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

if there is a god why would he create us

break a leg ushomefree

a perfect being like a god wud not need to create anythign outside itself. unless it was incomplete and hence not perfect.

How do you know he "needed" to create something? How do you know he maybe just wanted something to observe.

how can you want sumthing if you are perfect. you only want what you do not posess and without which you feal a little bit worse and with it, you feal alittle bit better. wanting still implies DESIRE and desire implies lack of, and " lack of" implies imperfection.

Why does desire imply imperfection?

Why did we evolve, well just like other animals they have had to adapt, and to do this they must have evolved to cope and survive with the new change.

Evolution created us.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Why does desire imply imperfection?

desire is another type of need. no1 can desire sumthing which does not attract them. if sum1 desires sumthing, than that means that they do no POSESS it already, or the fealing that comes after posessing it {hence the imperfection. the lack of presence of completeness of fealing or sum phenomenon/thing} . sum1 who was complete and perfect and wud stop needing and desiring. because they would already have everything.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
if there is a god why would he create us

break a leg ushomefree

Because he was bored, and wanted someone to show his creation (the earth eden etc.) too.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
desire is another type of need. no1 can desire sumthing which does not attract them. if sum1 desires sumthing, than that means that they do no POSESS it already, or the fealing that comes after posessing it {hence the imperfection. the lack of presence of completeness of fealing or sum phenomenon/thing} . sum1 who was complete and perfect and wud stop needing and desiring. because they would already have everything. Exactly how do you know what a perfect being would do?

Where is the evidence?

It could be just as easily said that a perfect being who knows no imperfection could also seek to see what imperfection holds.

Of course you will say but the desire to seek something also implies that the being isn't perfect or is limited.

In which I say I but a perfect seeking imperfection only means that the perfect being understands to be perfect one must also be imperfect.

Of course you will say if the beings seeks to be perfect through imperfection does that not mean it was imperfect and incompletle at one time.

In which I say the being could be imperfect and perfect at the same time from the very begining.

Of course you will say a being can not be perfect and imperfect at the same time as one makes the other impossible. You will say if something is perfect then it can not be imperfect, and if something is imperfect then it can not be perfect.

In which case I will ask for some evidence concerning said assumption outside of human or physical examples. Why will I ask this because from a fundamental standpoint every example you will use will be in fact imperfection because you will cite humanity which is imperfect and has never experienced perfection. Therefore there is no actual evidence you can use to for your claims of imperfection and perfection not existing at the same time.

In which you will say that there is some logical conclusion you can come to from imperfection to perfection.

In which I will say even logic requires evidence.

Then you will say but you do not need to have evidence to prove that a=b b=c therefore a=c. It just is.

Then I will say yes but not until someone actually observed that this is true. It may have been true before but at the same time it still needed to be seen and observed for it to hold as logic. Therefore in order to make a claim on perfection you need to have observed. Which you haven't.

And honestly I just got up and wanted to hear myself type so have fun reading everything up to this sorry

Originally posted by leonheartmm
desire is another type of need. no1 can desire sumthing which does not attract them. if sum1 desires sumthing, than that means that they do no POSESS it already, or the fealing that comes after posessing it {hence the imperfection. the lack of presence of completeness of fealing or sum phenomenon/thing} . sum1 who was complete and perfect and wud stop needing and desiring. because they would already have everything.

Have you spent any time as a perfect omnipotent being? If not your opinion is meaningless

^ no it is not. that argument can be used to justify any act of god. it is fallacious because the basic meaning of perfection CAN be understood, as opposed to everything it implies{which can not be understood}.

as for the argument by newjak, you can avoid ALL that by just stating it for what it really is, a logical impossibility with self contradictory notions. that is why it makes no sense. however, even if it is assumed FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, that the said being is perfect, than it goes to reason that the being would neither need nor desire anything. because both need and desire exist for things that are not posessed to begin with.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^ no it is not. that argument can be used to justify any act of god. it is fallacious because the basic meaning of perfection CAN be understood, as opposed to everything it implies{which can not be understood}.

Yes it can be used to justify any act of a perfect God. What makes that a bad thing? It's not as though you could do anything about it.

