Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I got thinking about this the other day when watching a science show on the Moon, and a comment posted from JIA. When God created the universe and "perfectly placed" the Moon, Sun and all the other planets why are they not perfect? The Moon's orbit is slowly moving away from the Earth at a rare of about 3.8 centimeters per year which effect much of the life on Earth and will eventually moved pass the Earth pull and leave, this doesn't sound "perfect" to me. Why would God create all of these "flaws" if he had the divine power to place them?

Well I believe God created existence and then let evolution or whatever to run it's natural course.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I got thinking about this the other day when watching a science show on the Moon, and a comment posted from JIA. When God created the universe and "perfectly placed" the Moon, Sun and all the other planets why are they not perfect? The Moon's orbit is slowly moving away from the Earth at a rare of about 3.8 centimeters per year which effect much of the life on Earth and will eventually moved pass the Earth pull and leave, this doesn't sound "perfect" to me. Why would God create all of these "flaws" if he had the divine power to place them?

Universe created everything in it, including ourselves. Therefore, Universe is God.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I got thinking about this the other day when watching a science show on the Moon, and a comment posted from JIA. When God created the universe and "perfectly placed" the Moon, Sun and all the other planets why are they not perfect? The Moon's orbit is slowly moving away from the Earth at a rare of about 3.8 centimeters per year which effect much of the life on Earth and will eventually moved pass the Earth pull and leave, this doesn't sound "perfect" to me. Why would God create all of these "flaws" if he had the divine power to place them?
Thank goodness the moon has been moving that distance constantly and its orbit could never, ever be disrupted by any means.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I got thinking about this the other day when watching a science show on the Moon, and a comment posted from JIA. When God created the universe and "perfectly placed" the Moon, Sun and all the other planets why are they not perfect? The Moon's orbit is slowly moving away from the Earth at a rare of about 3.8 centimeters per year which effect much of the life on Earth and will eventually moved pass the Earth pull and leave, this doesn't sound "perfect" to me. Why would God create all of these "flaws" if he had the divine power to place them?

God does not excist and there is no divinity, its simply foolish religion

there are probably a million and one flaws we could find if we had the space age technology of the year 10,000 or something crazy number, if we ever live that long well prob finally throw off religion after we realise all these flaws and new laws of science

Originally posted by FeceMan
Thank goodness the moon has been moving that distance constantly and its orbit could never, ever be disrupted by any means.

I have to agree. If the moon had not been closer to the Earth 4 billion years ago, then there would not have been large tides that swept over the young Earth and therefore no life. It was this huge "washing machine effect" that started life.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Universe created everything in it, including ourselves. Therefore, Universe is God.

Now that's a matter of definition.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I got thinking about this the other day when watching a science show on the Moon, and a comment posted from JIA. When God created the universe and "perfectly placed" the Moon, Sun and all the other planets why are they not perfect? The Moon's orbit is slowly moving away from the Earth at a rare of about 3.8 centimeters per year which effect much of the life on Earth and will eventually moved pass the Earth pull and leave, this doesn't sound "perfect" to me. Why would God create all of these "flaws" if he had the divine power to place them? According to all known laws of physics, the Moon is doing exactly what it should be doing. Everything is working perfectly.

While I know that the universe and the planets are behaving they way they should be but if God had a divine plan for us why would he make the moon leave our orbit, the sun expand and destroy our solar system and meteors bombard our planet?

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
While I know that the universe and the planets are behaving they way they should be but if God had a divine plan for us why would he make the moon leave our orbit, the sun expand and destroy our solar system and meteors bombard our planet?

Well everything has to come to an end at some point. Dont see whats the problem with that. For now everything works just fine.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I got thinking about this the other day when watching a science show on the Moon, and a comment posted from JIA. When God created the universe and "perfectly placed" the Moon, Sun and all the other planets why are they not perfect? The Moon's orbit is slowly moving away from the Earth at a rare of about 3.8 centimeters per year which effect much of the life on Earth and will eventually moved pass the Earth pull and leave, this doesn't sound "perfect" to me. Why would God create all of these "flaws" if he had the divine power to place them?

Simple - He didn't create anything. He doesn't exist.

what moon are we talking about? There are over 100 moons in our solar system........which one was mentioned in the bible?

this is rubbish about the sun, it will take several thousands to tens of thousands of years for the sun to expand enough....we will simply leave planet earth to other systems for sure, if it took us a few hundred years to invent computing to advanced computing all the way up to Spaceships that can travel to the moon then you would have to be rather odd to think in a few thousand years we wont be capable of sustaining our space systems, well just leave this system, find another one..if there is some supreme being, well hell be sitting in heaven twiddling his thumbs saying.."bugger"

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
You are missing the point. Why would God create all these different things that would destroy Earth and not just one? Why would he need to make the Sun destroy the solar system after the meteor already destroyed it or the Moon left orbit?


Ok so what your saying is that meteors destroying the earth or and the moon leaving orbit which results in the destruction of the earth and then the sun destroying the solar system seems like a flaw?

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS

Some believe the Bible to be metaphorical and others do not, this is more directed at the ones that believe in the Bible.

Anyone with an open mind can see that it was originally meant to be metaphorical

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Yes, if there was a divine creator of everything why would he make a star that he knows will destroy his divine creation?

Thats because nothing is truly ever destroyed things just change.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS

If you were to build you own car why would you make it so that it will kill you?

No but you would make a car that was able to change gear.


Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS

As for the Bible there are many people that believe it to be literal or close to it, some like JIA take it for word for word and my question that I posted is more for this type of mentality.

That doesnt make it true. They just take it literally because there ass**** it makes them feel better that they have the truth and everbody is going to hell. When dealing with religon you are dealing with abstract concepts therefore by default things are supposed to be metaphorical.

I know its for JIA but im just trying to give a more correct religous response to your questions.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Yes I do know that, and it will take much longer for that for the Sun to destroy our solar system by expanding but less time for a solar flare to, but if you follow the Bible and believe God created the Earth then why would you leave his creation?


good answer, thats an excellent thing for those of sound minds, all the bible lovers will die on earth for their imaginary God leaving a lot of space onboard these vessels for people of understanding, but i think a lot of the "oh so faithful" will throw their bibles down when they are face to face with the end, they will automatically want to survive

this is an endless discussion. when a believer says PERFECT what exactly does he/she mean by it. the most obvious would be perfect for in geometry{i.e. UNIFORMITY, a circle is more perfect than an elipse, an equilateral triangle more than a right angeld etc. very greek idea} but that obviously isnt true for practically any celestial body. then you move next to the placing being perfect for the creation of life,{place/composition by elemets/energy recieved etc} but thats definately not true, a little warmer earth would be better, the abundance of some elements would be better for humans/animals, more ozone would be nice. more cultivable land better, different elements in the star to emit less ultraviolet/gamma rays, a shorter year nicer, faster day/night has its advantages, the things about meteors n stuff etc etc etc. once that fails theyd say that all physical laws are uniform and EVRYTHING follows them and therefore everything is in PERFECT order and follows the determined path{not noticing how much theyv deviated form their original argument} but thats not true either. many laws break down in certain situations, quantum mechanics brings in randomness and vagueness which deviates from constant laws, laws dont exist in singularities etc. once even that is undermined thed turn to more bague arguments like the laws change to suite our needs{which is false} and the will of the creator and he still rules. or even ater theyd turn to other stuff like "dont you see the trees that give you fruit, the land that gives you food and the rivers which give you water. how can you look at that and think its all a coincidence and everyhting isnt perfect?".

on another line, a believer would argue that your body has been brought together in perfection etc. but thats completely not true. most systems could use a lot of work. our immunity is pathetic. our resistance to mutation is terrible, many people are genetically worse off than other for no fault of their own, many people are born challenged, our mind is fickle etc etc. as a last ditch theyd turn the argument on its head{forgetting completely the parallels theyd drawn before and the line the used to ARGUE in the first place} and say, well THATS A TEST or GOD HAS HIS REASONS, or YOU REALLY DONT KNOW WHAT OTHER BLESSINGS/SIGHT THE LORD GIVES A BLIND MAN. or that theyd be better of in heaven.

its also common to skip form one stage to the other of PERFECTION'S DEFINITION to make the oposition unable to react in time and plausibly and exalt your self to a more authentic level. really the discussion is a waste of TIME as perfection is reletive and even in that reletivity "GOD's" perfection fails in all criteria.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I got thinking about this the other day when watching a science show on the Moon, and a comment posted from JIA. When God created the universe and "perfectly placed" the Moon, Sun and all the other planets why are they not perfect? The Moon's orbit is slowly moving away from the Earth at a rare of about 3.8 centimeters per year which effect much of the life on Earth and will eventually moved pass the Earth pull and leave, this doesn't sound "perfect" to me. Why would God create all of these "flaws" if he had the divine power to place them?

