 2 god declares certain things to be good. But where does Adam do that? In 1 : 9 we see that the trees were pleasing to the eye and good for food. But this means good to eat and not morally good. Also, you need to factor in 2 : 7 and 2 : 22. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” The timeline clearly shows that god made Adam without the knowledge of (moral) good and (immoral) evil. Adam didn't acquire this knowledge until after he ate the fruit Eve gave him. God confirms this when he says 'the man has NOW become like one of us, knowing good and evil.' So Adam couldn't have recognized anything as morally good or evil. Not the garden, not the trees, not god and not Satan either. Wouldn't you agree that's what scripture says? Walter. Sounds reasonable that they did not have the knowledge behind their understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 1, 2021 Author Share Posted February 1, 2021 9 minutes ago, Krowb said: @Edgarcito, I know you feel that pantheory's definition is lacking something. Are you talking about space as inclusive of all matter? I can see that being a reasonable definition as well. Just depends on the context. Just off the cuff, because I really don't know anything about it, but it sounds like we can't have a distance without something literally occupying the distance when we are describing objective reality. Even if we are describing an absolute no movement scenario, there is something that has acted to place the matter at it's distance. ....which means to me that the distance has some type of quality....perhaps so minute and undetectable that it doesn't even make the limits of detection. Idk K, just thoughts in my head. Just a stupid analogy, but if I have milk in a bowl of cereal, I have distance between the cereal. If I have no milk, I have no distance. So if I have distance in space, why would it only be a quality-less variable. Again, just crap off the cuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 34 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: Well, there are two things going on there...one, whether the verse describing the trees as pleasing to the eye and good for food, those qualities, were known by Adam. We can guess that Adam had the only eyes there... and good for food would also qualify because they are in the same statement. So I'm thinking that he understood limited good, and some level of understanding of death.....but not a more knowledgeable level of the good vs. evil dichotomy.... How's that, what do I win. This is the Tree of Advanced Knowledge of Good and Evil ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: Sounds reasonable that they did not have the knowledge behind their understanding. Ok, so this leads us to another question that deserves an answer. Who's fault is it if a parent gives a child a command that it can't understand? (Edgarcito, when answering this one please don't think in terms of fallible human parents. God is infallible and all knowing.) Thank you. Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 1, 2021 Author Share Posted February 1, 2021 2 minutes ago, midniterider said: This is the Tree of Advanced Knowledge of Good and Evil ... Lol, an innate quality....God can do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 1, 2021 Author Share Posted February 1, 2021 5 minutes ago, WalterP said: Ok, so this leads us to another question that deserves an answer. Who's fault is it if a parent gives a child a command that it can't understand? (Edgarcito, when answering this one please don't think in terms of fallible human parents. God is infallible and all knowing.) Thank you. Walter. No, that's a leading question. He gave a command.... (I'm practicing my lawyer shit here S. Hope you are noticing this expertise.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 I like the blind person with the green apple or red apple choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 Just now, Edgarcito said: No, that's a leading question. He gave a command.... Ok, so on what basis should Adam have obeyed god? Careful now! Blind obedience is for robots who don't understand the meaning of the commands they're given. You agreed that Adam had no knowledge of good and evil behind his understanding. So, I'll repeat the question and factor your agreement into it. Without knowledge or understanding of good and evil, on what basis should Adam have obeyed god's command about good and evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 2, 2021 Author Share Posted February 2, 2021 50 minutes ago, WalterP said: Ok, so on what basis should Adam have obeyed god? Careful now! Blind obedience is for robots who don't understand the meaning of the commands they're given. You agreed that Adam had no knowledge of good and evil behind his understanding. So, I'll repeat the question and factor your agreement into it. Without knowledge or understanding of good and evil, on what basis should Adam have obeyed god's command about good and evil? On the same basis that a child should obey their parents in an ideal situation, that the parent understands the child’s existence. We would assume God does... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: On the same basis that a child should obey their parents in an ideal situation, that the parent understands the child’s existence. We would assume God does... And on what basis does the parent punish not just child with death, but the child's children, their children and their children's children and so on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 2, 2021 Author Share Posted February 2, 2021 6 minutes ago, WalterP said: And on what basis does the parent punish not just child with death, but the child's children, their children and their children's children and so on? I don’t know those criteria... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 Just now, Edgarcito said: I don’t know those criteria... Romans 5 : 12 Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned God didn't just punish Adam and Eve, he cursed them and ALL their descendants with death. Genesis 3 : 17 - 20. 17 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the treeof which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread,till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken;for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” 20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. Now you know the criteria, Edgarcito. Back to the question. And on what basis does the parent punish not just child with death, but the child's children, their children and their children's children and so on? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now