You're inventing (or borrowing) your own definition of perfection and imperfect to make an argument, which is fallacious in and of itself.

Originally posted by Newjak
Exactly how do you know what a perfect being would do?

Where is the evidence?

It could be just as easily said that a perfect being who knows no imperfection could also seek to see what imperfection holds.

Of course you will say but the desire to seek something also implies that the being isn't perfect or is limited.

In which I say I but a perfect seeking imperfection only means that the perfect being understands to be perfect one must also be imperfect.

Of course you will say if the beings seeks to be perfect through imperfection does that not mean it was imperfect and incompletle at one time.

In which I say the being could be imperfect and perfect at the same time from the very begining.

Of course you will say a being can not be perfect and imperfect at the same time as one makes the other impossible. You will say if something is perfect then it can not be imperfect, and if something is imperfect then it can not be perfect.

In which case I will ask for some evidence concerning said assumption outside of human or physical examples. Why will I ask this because from a fundamental standpoint every example you will use will be in fact imperfection because you will cite humanity which is imperfect and has never experienced perfection. Therefore there is no actual evidence you can use to for your claims of imperfection and perfection not existing at the same time.

In which you will say that there is some logical conclusion you can come to from imperfection to perfection.

In which I will say even logic requires evidence.

Then you will say but you do not need to have evidence to prove that a=b b=c therefore a=c. It just is.

Then I will say yes but not until someone actually observed that this is true. It may have been true before but at the same time it still needed to be seen and observed for it to hold as logic. Therefore in order to make a claim on perfection you need to have observed. Which you haven't.

And honestly I just got up and wanted to hear myself type so have fun reading everything up to this sorry



wow

Originally posted by leonheartmm
a perfect being like a god wud not need to create anythign outside itself. This is why some people believe that we are all part of IT.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
a perfect being like a god wud not need to create anythign outside itself. unless it was incomplete and hence not perfect.

Yes, a perfect, all knowing God would not need.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes it can be used to justify any act of a perfect God. What makes that a bad thing? It's not as though you could do anything about it.

You're inventing (or borrowing) your own definition of perfection and imperfect to make an argument, which is fallacious in and of itself.

it is a bad thing because it can not be falsified and hence it is not a logical argument but a superphilosophy.

and it is not MY definition of perfection but the concept generally understoof by the greater part of living humans in this world. utter perfection wud be complete and not require anything more to make it any BETTER. ofcourse COMPLETE perfection is self contradictory which is why the problems arise when u try to reconcile it as an attribute of god. it isnt fallacious at all.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it is a bad thing because it can not be falsified and hence it is not a logical argument but a superphilosophy.

and it is not MY definition of perfection but the concept generally understoof by the greater part of living humans in this world. utter perfection wud be complete and not require anything more to make it any BETTER. ofcourse COMPLETE perfection is self contradictory which is why the problems arise when u try to reconcile it as an attribute of god. it isnt fallacious at all. The only reason complete perfection is considered self contradictory is because it has never been seen or has never been known. Everything we have never observed to be true we consider self-contradictory by nature.

Which in and of itself is not grounds to disqualify something it just means we can not fathom a condition in which something would be completely perfect.

Which also is the reason why every time you say what a perfect being would do should be dismissed as you do not know what a perfect being would do. There is no logical step to be made because there is no evidence in which to create a logical bridge. As evidenced by the mere fact everything you will reference is imperfect.

Unless you can actually reference something that is perfect?

Originally posted by Newjak
The only reason complete perfection is considered self contradictory is because it has never been seen or has never been known. Everything we have never observed to be true we consider self-contradictory by nature.

Which in and of itself is not grounds to disqualify something it just means we can not fathom a condition in which something would be completely perfect.

Which also is the reason why every time you say what a perfect being would do should be dismissed as you do not know what a perfect being would do. There is no logical step to be made because there is no evidence in which to create a logical bridge. As evidenced by the mere fact everything you will reference is imperfect.

Unless you can actually reference something that is perfect?