You must be talking about some other GOD from another religion, because I don't remember anywhere in the Bible that it states that the moon was a perfect distance from the earth. Infact, the Bible believed the Sky to be a Firmament I.E. the Sky was composed of water.

Originally posted by Burning thought
good answer, thats an excellent thing for those of sound minds, all the bible lovers will die on earth for their imaginary God leaving a lot of space onboard these vessels for people of understanding, but i think a lot of the "oh so faithful" will throw their bibles down when they are face to face with the end, they will automatically want to survive

thats an awefully cold way to talk about humans, as nothing more than believers, whod die to leave "room" for the others.

and no, i disagree, with most believers{a lot of em out there, much more than u migh think} theyd rejoice as theyr obsessed with the end and what followes and theyd take it instantly as a sign of divine truth prevailing.

Originally posted by Alfheim
My point is that nothing ever gets destroyed it just changes form.


Yep

I know that nothing ever truly get destroyed but changes, but my point is that Earth will no longer be Earth; all life on the planet will die and what he created to house his greatest creation will no long be that. The Moon is doing what it is supposed to be doing according to the laws of physics but if you believe God created everything he created that as well so he would have built the Moon to leave orbit, the Sun to expand and the Earth to be bombarded by meteoroids so my question is why?

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I know that nothing ever truly get destroyed but changes, but my point is that Earth will no longer be Earth; all life on the planet will die and what he created to house his greatest creation will no long be that. The Moon is doing what it is supposed to be doing according to the laws of physics but if you believe God created everything he created that as well so he would have built the Moon to leave orbit, the Sun to expand and the Earth to be bombarded by meteoroids so my question is why?

Because everything that has a beginning has an end.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I know that nothing ever truly get destroyed but changes, but my point is that Earth will no longer be Earth; all life on the planet will die and what he created to house his greatest creation will no long be that.



Yeah and. His greatest creation gets moved to another location, so what?

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS

The Moon is doing what it is supposed to be doing according to the laws of physics but if you believe God created everything he created that as well so he would have built the Moon to leave orbit, the Sun to expand and the Earth to be bombarded by meteoroids so my question is why?

Well this is the thing. Why do you care, if were not going to get truly destroyed why worry about it?

Anyway the answer I guess is duality. Really nothing is being destroyed or changed we just think it is.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yes it does. You asked me why does God create the earth so it will be destroyed. My point is that nothing ever gets destroyed it just changes form.



Its the best example I could think of. The universe isnt destroyed it changes form, the car isnt destroyed it changes gear......nevermind.




It was in response to something you said earlier nevermind..at any rate.

"My point is that nothing ever gets destroyed it just changes form."

but if it is the form itself that defines the THING, then when you CHANGE form, you destroy it.
just like the molecules inside us will never actually stop existing or get destroyed. however if they were to randomly disperse, WE as beings{the FORM of the molecules} would sieze to be.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Because everything that has a beginning has an end. Why would God need to give our Solar system a beginning and an end when he will as in the Bible pass judgment on us so we will be gone before than?Originally posted by Alfheim
Yeah and. His greatest creation gets moved to another location, so what?



Well this is the thing. Why do you care, if were not going to get truly destroyed why worry about it?

Anyway the answer I guess is duality. Really nothing is being destroyed or changed we just think it is. I'm not worried about it and I don't know why this is such a hard concept to get and why you all think that I believe anything in the Bible? I purposed this question of why God would make this things go boom when he has the power not to?

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Why would God need to give our Solar system a beginning and an end when he will as in the Bible pass judgment on us so we will be gone before than? I'm not worried about it and I don't know why this is such a hard concept to get and why you all think that I believe anything in the Bible?

I dont think you do.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS

I purposed this question of why God would make this things go boom when he has the power not to?

You see this is what were trying to say. God doesnt actually make anything go boom. Everything is eternal so nothing gets destroyed I also made the further point that its only because of duality that the perception of destruction occurs. This is what the fall of man is about.


Originally posted by leonheartmm
but if it is the form itself that defines the THING, then when you CHANGE form, you destroy it.

Like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly?

Originally posted by leonheartmm

just like the molecules inside us will never actually stop existing or get destroyed. however if they were to randomly disperse, WE as beings{the FORM of the molecules} would sieze to be.

Well in religion we believe everything is eternal. Destruction does not really exist.

Originally posted by Alfheim
I dont think you do.



You see this is what were trying to say. God doesnt actually make anything go boom. Everything is eternal so nothing gets destroyed I also made the further point that its only because of duality that the perception of destruction occurs. This is what the fall of man is about.




Like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly?



Well in religion we believe everything is eternal. Destruction does not really exist.


i think the caterpillar is a bad example. the reason, YES the catterpillar does get destroyed when it becomes the butterfly{technically} so if you difine the form as a caterpillar it does get destroyed. however what doesnt get destroyed in THAT specific example is the biological organism itself{another definition of the form} so if you define form as a biological organism, it doesnt get destroyed there. so my argument still remains i think.

i know u do, but i gave an example to the contrary of what im talkin about. when it is FORM ITSELF that defines sumthing, than when it changes it is utterly destroyed.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Why would God need to give our Solar system a beginning and an end when he will as in the Bible pass judgment on us so we will be gone before than?

Because your taking revlations to litterally. It's not taking about the end of the universe so much as it's talking about a new era in human history.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i think the caterpillar is a bad example. the reason, YES the catterpillar does get destroyed when it becomes the butterfly{technically} so if you difine the form as a caterpillar it does get destroyed. however what doesnt get destroyed in THAT specific example is the biological organism itself{another definition of the form} so if you define form as a biological organism, it doesnt get destroyed there. so my argument still remains i think.


You know what I mean.


Originally posted by leonheartmm

i know u do, but i gave an example to the contrary of what im talkin about. when it is FORM ITSELF that defines sumthing, than when it changes it is utterly destroyed.

Yeah you did but as I was saying its only human perception that makes you think that. For example a human gets blown up. It seems he is destroyed but he has a soul.

Originally posted by Alfheim
I dont think you do. ?


Originally posted by Alfheim

You see this is what were trying to say. God doesnt actually make anything go boom. Everything is eternal so nothing gets destroyed I also made the further point that its only because of duality that the perception of destruction occurs. This is what the fall of man is about. Yes he does if you believe that he created the stars, he made them so that they will go super nova, collapse or expand. If the Earth blows up then it is no longer the Earth as it is, has it changed to something else like rubble or energy yes but it is no longer the Earth so in all since of the word it has been destroyed.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Because your taking revlations to litterally. It's not taking about the end of the universe so much as it's talking about a new era in human history. If there is a new era in human existence why would he still give Earth an expire date? However my question is focused more on people that take the Bible literally.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
If there is a new era in human existence why would he still give Earth an expire date?
When does he give the earth an expiration date, what exactly do you mean?

moon solution: put a huge array of retro rockets on one side, and whenever they are pointed in the opposite direction of the moon's orbit path, fire them off, eventually slowing the moon's orbit around us, and slowly but surely bring it and the earth back together (based on the "the moon was once part of earth" hypothesis)!

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
?


I dont think you believe in the Bible, I mean


Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS

Yes he does if you believe that he created the stars, he made them so that they will go super nova, collapse or expand. If the Earth blows up then it is no longer the Earth as it is, has it changed to something else like rubble or energy yes but it is no longer the Earth so in all since of the word it has been destroyed.

Yes but this is what the fall of man is about. Humans percieve destruction because of duality. That is only human perception.