Perfection, as you are stating, does not exist. The universe is perfect in it's imperfection.

newjak you are wrong. i am NOT basing my assumption on the fact that we have never seen a perfect being{btw, the reasoning that its contradictory just because such a being hasnt been see is like putting the horse before the coach. normally, self contradictory concepts dont exist in real life BECAUSE they are self contraidtory i.e. a square circle.
now going by your reasoning, i cud make a case for a square circle by saying that no1 has seen a square circle and hence no1 can comment on its nature and if it exists or not and hence there is nothing nrgating the existance of a square circle. heck i cud make an argument for any contradictory thing that way. the REASON no1 has seen a perfect being is because they can not EXIST due to the contradiction. the best we can do is elaborate on the hypothesis of existance, orf different COMPONENTS of such contradicting concepts and also explain how they are incompatible and contradictory in themselves}
the contradiction exists because a perfect being wud already have EVERYTHING. but technically that shud also mean it has IMPERFECTION{among other contradictory traits}, if it doesnt than it is not perfect. but if it does, than it is contraidctory as you can be perfect and imperfect at the same time. that is why such a thing doesnt exist.

this is obviously a spite thread against a particular member and should be closed.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
newjak you are wrong. i am NOT basing my assumption on the fact that we have never seen a perfect being{btw, the reasoning that its contradictory just because such a being hasnt been see is like putting the horse before the coach. normally, self contradictory concepts dont exist in real life BECAUSE they are self contraidtory i.e. a square circle.
now going by your reasoning, i cud make a case for a square circle by saying that no1 has seen a square circle and hence no1 can comment on its nature and if it exists or not and hence there is nothing nrgating the existance of a square circle. heck i cud make an argument for any contradictory thing that way. the REASON no1 has seen a perfect being is because they can not EXIST due to the contradiction. the best we can do is elaborate on the hypothesis of existance, orf different COMPONENTS of such contradicting concepts and also explain how they are incompatible and contradictory in themselves}
the contradiction exists because a perfect being wud already have EVERYTHING. but technically that shud also mean it has IMPERFECTION{among other contradictory traits}, if it doesnt than it is not perfect. but if it does, than it is contraidctory as you can be perfect and imperfect at the same time. that is why such a thing doesnt exist. I think you are making a few wrong assumptions here.
Firstly is the idea that I'm trying to prove a perfect being exists. I'm not I'm simply pointing out your wrong points.

Now before people ask I am a Christian and believe in a a higher power I choose to call God. Once gain I'm not trying to prove to you he exists.


Now back to the point at hand.
Your analogy of the square circle falls short because we both have observed a circle and a square.

Therefore there is true direct evidence to reference. We have a square we have a circle we know we can not square the circle.

Now once again we do not have direct reference or observations based on something that is perfect. You can not observe perfection.


Now if you wanted to say perfection does not exist because we have never observed it. That is fine, but you have no direct reference to what a perfect anything is therefore you can not make direct assumptions about what causes it to be a contradiction. As you have no real basis to make such claims.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
this is obviously a spite thread against a particular member and should be closed.

Bumping for posterity. I'd advise everyone to get their remarks in, because I've reported the thread and suggested it be closed.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Bumping for posterity. I'd advise everyone to get their remarks in, because I've reported the thread and suggested it be closed. Curse you Digi

Anyways I say the reason we were created were to die

Originally posted by Newjak
I think you are making a few wrong assumptions here.
Firstly is the idea that I'm trying to prove a perfect being exists. I'm not I'm simply pointing out your wrong points.

Now before people ask I am a Christian and believe in a a higher power I choose to call God. Once gain I'm not trying to prove to you he exists.


Now back to the point at hand.
Your analogy of the square circle falls short because we both have observed a circle and a square.

Therefore there is true direct evidence to reference. We have a square we have a circle we know we can not square the circle.

Now once again we do not have direct reference or observations based on something that is perfect. You can not observe perfection.


Now if you wanted to say perfection does not exist because we have never observed it. That is fine, but you have no direct reference to what a perfect anything is therefore you can not make direct assumptions about what causes it to be a contradiction. As you have no real basis to make such claims.

untrue, a square circle wud be different from an individual square or an individual circle, therefore u havent ever seen it. as for perfection you are wrong again, if you wanna break it into components like the square circle example, i cud give you examples of perfection in certain CATEGORIES. i.e. perfect white, a colour that is completely white, exists and can be seen in vacuume chambers. same with all other colours. a perfect DAVINCI exists, as the criteria for perfection is davinci's original work, hence, the monalisa is a perfect davinci. a perfect temperature of 0 degrees kelvin exists in empty space. all these are exampled of PERFECT components{like individual squares and circles}. however, if i were to say that sumthing embodies ALL this perfection at the same time, i shud come at contradictions because criterion for the individual perfections are not all the same{i.e. the world isnt uniform} and one perfection wud null the other and so on asnd so forth. the post i gave before about lacking imperfection nulling perfection itself because complete perfection can not lack anything, was to elaborate this point exactly. a complete perfection doesnt EXIST and it is due to the contradictions found in the individual criterion which can not simultaneously create a whole.

Originally posted by Newjak
Curse you Digi

Anyways I say the reason we were created were to die

No, we die to make room.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
untrue, a square circle wud be different from an individual square or an individual circle, therefore u havent ever seen it. as for perfection you are wrong again, if you wanna break it into components like the square circle example, i cud give you examples of perfection in certain CATEGORIES. i.e. perfect white, a colour that is completely white, exists and can be seen in vacuume chambers. same with all other colours. a perfect DAVINCI exists, as the criteria for perfection is davinci's original work, hence, the monalisa is a perfect davinci. a perfect temperature of 0 degrees kelvin exists in empty space. all these are exampled of PERFECT components{like individual squares and circles}. however, if i were to say that sumthing embodies ALL this perfection at the same time, i shud come at contradictions because criterion for the individual perfections are not all the same{i.e. the world isnt uniform} and one perfection wud null the other and so on asnd so forth. the post i gave before about lacking imperfection nulling perfection itself because complete perfection can not lack anything, was to elaborate this point exactly. a complete perfection doesnt EXIST and it is due to the contradictions found in the individual criterion which can not simultaneously create a whole.

Really where is the evidence?
You know cause saying it doesn't make it true.

And yes the Square and the circle play an important role in there not being a squared circle because we note a square and a circle do not mix well


I could also make note that everything you mentioned are not perfection in the way you've been trying to say. Trying to quote them as such isn't a true basis for what you are saying. Unless you would also say that Monalisa because it is perfect contradicts itself.

And yes I know what you are trying to get at but once again using the word perfection on an individual nature like you are doesn't prove the points you are trying to make about the perfection being talked about here.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, we die to make room. And we make room for life

Originally posted by Newjak
And we make room for life

Yes. I believe in reincarnation, therefore we make room for us.

Originally posted by Newjak
Therefore there is true direct evidence to reference. We have a square we have a circle we know we can not square the circle.


Actually if God is omnipotente he should be capable of creating a square Circle, I think that the line of thinking about how the illogical cannot be comprehend by a human mind would follow the thoughts about why God created man (if we go by the thread starters intents) would be just as difficult to understand as to understand the possibility of a squarecircle.

Perfection seems to assume unchanging (because it does not need to change because it is perfect) and forever. Even this criteria does not make something perfect, but anything "perfect" that changed could not be considered perfect.

Changes made by a god are for the better (of course I mean relative to that god). Any change takes away forever.

Perfection has never been and never will be defined not because we can not witness it but because it does not exist.

Even in Aristotle's "giant" example (a giant meets a taller giant; which is perfect?) debunks it without much effort. If anything were to be "better" it would be the next "perfect." To assume what is right no can never be surpassed is absurd if one were to speak on technology.

Speaking of a god with needs and curiousity is just as crazy:

Originally posted by Newjak


It could be just as easily said that a perfect being who knows no imperfection could also seek to see what imperfection holds.



... because a perfect being already knows the outcome.

Originally posted by Utrigita
Actually if God is omnipotente he should be capable of creating a square Circle, I think that the line of thinking about how the illogical cannot be comprehend by a human mind would follow the thoughts about why God created man (if we go by the thread starters intents) would be just as difficult to understand as to understand the possibility of a squarecircle.

First, square and circle are what men call the two shapes to give them distinction.