The Earth is at a 23 degree tilt


Meteors have bombarded the Earth for eons



Earth has had numerous Ice Ages which have wiped out many species of life at a time.


The Earth contains faults which can and have cause massive earthquakes and volcanic eruptions which have historically killed many people and animals alike.

The only suggestion of perfection is the Eclipse. How the Moon and Sun line up to have thier circumferences so that from Earth we see a perfect line up of both celestial bodies.

The Earth is at a 23 degree tilt


Meteors have bombarded the Earth for eons



Earth has had numerous Ice Ages which have wiped out many species of life at a time.


The Earth contains faults which can and have cause massive earthquakes and volcanic eruptions which have historically killed many people and animals alike.

The only suggestion of perfection is the Eclipse. How the Moon and Sun line up to have thier circumferences so that from Earth we see a perfect line up of both celestial bodies.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
thats an awefully cold way to talk about humans, as nothing more than believers, whod die to leave "room" for the others.

and no, i disagree, with most believers{a lot of em out there, much more than u migh think} theyd rejoice as theyr obsessed with the end and what followes and theyd take it instantly as a sign of divine truth prevailing.


i am Awfully cold.....

those who are obsessed with the end aren ot belivers, they are fanatics, belivers such as a few of my friends and my gran i know would not just stand and take the end, thats what a fanatic would do, a normal believer would turn the way everyone esle would, to survive because thats what the human mind would automatically say to do, same if someone is holding a gun to your head, only the truelly mad belivers who think the have achieved salvation would stand and let their heads be blown off without trying to react...ofc theyd have to be a little mad also

if there is such a thing as a deity of benevolence, the bible is probably his way of willing out the weak minded of us, those who are blindly following and mindlessly worshiping him taste the flames of hell

Originally posted by Bardock42
Now that's a matter of definition.

Yes, it is indeed.

Its my definition anyway...simplified for purposes of this thread. I have other theories too.

the problem is there are more "fanatics"{by ur definition} out there than believers{again by ur definition} maybe not so much in the west as the east.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the problem is there are more "fanatics"{by ur definition} out there than believers{again by ur definition} maybe not so much in the west as the east.

Sorry to barge in like this, but the fanatics seem to be rather equal in the East and West. In fact, sometimes I feel West has far more fanatics than the East does.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Sorry to barge in like this, but the fanatics seem to be rather equal in the East and West. In fact, sometimes I feel West has far more fanatics than the East does.

By the way..you lucky so and so you've moved to Canada. I hate you. No I dont, im just a bit envious. Not only that Montreal as well!

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS

Even if you look at the world through energy and atoms the configuration would be different so that configuration would be lost.

Too tired to think this through. Talk to you later.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
What does that have to do with revalations? If you know that God is going to one day come down and pass judgment on his creation and all will be either going to heaven or hell (simply put) why would he make the Sun in such a manner that in a few billion years destroy the Earth? Who is going to be around to see it happen?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Sorry to barge in like this, but the fanatics seem to be rather equal in the East and West. In fact, sometimes I feel West has far more fanatics than the East does.

no problem. n i know. its just that the PLACES in the west that most kmc visiting computer owners live dont have as many as we have in places in the east where i live. although the explanation wud take too long.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
If you know that God is going to one day come down and pass judgment on his creation and all will be either going to heaven or hell (simply put) why would he make the Sun in such a manner that in a few billion years destroy the Earth? Who is going to be around to see it happen?

Again, your talking revaltions to litterally. Revlations was written in response to the corruption in Roman empire, and is the end of all evil rather then the age of man. It's more or less a new era in human history rather than the end of the earth, besides humans are irrelevant to the destruction of the sun and Judeo-Christianity delve's in human affairs.

Originally posted by Alfheim
By the way..you lucky so and so you've moved to Canada. I hate you. No I dont, im just a bit envious. Not only that Montreal as well!

I know

I am worried about you guys though. your terror alert is on critical. Seems like its gonna be more Big Brother surveillance and random stop and searches. Which is just crap.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
What has a beginning has an end like I said before, it's the cycle of life. When we die, another species might replace us really.



Or we might become that new species

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
If we were supposedly created in the image of God why would we be replaced with something else?

Man, your taking Judeo Christinaity to whole different level, the concepts itself started with man not some guy in the sky. God is simply a construct that has a plethora of purposes in religion.

Also, the creation of the image of GOD has a double meaning which is explained in the Kabbal.

"Man was created in the image of G-d"
Zu k'neged zu. This opposite that is another important Kabbalistic concept. It is a concept of what is below reflects that which is above. It is related to the concept of "Man was made in the image of G-d".
When the craftsmen created the Tabernacle in the desert they were mimicking the Creator's efforts. They were participating in creating something out of nothing. They had created the Tabernacle. A Temple designed to mimick and therefore encapsulate the forces of creation. The Tabernacle below reflected the Tabernacle above.
The Tabernacle above created something from nothing. The Tabernacle below did the same but because it was a mirrored reflection. It also reversed the process. It returned somethingness back to the original source of Nothingness.
This is the kabbalistic concepts of "running and returning" and "reflected light".


You have to stop taking the Bible so litterally.
Also, according to the Bible man is created in the Image of God not his essense.

You know that JIA never answers questions that destroy his faith.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
You know that JIA never answers questions that destroy his faith. Nothing would destroy his faith but I would like to hear his answer as well as anyone else that has the same belief system.

Also, this ridiculous first post is what was believed by people in the Middle Ages.

How is the moon moving away a flaw?

And since when did God make the universe immune to naturalistic forces?

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I got thinking about this the other day when watching a science show on the Moon, and a comment posted from JIA. When God created the universe and "perfectly placed" the Moon, Sun and all the other planets why are they not perfect? The Moon's orbit is slowly moving away from the Earth at a rare of about 3.8 centimeters per year which effect much of the life on Earth and will eventually moved pass the Earth pull and leave, this doesn't sound "perfect" to me. Why would God create all of these "flaws" if he had the divine power to place them?

Your definition of perfect is skewed

Originally posted by FeceMan
Also, this ridiculous first post is what was believed by people in the Middle Ages.

How is the moon moving away a flaw?

And since when did God make the universe immune to naturalistic forces? Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Your definition of perfect is skewed Under the idea that someone of supreme all-knowing intelligence that created and built everything why would the Moon be moving away from the Earth? He created everything including how planets move around each other, the laws of physics and how gravity works so under this train of thought that would be considered a "flaw" unless he intended it to happen and if so why?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Also, this ridiculous first post is what was believed by people in the Middle Ages.

How is the moon moving away a flaw?

And since when did God make the universe immune to naturalistic forces?

ok heres a question. what WOULD you define as a flaw in the universe. i mean what has to be there, that isnt already here, which would lead you to say "the universe is flawed" give me a functional example.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Under the idea that someone of supreme all-knowing intelligence that created and built everything why would the Moon be moving away from the Earth? He created everything including how planets move around each other, the laws of physics and how gravity works so under this train of thought that would be considered a "flaw" unless he intended it to happen and if so why?


I agree on the post but, UGHHHH, dont tell me your a patriot .

Originally posted by leonheartmm
I agree on the post but, UGHHHH, dont tell me your a patriot . hum

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
Well I believe God created existence and then let evolution or whatever to run it's natural course.

Well said.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Under the idea that someone of supreme all-knowing intelligence that created and built everything why would the Moon be moving away from the Earth? He created everything including how planets move around each other, the laws of physics and how gravity works so under this train of thought that would be considered a "flaw" unless he intended it to happen and if so why?

Why not? Ineffability is part of being god.

In the grand scheme of things the drift of the moon might be much more perfect than having it stable.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why not? Ineffability is part of being god.

In the grand scheme of things the drift of the moon might be much more perfect than having it stable.

That is because perfection is not perfect. Just like chaos is not chaotic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why not? Ineffability is part of being god.

In the grand scheme of things the drift of the moon might be much more perfect than having it stable. This is one of the main problems that I have with the idea of the all-powerful all-knowing god is that he would know everything that was, is, and will be so everything is done to his design and would be incapable of error. If he is not all-knowing and all-powerful then why worship him at all?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why not? Ineffability is part of being god.

In the grand scheme of things the drift of the moon might be much more perfect than having it stable.

imperfect, non uniform, geometric phenomenon can only be more perfect in the GRAND SCHEME only if there are sever imperfect, non uniform discrepancies in the BIGGER PICTURE ITSELF. in moving non uniformly then. the moon COUNTERS the already present discrepancies to become more perfect. still it leads to the same thing, the universe is imperfect, albeit, not by your possibility. it is INHERENTLY imperfect on a much more grand scale then the moon imperfection was.

furthermore, youd consider vague, improbable, hypothetical situations, which are unobserved as of yet. and consider them over, probable, practical observable situations in a bid to try and justify an obvious discrepancy between scriptures and the real world?

see this frustrates me a little. if you go on that path, you can practically justify ANYTHING and twist it into compatability with your belief{in this case in the perfection of the universe}. there is a formal term for this in logic. its called "THE ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE".

Originally posted by leonheartmm
imperfect, non uniform, geometric phenomenon can only be more perfect in the GRAND SCHEME only if there are sever imperfect, non uniform discrepancies in the BIGGER PICTURE ITSELF. in moving non uniformly then, the moon COUNTERS the already present discrepancies to become more perfect. still it leads to the same thing, the universe is imperfect, albeit, by your possibility, it is INHERENTLY imperfect on a much more grand scale then the moon imperfection was.

furthermore, youd consider vague, improbable, hypothetical situations, which are unobserved as of yet. and consider them over, probable, practical observable situations in a bid to try and justify an obvious discrepancy between scriptures and the real world?

see this frustrates me a little. if you go on that path, you can practically justify ANYTHING and twist it into compatability with your belief{in this case in the perfection of the universe}. there is a formal term for this in logic. its called "THE ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE" and is considered a logical fallacy.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
imperfect, non uniform, geometric phenomenon can only be more perfect in the GRAND SCHEME only if there are sever imperfect, non uniform discrepancies in the BIGGER PICTURE ITSELF. in moving non uniformly then. the moon COUNTERS the already present discrepancies to become more perfect. still it leads to the same thing, the universe is imperfect, albeit, not by your possibility. it is INHERENTLY imperfect on a much more grand scale then the moon imperfection was.

furthermore, youd consider vague, improbable, hypothetical situations, which are unobserved as of yet. and consider them over, probable, practical observable situations in a bid to try and justify an obvious discrepancy between scriptures and the real world?

see this frustrates me a little. if you go on that path, you can practically justify ANYTHING and twist it into compatability with your belief{in this case in the perfection of the universe}. there is a formal term for this in logic. its called "THE ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE".

Awww, you use big words and babble nonsense.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Awww, you use big words and babble nonsense.

Oh the irony.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Oh the irony.

Ha, I remember using that a few days ago for an ironic statement of xyz. You must have misunderstood though, you can only use it if you know the definition of irony.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
imperfect, non uniform, geometric phenomenon can only be more perfect in the GRAND SCHEME only if there are sever imperfect, non uniform discrepancies in the BIGGER PICTURE ITSELF. in moving non uniformly then. the moon COUNTERS the already present discrepancies to become more perfect. still it leads to the same thing, the universe is imperfect, albeit, not by your possibility. it is INHERENTLY imperfect on a much more grand scale then the moon imperfection was.

furthermore, youd consider vague, improbable, hypothetical situations, which are unobserved as of yet. and consider them over, probable, practical observable situations in a bid to try and justify an obvious discrepancy between scriptures and the real world?

see this frustrates me a little. if you go on that path, you can practically justify ANYTHING and twist it into compatability with your belief{in this case in the perfection of the universe}. there is a formal term for this in logic. its called "THE ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE".

Do you know the will of god?

Thats right nobody does. So any statement made about god is from a position of ignorance.

God is, by observation, unknowable. If we also assume god is perfect (or desires perfection) and omnipotent then one has to assume even if you don't consider the world perfect god has nonetheless designed it to be perfect.


What I'm trying to say is, you're a moron.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you know the will of god?

Thats right nobody does. So any statement made about god is from a position of ignorance.

God is, by observation, unknowable. If we also assume god is perfect (or desires perfection) and omnipotent then one has to assume even if you don't consider the world perfect god has nonetheless designed it to be perfect.


What I'm trying to say is, you're a moron.

You are a poster to my taste. If he had spew that nonsense at me he would have gotten a similar reply.

god doesnt excist

Originally posted by Burning thought
god doesnt excist

Yes I do.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ha, I remember using that a few days ago for an ironic statement of xyz. You must have misunderstood though, you can only use it if you know the definition of irony.

Hey! I irony my cloth all the time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you know the will of god?

Thats right nobody does. So any statement made about god is from a position of ignorance.

God is, by observation, unknowable. If we also assume god is perfect (or desires perfection) and omnipotent then one has to assume even if you don't consider the world perfect god has nonetheless designed it to be perfect.


What I'm trying to say is, you're a moron.

lol, you already gave an unabased, illogical ultimatum. you first assumed that there is a god{nothing short of your own definiton would do ofcourse} with all evidence to the contrary. then you assumed that nobody knows his will{which also means you cant comment on what does or doesnt contradict his will}. then you made the ridiculous claim based on these empty dosprven hyptheses, that ANY statement made about god is from a position of ignorance{effectively nulling any and all arguments made by the contrary in your mind, making you utterly stubborn and ignorant}.

in the second para, you contradicted yourself. god is BY OBSERVATION, "UNKNOWABLE". if you can observe him{and you claimed before that no1 can and all statements about him are from a position of ignorance, this includes your own statements in the second para} then he is not UNKNOWABLE. if he is UNKNOWABLE, then you cant observe him. choose one or the other{and only choose the former if you claim to have OBSERVED god yourself.

you went on to say, that IF WE ASSUME, that god is perfect/omnipotent, then his creation is also designed perfect. unwillingly, youve brought up a counterargument to your own position. merely because you ASSUME him to be perfect and extrapolate from that, that the world HENCE should also be PERFECT. then you extrapolation holds no ground for 2 reasons. first, there no evidence for your claim of god being perfect. furthermore from provable observation{as i myself have stated before}, we can see that your extrapolation is infact false and the world is anything BUT perfect.hence you yourself have proven how the "god is perfect" hypothesis is completely wrong.

and feal free to call me a moron if it makes you feal better about your own rather ignorant position on the matter. or feal free to call me anything just for the heck of it. i dont mind.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes I do. You don't answer my prayers pitt_fistOriginally posted by Shakyamunison
Hey! I irony my cloth all the time. you irony

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
You don't answer my prayers pitt_fist you irony

If I have to explain...

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are a poster to my taste. If he had spew that nonsense at me he would have gotten a similar reply.

perhaps because both of you have the unique human trait of TRUTHINESS which is far superior to the logic of us poor mortals. its more likely though that you like the flavour of his bonemarrow more than mine.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If I have to explain... ... means I don't love you.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lol, you already gave an unabased, illogical ultimatum. you first assumed that there is a god{nothing short of your own definiton would do ofcourse} with all evidence to the contrary. then you assumed that nobody knows his will{which also means you cant comment on what does or doesnt contradict his will}. then you made the ridiculous claim based on these empty dosprven hyptheses, that ANY statement made about god is from a position of ignorance{effectively nulling any and all arguments made by the contrary in your mind, making you utterly stubborn and ignorant}.

in the second para, you contradicted yourself. god is BY OBSERVATION, "UNKNOWABLE". if you can observe him{and you claimed before that no1 can and all statements about him are from a position of ignorance, this includes your own statements in the second para} then he is not UNKNOWABLE. if he is UNKNOWABLE, then you cant observe him. choose one or the other{and only choose the former if you claim to have OBSERVED god yourself.

you went on to say, that IF WE ASSUME, that god is perfect/omnipotent, then his creation is also designed perfect. unwillingly, youve brought up a counterargument to your own position. merely because you ASSUME him to be perfect and extrapolate from that, that the world HENCE should also be PERFECT. then you extrapolation holds no ground for 2 reasons. first, there no evidence for your claim of god being perfect. furthermore from provable observation{as i myself have stated before}, we can see that your extrapolation is infact false and the world is anything BUT perfect.hence you yourself have proven how the "god is perfect" hypothesis is completely wrong.

and feal free to call me a moron if it makes you feal better about your own rather ignorant position on the matter. or feal free to call me anything just for the heck of it. i dont mind.