Second, a square-circle is possible. You can mix them but this so called "square-circle" just becomes a different shape. I can draw some shit and call it whatever I want. It's not difficult at all, it just does not make sense because that sort of shape has no use in this universe.

Originally posted by chithappens
First, square and circle are what men call the two shapes to give them distinction.

Second, a square-circle is possible. You can mix them but this so called "square-circle" just becomes a different shape. I can draw some shit and call it whatever I want. It's not difficult at all, it just does not make sense because that sort of shape has no use in this universe.

So you can draw a picture that would portrait a Square and a Circle at the same time... Impressive. Nothing about overlapping simply a figure that would fill both criteria for a circle and a square.

Originally posted by Utrigita
So you can draw a picture that would portrait a Square and a Circle at the same time... Impressive. Nothing about overlapping simply a figure that would fill both criteria for a circle and a square. Plus I once again want to point out that Leo is way off the mark here.

Once again I'm not trying to prove that a perfect being exists just that he can not say a perfect being is a contradiction based on what he is saying. Because he has no basis on which to draw what a perfect anything is. The way he is talking about.

Originally posted by Utrigita
So you can draw a picture that would portrait a Square and a Circle at the same time... Impressive. Nothing about overlapping simply a figure that would fill both criteria for a circle and a square.

Nice reading. Notice how I said it:

Originally posted by chithappens
I can draw some shit and call it whatever I want. It's not difficult at all, it just does not make sense because that sort of shape has no use in this universe.

I did not say I could draw a square-circle.

This was my point:

Originally posted by chithappens

Second, a square-circle is possible. You can mix them but this so called "square-circle" just becomes a different shape.

I call it possible assuming some being can do "anything."

The kicker is that it would likely change the understanding of what both a square and a circle are defined to be. I have to throw this disclaimer in there simply because everyone keeps talking about "possibility" and I know it is not possible to make a "square-circle" through the ways we define them now.

Originally posted by Newjak
Plus I once again want to point out that Leo is way off the mark here.

Once again I'm not trying to prove that a perfect being exists just that he can not say a perfect being is a contradiction based on what he is saying. Because he has no basis on which to draw what a perfect anything is. The way he is talking about.

Sigh

Originally posted by chithappens


Perfection has never been and never will be defined not because we can not witness it but because it does not exist.

Even in Aristotle's "giant" example (a giant meets a taller giant; which is perfect?) debunks it without much effort. If anything were to be "better" it would be the next "perfect."

We exist for sh*ts and giggles. >>

Originally posted by chithappens
Sigh Sigh

Read what I've wrote.

If someone wants to say that perfect being doesn't exist that is alright because we have never seen it.


But don't go around trying to say you can deduce what a perfect anything will do because like above we have never seen it therefore you can not deduce anything about.

^why is it that your entire argument is resting on intentionally not understanding and misrepresenting the arguments posted. ive seen nothing but illogical parallels here.

sigh is the right word for it. your just playing with semantics and intentionally not understanding the content of the argument. im not way off mark here.

we do know what a perfect being wud do because perfection is a phenomenon we can grasp as a whole{even if it is impossible to grasp each and every individual component. you can not make the argument that human beings can not grasp what a perfectly straight line is simply because a perfectly straight line has never EVER been observed in reality, that is just illogical. we can extrapolate and see what is nearer and furtehr from perfection and hence through extrapolation, form an idea about what a PERFECTLY straight line looks like even if t doesnt exist in the physical world} just like we would know what a perfectly loving being wud do. your argument here is completely wrong.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^why is it that your entire argument is resting on intentionally not understanding and misrepresenting the arguments posted. ive seen nothing but illogical parallels here.

sigh is the right word for it. your just playing with semantics and intentionally not understanding the content of the argument. im not way off mark here. I'm not.

I understand completely what you are doing and I haven't been using illogical parallels.

I have asked for evidence not some I think I can logically deduce what a perfect being is therefore I can prove it as a contradiction.

Nothing you have done even remotely constitutes evidence.