You are an idiot.

He said that assuming there is a God, which we would have to do for Pittman's idea to work, we don't know what is imperfect. In God's scheme the movement of the moon as it is now might be perfect, just because it appears to us not to be doesn't mean it is. That is all he was saying. All you were saying was bullshit.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lol, you already gave an unabased, illogical ultimatum. you first assumed that there is a god{nothing short of your own definiton would do ofcourse} with all evidence to the contrary. then you assumed that nobody knows his will{which also means you cant comment on what does or doesnt contradict his will}. then you made the ridiculous claim based on these empty dosprven hyptheses, that ANY statement made about god is from a position of ignorance{effectively nulling any and all arguments made by the contrary in your mind, making you utterly stubborn and ignorant}.

in the second para, you contradicted yourself. god is BY OBSERVATION, "UNKNOWABLE". if you can observe him{and you claimed before that no1 can and all statements about him are from a position of ignorance, this includes your own statements in the second para} then he is not UNKNOWABLE. if he is UNKNOWABLE, then you cant observe him. choose one or the other{and only choose the former if you claim to have OBSERVED god yourself.

you went on to say, that IF WE ASSUME, that god is perfect/omnipotent, then his creation is also designed perfect. unwillingly, youve brought up a counterargument to your own position. merely because you ASSUME him to be perfect and extrapolate from that, that the world HENCE should also be PERFECT. then you extrapolation holds no ground for 2 reasons. first, there no evidence for your claim of god being perfect. furthermore from provable observation{as i myself have stated before}, we can see that your extrapolation is infact false and the world is anything BUT perfect.hence you yourself have proven how the "god is perfect" hypothesis is completely wrong.

God is unknowable.

For the purposes of this thread he does possess the characteristic of being perfect and omnipotent nonetheless.

So in this case I can contradict myself since I maintain the idea that we know nothing about gods will but combine it with the stipluations set forth in the OP.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and feal free to call me a moron if it makes you feal better about your own rather ignorant position on the matter. or feal free to call me anything just for the heck of it. i dont mind.

The very idea you would misspell "feel" three times while saying that . . .

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are an idiot.

He said that assuming there is a God, which we would have to do for Pittman's idea to work, we don't know what is imperfect. In God's scheme the movement of the moon as it is now might be perfect, just because it appears to us not to be doesn't mean it is. That is all he was saying. All you were saying was bullshit.

lol. dejavu. i know exactly what he was saying. and you just repeated it. my post addressed exactly that point for those among us with any anylytical capabilities.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

The very idea you would misspell "feel" three times while saying that . . . Maybe he didn't pitt_shifty

Stop bickering you guys, and now kiss and make up.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Stop bickering you guys, and now kiss and make up.

But then I'd have to kill everybody for sinning.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But then I'd have to kill everybody for sinning.

And you assume I didn't want that?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
God is unknowable.

For the purposes of this thread he does possess the characteristic of being perfect and omnipotent nonetheless.

So in this case I can contradict myself since I maintain the idea that we know nothing about gods will but combine it with the stipluations set forth in the OP.



The very idea you would misspell "feel" three times while saying that . . .

again. your proposing the same thing. god is unknowable. your further sentences contain nothing adressing my previous reply. and remeber, if your simply working on hypothetical characteristics, you shudnt MAINTAIN any idea.

and ofcourse, misspelling is a wonderful excuse to try and vent out some misgiving about your life. no problem, ill give you a shoulder to cry on.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lol. dejavu. i know exactly what he was saying. and you just repeated it. my post addressed exactly that point for those among us with any anylytical capabilities.

No. It didn't, you didn't understand his post.



You said

"lol, you already gave an unabased, illogical ultimatum. you first assumed that there is a god{nothing short of your own definiton would do ofcourse} with all evidence to the contrary. "

But, if you really understood what was going on, but you didn't, because you are a moron, you would have understood that the hypothetical situation required the assumption that God existed...

Right, you understood shit. Lets be honest, you just try to drown people in long posts that are badly paragraphed, with horrible spelling and unnecessary uncommon words (which, I am sure, works with Shakya very well) so you don't have to think. Well, people that can actually think don't care for your stupidity, so, in the future when you attack a well thought out post, maybe bring up some valid points, cause some people actually read and think here...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
again. your proposing the same thing. god is unknowable. your further sentences contain nothing adressing my previous reply. and remeber, if your simply working on hypothetical characteristics, you shudnt MAINTAIN any idea.

I don't often say this but I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and ofcourse, misspelling is a wonderful excuse to try and vent out some misgiving about your life. no problem, ill give you a shoulder to cry on.

Actually I was channeling my personal insecurities into humor. The idea hat you take it as some manner of attack says a lot about you

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. It didn't, you didn't understand his post.



You said

"lol, you already gave an unabased, illogical ultimatum. you first assumed that there is a god{nothing short of your own definiton would do ofcourse} with all evidence to the contrary. "

But, if you really understood what was going on, but you didn't, because you are a moron, you would have understood that the hypothetical situation required the assumption that God existed...

Right, you understood shit. Lets be honest, you just try to drown people in long posts that are badly paragraphed, with horrible spelling and unnecessary uncommon words (which, I am sure, works with Shakya very well) so you don't have to think. Well, people that can actually think don't care for your stupidity, so, in the future when you attack a well thought out post, maybe bring up some valid points, cause some people actually read and think here...

i DID. you oxycotton fool. however the poster was contradicting himself in bringing in a hypothesis and then firmly BELEIVING IN his own criteria for admittance into the universal set called god. and then based on this, he was supporting a previous BELIEVERS hypothesis of god fitting the bill. it was half equal to the argument brought about by believers. and it was addressed in the manor i would address the former. simply put, it was an attempt to elaborate on the shortcomings of the HYPOTHETICAL logic being used.

and while were on the subject, you should honestly consider the possibility that in trying to be a respectable wacko, your trying to humiliate another poster's length of posting {which for you, requires an entire paragraph and uique psychic abilities which give you more insight into the mind of that person/motivation then the person in question} with rude words and allegations of overly unique words without understanding, simply to satisfy your own prejudices against not using simple language or your ill thought out position that all people who use{what appear to you} "big words" are morons without substance. if your truly the simple genius who can see through my elaborate web of confusion and lies, i congratulate you. youve shown me for the fraud i am. ill leave the forum in disgrace and never try to use my word twisting and lengthy posting techniques on any other PEOPLE WHO READ out there. ive learnt my lesson .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't often say this but I have no idea what you're trying to say.



Actually I was channeling my personal insecurities into humor. The idea hat you take it as some manner of attack says a lot about you

meditate on it, youll understand.

and, exactly WHAT made you think, i thought of your statement as a personal attack . i saw it for what it was, merely an ATTEMPT at sumthing faintly resembling an attack. dont give your self so much credit. remeber, humility is a virtue

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i DID. you oxycotton fool. however the poster was contradicting himself in bringing in a hypothesis and then firmly BELEIVING IN his own criteria for admittance into the universal set called god. and then based on this, he was supporting a previous BELIEVERS hypothesis of god fitting the bill. it was half equal to the argument brought about by believers. and it was addressed in the manor i would address the former. simply put, it was an attempt to elaborate on the shortcomings of the HYPOTHETICAL logic being used.

and while were on the subject, you should honestly consider the possibility that in trying to be a respectable wacko, your trying to humiliate another poster's length of posting {which for you, requires an entire paragraph and uique psychic abilities which give you more insight into the mind of that person/motivation then the person in question} with rude words and allegations of overly unique words without understanding, simply to satisfy your own prejudices against not using simple language or your ill thought out position that all people who use{what appear to you} "big words" are morons without substance. if your truly the simple genius who can see through my elaborate web of confusion and lies, i congratulate you. youve shown me for the fraud i am. ill leave the forum in disgrace and never try to use my word twisting and lengthy posting techniques on any other PEOPLE WHO READ out there. ive learnt my lesson . Now how exactly did I contradict myself? I have been quite clear and concise in my post and have not contradicted myself. The idea is quite simple and to the point and one of the major beliefs in Christianity that God is all-knowing and all-powerful so based on that belief the question was framed.

No, you ****ing idiot. He did not bring in a hypothesis. That was the threads basis. He just gave a possible statement why this does not prove that a hypothetical "God" is fallible.

As for the rest. My posts are easy to read. Yours are just endless babbling of sets of letters looking similar to words used in the English language.

And what the **** is an oxycotton. My research says either you invented a new word or you are a moron that can't spell old ones.

oxycotton

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
oxycotton

I liked that part.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
oxycotton Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I liked that part.

Are you sure?







Yeah, keep that laugh for the next time, you think you caught be being wrong...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you sure?


It was just twisted enough to make me laugh. But I do have a strange sense of humor.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It was just twisted enough to make me laugh. But I do have a strange sense of humor.

Right, I am sure you can fool the people here, but I see through your eyes and I see through your brain like I see through the water that runs down my drain.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, you ****ing idiot. He did not bring in a hypothesis. That was the threads basis. He just gave a possible statement why this does not prove that a hypothetical "God" is fallible.

As for the rest. My posts are easy to read. Yours are just endless babbling of sets of letters looking similar to words used in the English language.

And what the **** is an oxycotton. My research says either you invented a new word or you are a moron that can't spell old ones.
HOLLY PLAYBOY BUNNIES!!!!!!!! you really are thick rnt u. HE{symmetric chaos} claimed{or rather you did for him in an attempt to make me feal stupid about supposedly not knowing his intentions of approaching the question by establishing hypothetical axioms, i.e. the existance of a perfect god} that it was an hypothesis. btw, a potentially possible statement IS an hypothesis you dumbo.

as for the second para, your showing your obsession for putting people down. and your lack of patience or{dare i propose} "talent" which makes you UNABLE to read or undrstand my posts.

oxycotton is a drug. or rather, a slang for a drug. now, ACTUALLY do some researchand see what it is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Right, I am sure you can fool the people here, but I see through your eyes and I see through your brain like I see through the water that runs down my drain.

*speechless*

is the water that runs down your drain dirty/muddy or clear???

Originally posted by leonheartmm
is the water that runs down your drain dirty/muddy or clear???

I'm more afraid of someone who can see through my eyes. I'm tempted to look at gay porn just to torment him. jk

Originally posted by leonheartmm
is the water that runs down your drain dirty/muddy or clear???

Depends what I add to it I suppose.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
*speechless*

Aww, just a little pop culture reference for you, Shaky, I know you love Dylan.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
HOLLY PLAYBOY BUNNIES!!!!!!!! you really are thick rnt u. HE{symmetric chaos} claimed{or rather you did for him in an attempt to make me feal stupid about supposedly not knowing his intentions of approaching the question by establishing hypothetical axioms, i.e. the existance of a perfect god} that it was an hypothesis. btw, a potentially possible statement IS an hypothesis you dumbo.

as for the second para, your showing your obsession for putting people down. and your lack of patience or{dare i propose} "talent" which makes you UNABLE to read or undrstand my posts.

oxycotton is a drug. or rather, a slang for a drug. now, ACTUALLY do some researchand see what it is.

Again, you did not understand.

The point is Pittman said that the moon leaves the earth ergo the design is imperfect.

Symmetric Chaos said that the moon leaving the earth does not necessarily mean that the plan is imperfect as we don't really know what the plan is to begin with, meaning there are hypothetical situations where the leaving of the moon fits the plan.

All valid, really.


As for the oxycotton thing, you are right, you used the street term, I was not aware of it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm more afraid of someone who can see through my eyes. I'm tempted to look at gay porn just to torment him. jk

thats actually not sumthing to humour about a lot. someone seeing through your eyes, or your mind/soul is a scary thought.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...Aww, just a little pop culture reference for you, Shaky, I know you love Dylan... I'm not a big Dylan fan, so I didn't get it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Depends what I add to it I suppose.



Aww, just a little pop culture reference for you, Shaky, I know you love Dylan.



Again, you did not understand.

The point is Pittman said that the moon leaves the earth ergo the design is imperfect.

Symmetric Chaos said that the moon leaving the earth does not necessarily mean that the plan is imperfect as we don't really know what the plan is to begin with, meaning there are hypothetical situations where the leaving of the moon fits the plan.

All valid, really.


As for the oxycotton thing, you are right, you used the street term, I was not aware of it.

Originally posted by Bardock42

""You are an idiot.

He said that assuming there is a God, which we would have to do for Pittman's idea to work, we don't know what is imperfect""


""But, if you really understood what was going on, but you didn't, because you are a moron, you would have understood that the HYPOTHETICAL situation required the assumption that God existed...""

""No, you ****ing idiot. He DID "NOT" BRING IN A HYPOTHESIS . That was the threads basis. He just gave a possible statement why this does not prove that a hypothetical "God" is fallible.""





hmmmmmm. sum1 is a lil confused.

and AGAIN{you neglected to even try and answer this}. if a more perfect construct like the perfectly circular movement is in less preferance to a geometrically less perfect/homogenous/stable construct like the irregular elongated movement of the moon. and this sumhow fits the BIG PICTURE{unseen plan} to bring OVERALL perfection in the system{universe}. then that can only mean that the unsean PLAN in itself is fundamentally imperfect to begin with in its entirety and the imperfection in the geometrical irregular moon is in opposittion/and counters the imperfection of the system{i.e. universe}.

just for the record. i dont expect a reply. youve adequately shown your perspective on such things.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
hmmmmmm. sum1 is a lil confused.

and AGAIN{you neglected to even try and answer this}. if a more perfect construct like the perfectly circular movement is in less preferance to a geometrically less perfect/homogenous/stable construct like the irregular elongated movement of the moon. and this sumhow fits the BIG PICTURE{unseen plan} to bring OVERALL perfection in the system{universe}. then that can only mean that the unsean PLAN in itself is fundamentally imperfect to begin with in its entirety and the imperfection in the geometrical irregular moon is in opposittion/and counters the imperfection of the system{i.e. universe}.

just for the record. i dont expect a reply. youve adequately shown your perspective on such things.


Wow, wow, wow...there is no geometrical more or less perfect. You set a circular movement as more perfect than another, why? You have no basis for that.

You are pretty stupid.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and AGAIN{you neglected to even try and answer this}. if a more perfect construct like the perfectly circular movement is in less preferance to a geometrically less perfect/homogenous/stable construct like the irregular elongated movement of the moon. and this sumhow fits the BIG PICTURE{unseen plan} to bring OVERALL perfection in the system{universe}. then that can only mean that the unsean PLAN in itself is fundamentally imperfect to begin with in its entirety and the imperfection in the geometrical irregular moon is in opposittion/and counters the imperfection of the system{i.e. universe}.

So (if I've sifted through all that correctly) you want to make the case that a perfect plan is imperfect just because parts of it are perfect?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wow, wow, wow...there is no geometrical more or less perfect. You set a circular movement as more perfect than another, why? You have no basis for that.