Originally posted by leonheartmm
we do know what a perfect being wud do because perfection is a phenomenon we can grasp as a whole{even if it is impossible to grasp each and every individual component. you can not make the argument that human beings can not grasp what a perfectly straight line is simply because a perfectly straight line has never EVER been observed in reality, that is just illogical. we can extrapolate and see what is nearer and furtehr from perfection and hence through extrapolation, form an idea about what a PERFECTLY straight line looks like even if t doesnt exist in the physical world} just like we would know what a perfectly loving being wud do. your argument here is completely wrong. Ok where do you start from?

How did you arrive at this conclusion with evidence?

How do you know what a perfect being would do?

You keep playing around the subject how about an actual answer.


And stop using the word logical or illogical. Even logic is based on evidence and observation.

Of which you have given none.

Also the straight line idea is a bad one. Why because we know a perfect straight line contains 180 degrees on either side of it.
Once agian you have not given anything about the perfection you speak. Just talk about numbers and relevant points of view.

We have observed lines we can measure lines. Something to conclude and derive from is there. Poor examples because we see straight lines. Even if they are a degree off we still see them as straight.

You have actually given nothing attesting to your claims of knowing what a perfect being would in fact do.

Because have you ever known a perfect person or anybody you would consider close to perfect.

ah but how do you know that a perfectly straight lines contains 180 degress on either sides of it? where is the evidence? you have never seen a perfect line so how can you presume so much????? this is the way you are arguing.

you do NOT understand completely what i am saying, otherwise you wudnt point on the things that you do and ask the questions that you do. you have been using illogical parallels, i have pointed them out and you fail to reply to them and reply with the same parallels again.

and i was only replying to your non sensical queries. i have already given a straight answer as to what a perfect being SHUD do. but apparently it is not to your liking and you go on to question why i say that when it really is quite obvious and ive elaborated on it. why is it then that you ask for a staight answer and also ask again for the already given explanations in the same question?? sum sud think you are merely trying to overwhelm me and derail a logical argument.

Let me continue.

A perfect being is unkown and observable and untestable. A perfect being as an absolute subject can not be deduced because you have no parallels to draw from.

Therefore anything involving what potentially happens with a perfect being can not be contradicting because nothing involving them can be known.

Now what you can say and I pray hope what you are really trying to say is this.

Everything leading up to a perfect being is contradicting because a can not be made. Because no one being can be perfect.


But in and of itself if you assume perfection is there than you must also accept you do not know what perfection can be to be a contradiction.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ah but how do you know that a perfectly straight lines contains 180 degress on either sides of it? where is the evidence? you have never seen a perfect line so how can you presume so much????? this is the way you are arguing.

you do NOT understand completely what i am saying, otherwise you wudnt point on the things that you do and ask the questions that you do. you have been using illogical parallels, i have pointed them out and you fail to reply to them and reply with the same parallels again.

and i was only replying to your non sensical queries. i have already given a straight answer as to what a perfect being SHUD do. but apparently it is not to your liking and you go on to question why i say that when it really is quite obvious and ive elaborated on it. why is it then that you ask for a staight answer and also ask again for the already given explanations in the same question?? sum sud think you are merely trying to overwhelm me and derail a logical argument. except we can measure angles. We can measure lines. we can measure what a straight line is.

Where do you begin to measure a perfect being.

Your evidence is none existence and draws from things that has nothing to do with what you are trying to imply.

And I understand what you are trying to say its just that you aren't saying right.

^angles are measured based on imperfect equipment and imperfectly straight lines, as such they can not be perfect. hence, you can not say at all{from your point of view} that we know that a perfect line wud have 180 degrees on both side because all evidence on angles has been collected from imperfect lines and imperfect measuring equipment. as such, human beings can never conceptualise or comment on a PERFECTLY STRAIGHT line since such a thing doesnt exist and its properties are not known.

just like{from my perspective} i can get closer and closer to a perfectly straight line and extrapolate to IMAGINE a perfectly straight line, hence, i can do the same with the idea of perfection. i see different things with different nearness to perfection around me all the time, based on their individual properties, i can extrapolate to form ideas about completely perfect things in those categories, and extrapolate from that to find out the characteristic of sumthing which is completeley perfect in every way. such an entity wud be complete in itself because NOTHING can be better than perfect and wud neither need to do, nor create destroy or edit ANYTHING about or through itself as there is no other form of its or its affect that is more perfect.