You are pretty stupid.

perfection{as normally used in the context that it is}= harmony/uniformity/elegance/ease/lack of disord/order{you get the picture}

elliptical/erratic geometrical motion of physical bodies is ALWAYS more chaotic/entropic than uniform circular motion. similarly, orderly, uniform placing is less likely to be upset in an asymmetric/chaotic manner if a disturbance is brought in, as opposed to haphazardly organised system/placing. similarly, energy flow is more uniform in homogenous{cicular in this case} motion as opposed to elleptical. simply put, there are physical contructs which are more PERFECT, then others.

if you read a lil in the past, i was the FIRST on to say that there is no ULTIMATE more or less perfect in geometry or motion. and before believers can define the universe as PERFECT, they would need to arrive at a functional definition. as they skip form one perpective to ther other and try to fit in any discrepancies in the physical world to transform them into ORDER from their perspective. however, from the point of view of ANY physical functional definition. what believers DO refer to often are the traits i described. and taking THAT perspective. certain types of motion/geometric constructs are more perfect than others. and the less perfect exist in the supposedly perfect universe.

you really should not be so narrow minded and try and understand before shrugging sumthing off with single statement and calling the poster stupid little one.

ill repost my old one.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
perfection{as normally used in the context that it is}= harmony/uniformity/elegance/ease/lack of disord/order{you get the picture}

elliptical/erratic geometrical motion of physical bodies is ALWAYS more chaotic/entropic than uniform circular motion. similarly, orderly, uniform placing is less likely to be upset in an asymmetric/chaotic manner if a disturbance is brought in, as opposed to haphazardly organised system/placing. similarly, energy flow is more uniform in homogenous{cicular in this case} motion as opposed to elleptical. simply put, there are physical contructs which are more PERFECT, then others.

if you read a lil in the past, i was the FIRST on to say that there is no ULTIMATE more or less perfect in geometry or motion. and before believers can define the universe as PERFECT, they would need to arrive at a functional definition. as they skip form one perpective to ther other and try to fit in any discrepancies in the physical world to transform them into ORDER from their perspective. however, from the point of view of ANY physical functional definition. what believers DO refer to often are the traits i described. and taking THAT perspective. certain types of motion/geometric constructs are more perfect than others. and the less perfect exist in the supposedly perfect universe.

you really should not be so narrow minded and try and understand before shrugging sumthing off with single statement and calling the poster stupid little one.

ill repost my old one.

Oh you moron.

Your personal definition of perfect does not matter in case the God exists. You take it to be those things. But you don't even know what will happen in the long run. What if it is very harmonic in the full picture and you just don't see it yet. It's a hypothetical situation.

There are ways in which God can be "perfect" and a moon can leave earths orbit. The initial point that this happening proofs that there is a flaw in the design is not a necessity. That's the whole point.


Now the whole problem that "perfect" is subjective in any case is a whole different thing.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ok heres a question. what WOULD you define as a flaw in the universe. i mean what has to be there, that isnt already here, which would lead you to say "the universe is flawed" give me a functional example.
I don't know what a "flaw" in the universe would look like, save, perhaps, for the joining of the gametes that formed your zygote.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I don't know what a "flaw" in the universe would look like, save, perhaps, for the joining of the gametes that formed your zygote.

I wish I had your restraint. Seriously, that's what I should have done from the beginning.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So (if I've sifted through all that correctly) you want to make the case that a perfect plan is imperfect just because parts of it are perfect?

think of it this way. imagine a static system, in 3d containing space and bits of matter.{forget time for now as that will get very confusing}
now, UNIFORMITY/HARMONY{which IS what were defining perfection by currently} requires that all things be uniform and balanced out.

this means, the space should be a perfect sphere{extending equally/harmoniously in all directions from a middle point with every direction and amoung of space having an equal and oposite amount of space on the other side. same goes for matter. it should be uniformly distributed in the circular space. if this is true, then the system is in harmony. NOW. lets think of motion. if one type of motion exists, on one side of the centre, and equal and opposite amount should exist on the opposite side. do remember that motion in tself is not ideal as at times, the difference between particles wont be homogenous{even if over time they even out.} it is LESS PERFECT/HOMOGENOUS than static perfection/distribution. but still as far as its the same on all sides, than the system is nearlyperfect over time. now INDIVIDUALLY, any particles movement is imperfect as it causes imbalances in mass distribution at one point in time. {you can describe this as the imperfect movement of the moon which is not in uniform circular motion} HOWEVER, as believers claim. if this certain movement was actually to CAUSE more PERFECTION than the perfect movement{harmonious circle} than that can only be possible if the opposite side of our system has the same type but exactly opposite direction of a particle in motion in the same non harmonious ellipse/non circular movement. in this way, OUR imperfectly moving particle will OPPOSE the opposite imperfectly moving particle and the affect would cancel each otherout leading again to the SEEMINGLY imperfect action leading to greater perfection in the system{as believers claim}. HOWEVER, if an emperically imperfect/unharmonius phenomenon{our non circular moving particle} were to actually cause greater perfection. then the only answer is that there exists an already inherent imperfection in the system{the opposing particles moving the same shape, in opposite direction} which is being countered by our imperfection to make the whole thing more perfect. and that means that the system was inherently imperfect to begin with. if it required imperfection to bring about perfection in itself.

ill give an easier example. lets say pool is being played and we define perfection as each ball going into each hole/basket, covering as much distance as theaverage of all the other balls. NOW, sum1 shoots the white ball and brings the whoel thing in motion, hes a perfect player and all balls disappear uniformly in all holes{imagine that the pool table is completely circular and there are 8 EVENLY spaced holes uniformly distributed at the edges. that is PERFECTION. if i randomly threw a ball in {imperfection} the whole perfection of the system would be compromised and the balls would randomly/chaotically roam the board wiht the same perfect man's shot. now imagine if you will, me throwing that same random ball randomly{imperfection} in the pool table, and it sumhow actually HELPING the shot balls to uniformly reach each hole with the same distance covered ! thus making the system perfect. my question is, can that EVER happen with the perfect shot???? NO! the shot{and hence the entire bases for the system} would have to be imperfect in exactly the right way to BEGIN with for my imperfection to cancel out the system's imperfection and bring the system to perfection. in other words, the initial shot would have to be imperfect.

simplest example. a uniform, symmetric body is defines as perfect in athletes. now lets say a runner has a perfect/uniform/developed/syymmetric body. he would obviously be perfect. now, if one of his SHOES, was bigger than the other one{imperfection} the enitire body{system} would become imperfect as now there is asymmetry.

however, think of an assymmetric man{imperfect system} who has one leg shorter than the other. now if the SAME MAN were to wear the larger shoe{imperfection} on his smaller leg and the averge show on his larger leg. the over all result would be SYMMETRY. as the largeness of the shoe{imperfection} is directly opposing and countering the smallness of his leg{imperfection in the system} thus making the entire system more perfect. however for localised imperfection{large shoe} to bring overall system perfection{symmetry to the assymetric physique}. the systhem would HAVE to have the imperfection{small assymetric leg} in opposition to the localised imperfection{large shoe} to begin with. otherwise a localised imperfection{large shoe} would only cause imperfection{assymetry} if the system{body} is PERFECT{symmetrical} to begin with.

t

Originally posted by leonheartmm
think of it this way. imagine a static system, in 3d containing space and bits of matter.{forget time for now as that will get very confusing}
now, UNIFORMITY/HARMONY{which IS what were defining perfection by currently} requires that all things be uniform and balanced out.

this means, the space should be a perfect sphere{extending equally/harmoniously in all directions from a middle point with every direction and amoung of space having an equal and oposite amount of space on the other side. same goes for matter. it should be uniformly distributed in the circular space. if this is true, then the system is in harmony. NOW. lets think of motion. if one type of motion exists, on one side of the centre, and equal and opposite amount should exist on the opposite side. do remember that motion in tself is not ideal as at times, the difference between particles wont be homogenous{even if over time they even out.} it is LESS PERFECT/HOMOGENOUS than static perfection/distribution. but still as far as its the same on all sides, than the system is nearlyperfect over time. now INDIVIDUALLY, any particles movement is imperfect as it causes imbalances in mass distribution at one point in time. {you can describe this as the imperfect movement of the moon which is not in uniform circular motion} HOWEVER, as believers claim. if this certain movement was actually to CAUSE more PERFECTION than the perfect movement{harmonious circle} than that can only be possible if the opposite side of our system has the same type but exactly opposite direction of a particle in motion in the same non harmonious ellipse/non circular movement. in this way, OUR imperfectly moving particle will OPPOSE the opposite imperfectly moving particle and the affect would cancel each otherout leading again to the SEEMINGLY imperfect action leading to greater perfection in the system{as believers claim}. HOWEVER, if an emperically imperfect/unharmonius phenomenon{our non circular moving particle} were to actually cause greater perfection. then the only answer is that there exists an already inherent imperfection in the system{the opposing particles moving the same shape, in opposite direction} which is being countered by our imperfection to make the whole thing more perfect. and that means that the system was inherently imperfect to begin with. if it required imperfection to bring about perfection in itself.

ill give an easier example. lets say pool is being played and we define perfection as each ball going into each hole/basket, covering as much distance as theaverage of all the other balls. NOW, sum1 shoots the white ball and brings the whoel thing in motion, hes a perfect player and all balls disappear uniformly in all holes{imagine that the pool table is completely circular and there are 8 EVENLY spaced holes uniformly distributed at the edges. that is PERFECTION. if i randomly threw a ball in {imperfection} the whole perfection of the system would be compromised and the balls would randomly/chaotically roam the board wiht the same perfect man's shot. now imagine if you will, me throwing that same random ball randomly{imperfection} in the pool table, and it sumhow actually HELPING the shot balls to uniformly reach each hole with the same distance covered ! thus making the system perfect. my question is, can that EVER happen with the perfect shot???? NO! the shot{and hence the entire bases for the system} would have to be imperfect in exactly the right way to BEGIN with for my imperfection to cancel out the system's imperfection and bring the system to perfection. in other words, the initial shot would have to be imperfect.

simplest example. a uniform, symmetric body is defines as perfect in athletes. now lets say a runner has a perfect/uniform/developed/syymmetric body. he would obviously be perfect. now, if one of his SHOES, was bigger than the other one{imperfection} the enitire body{system} would become imperfect as now there is asymmetry.

however, think of an assymmetric man{imperfect system} who has one leg shorter than the other. now if the SAME MAN were to wear the larger shoe{imperfection} on his smaller leg and the averge show on his larger leg. the over all result would be SYMMETRY. as the largeness of the shoe{imperfection} is directly opposing and countering the smallness of his leg{imperfection in the system} thus making the entire system more perfect. however for localised imperfection{large shoe} to bring overall system perfection{symmetry to the assymetric physique}. the systhem would HAVE to have the imperfection{small assymetric leg} in opposition to the localised imperfection{large shoe} to begin with. otherwise a localised imperfection{large shoe} would only cause imperfection{assymetry} if the system{body} is PERFECT{symmetrical} to begin with.

t

clap Funny man make mouth poopies!







But seriously aren't you the one who started talking about "argument from ignorance"?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
this is an endless discussion. when a believer says PERFECT what exactly does he/she mean by it. the most obvious would be perfect for in geometry{i.e. UNIFORMITY, a circle is more perfect than an elipse, an equilateral triangle more than a right angeld etc. very greek idea} but that obviously isnt true for practically any celestial body. then you move next to the placing being perfect for the creation of life,{place/composition by elemets/energy recieved etc} but thats definately not true, a little warmer earth would be better, the abundance of some elements would be better for humans/animals, more ozone would be nice. more cultivable land better, different elements in the star to emit less ultraviolet/gamma rays, a shorter year nicer, faster day/night has its advantages, the things about meteors n stuff etc etc etc. once that fails theyd say that all physical laws are uniform and EVRYTHING follows them and therefore everything is in PERFECT order and follows the determined path{not noticing how much theyv deviated form their original argument} but thats not true either. many laws break down in certain situations, quantum mechanics brings in randomness and vagueness which deviates from constant laws, laws dont exist in singularities etc. once even that is undermined thed turn to more bague arguments like the laws change to suite our needs{which is false} and the will of the creator and he still rules. or even ater theyd turn to other stuff like "dont you see the trees that give you fruit, the land that gives you food and the rivers which give you water. how can you look at that and think its all a coincidence and everyhting isnt perfect?".

on another line, a believer would argue that your body has been brought together in perfection etc. but thats completely not true. most systems could use a lot of work. our immunity is pathetic. our resistance to mutation is terrible, many people are genetically worse off than other for no fault of their own, many people are born challenged, our mind is fickle etc etc. as a last ditch theyd turn the argument on its head{forgetting completely the parallels theyd drawn before and the line the used to ARGUE in the first place} and say, well THATS A TEST or GOD HAS HIS REASONS, or YOU REALLY DONT KNOW WHAT OTHER BLESSINGS/SIGHT THE LORD GIVES A BLIND MAN. or that theyd be better of in heaven.

its also common to skip form one stage to the other of PERFECTION'S DEFINITION to make the oposition unable to react in time and plausibly and exalt your self to a more authentic level. really the discussion is a waste of TIME as perfection is reletive and even in that reletivity "GOD's" perfection fails in all criteria.

yes. and how is that relevant here? im not talking about a god of gaps. and since we know the working of uniform/non uniform systems. there is no need for ignorance on my part to conclude that a non uniformly moving moon can only spell perfection if its countering an inherent imperfection in the system.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes. and how is that relevant here? im not talking about a god of gaps. and since we know the working of uniform/non uniform systems. there is no need for ignorance on my part to conclude that a non uniformly moving moon can only spell perfection if its countering an inherent imperfection in the system.

You're trying to define what god considers perfection. You can't due that unless you know what god thinks. No one knows what god thinks unless they are god. If you think you are god you're to crazy to argue with.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I don't know what a "flaw" in the universe would look like, save, perhaps, for the joining of the gametes that formed your zygote.

NOOOOOO U IDIOT!!!!!!!!! read the post i just reposted. i think anything BUST what your saying. im trying to define what PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THAT THE UNIVERSE IS PERFECT AND ITS MADE BY GOD{an argument used to support the fact that no1 other than god cud have created the universe} . im trying to describe what exactly CAN constitute to PEOPLE, "perfection". after all you cant claim perfection unless you can define it{there is no such thing as what GOD consider's perfection. perfection has certain attributes without which it is not perfection. if god created complete chaos on a physical/dimension/geometrical/logical/humanistic and spiritual level, then by ALMOST "ANY" PERSPECTIVE, youd be hard put to call it perfection. perfection can exist depending on perspectives, but still that does not mean just anything in the whole wide world can be defines as perfection. simply put, GOD'S perfection has to fit in to one or more perspectives of HUMAN perfection}. the MOST OBVIOUS when talkin about celestial bodies in geometric perfection/harmony in the universe{e.g. the sun sets and rises each day, regulkarly without fail ofr differene. the earth takes eaxctly the same amount of time to complete one year/rotation of the sun etc} that i addressed and the moon issue came in it. and i elavborated how either way u look at it, it leads to imperfection in geometrical sense. ive given examples of other issues in the posts i reposted. there is NO criteria of perfection that this universe{so called god's creation} achieves.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I don't know what a "flaw" in the universe would look like, save, perhaps, for the joining of the gametes that formed your zygote.

nice way to dodge a question .

again. please do state what would constitute, even for YOU, an imperfection in the universe{neednt be real, just imagine}. because every time any discrepancy is found. one way or another, it is assimilated as contributing to perfection on the whole{god's wisdom n all} by bringing out a new perspective and new way to find room for it in the perfection category by people who believe that god is perfect and the universe is perfect. if you can not, it just shows that your willing to consider absolutely any cosmic event as perfect.

i was born artificially in a superdimensional force cube without any pernts

Originally posted by FeceMan
I don't know what a "flaw" in the universe would look like, save, perhaps, for the joining of the gametes that formed your zygote.

Hehe, look who's pro-choice afterall.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I don't know what a "flaw" in the universe would look like, save, perhaps, for the joining of the gametes that formed your zygote.

But all life is preshus, unless your not Christian.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But all life is preshus, unless your not Christian. and if you are me, all life owes me $1

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
and if you are me, all life owes me $1

I don't have that much money. My wife has all my money. Good luck getting your $1 from her.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't have that much money. My wife has all my money. Good luck getting your $1 from her. http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar69509_6.gifwhip

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar69509_6.gif whip



Stop it!
http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar69509_6.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar69509_6.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar69509_6.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar69509_6.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar69509_6.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar69509_6.gif

Now you are out numbered.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Stop it!
http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar69509_6.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar69509_6.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar69509_6.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar69509_6.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar69509_6.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar69509_6.gif

Now you are out numbered.


<?
while ($n < $x) {

echo "http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar94425_27.gif<br />"

}

?>

I win pitt_moody

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS

<?
while ($n < $x) {

echo "http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar94425_27.gif<br />"

}

?>

I win pitt_moody

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bow down to my greatness, for I'm the one called Spoon!

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Bow down to my greatness, for I'm the one called Spoon!

Tick Fan?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Tick Fan? yes He just cracks me up