Here let me put into what you are trying to say.

You are once again trying to say that based on everything leading up to a perfect being is contradictory because that is as far as you can reasonably go.

That a perfect being can not exist because there is no way for a perfect being to come about because various things together make it impossible and even desire in and of itself makes being complete impossible. Therefore a perfect being can not exist.

Now listen to me. A perfect being is immeasurable and unobservable. Now you are correct and I have never argued with you up to a point. That no one can prove a perfect being exists.

The problem you are doing is that you are trying to speak as if you can reasonably now what a perfect being can do or would do. That means you are assuming that the said being exists for the point of your basis. That is a big no-no because at the point everything leading up to the perfect being not existing no longer applies because by your very assumption you have done away with it. Once that happens you no longer know what a perfect being will do or would possibly do because you have no measurable or observable way of knowing it.


So once again what you want to say.

Is that a perfect be can not exist because there is no way for them to exist because everything leading up to their existence begins to contradict itself.

And that is perfectly fine.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^angles are measured based on imperfect equipment and imperfectly straight lines, as such they can not be perfect. hence, you can not say at all{from your point of view} that we know that a perfect line wud have 180 degrees on both side because all evidence on angles has been collected from imperfect lines and imperfect measuring equipment. as such, human beings can never conceptualise or comment on a PERFECTLY STRAIGHT line since such a thing doesnt exist and its properties are not known.

just like{from my perspective} i can get closer and closer to a perfectly straight line and extrapolate to IMAGINE a perfectly straight line, hence, i can do the same with the idea of perfection. i see different things with different nearness to perfection around me all the time, based on their individual properties, i can extrapolate to form ideas about completely perfect things in those categories, and extrapolate from that to find out the characteristic of sumthing which is completeley perfect in every way. such an entity wud be complete in itself because NOTHING can be better than perfect and wud neither need to do, nor create destroy or edit ANYTHING about or through itself as there is no other form of its or its affect that is more perfect.

But you have the same problem as the person trying to measure the line. Because you yourself are imperfect you cannot realistically talk about what a perfect being would be like. All you can do is guess and invent meanings for perfection.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^angles are measured based on imperfect equipment and imperfectly straight lines, as such they can not be perfect. hence, you can not say at all{from your point of view} that we know that a perfect line wud have 180 degrees on both side because all evidence on angles has been collected from imperfect lines and imperfect measuring equipment. as such, human beings can never conceptualise or comment on a PERFECTLY STRAIGHT line since such a thing doesnt exist and its properties are not known.

just like{from my perspective} i can get closer and closer to a perfectly straight line and extrapolate to IMAGINE a perfectly straight line, hence, i can do the same with the idea of perfection. i see different things with different nearness to perfection around me all the time, based on their individual properties, i can extrapolate to form ideas about completely perfect things in those categories, and extrapolate from that to find out the characteristic of sumthing which is completeley perfect in every way. such an entity wud be complete in itself because NOTHING can be better than perfect and wud neither need to do, nor create destroy or edit ANYTHING about or through itself as there is no other form of its or its affect that is more perfect. Ok now you are just trying to be dense on the subject.


But fine if this how you want to keep wording everything and keep touting your evidence.

Then perfection can not exist and any and everything you base perfection of off is in fact not perfection and therefore everything you do is based on imperfect assumptions and therefore must be inherently imperfect as well. As is the case.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
if there is a god why would he create us

break a leg ushomefree

According to the rules and regulations set forth by the men who thought him up, to antagonize us and toy with us.

Originally posted by Devil King
According to the rules and regulations set forth by the men who thought him up, to antagonize us and toy with us.

That's according the the OT 'Jew God', the NT "Santa God" is here to love and save us.

^ahan, but the consequence of that thought is that we can not develop ANY sort of precise mental concept as long as it doesnt precisely exist in the real world. so seeing that ultimate mathematical errors in measurement and observation are an inevitability, due to the rules of infinite{and our lack thereoff of infinite insight} , then you are implying that nothing in thw world can be known and no mental contructs can be form which even accurately portray one aspect of things in the real world itself{much less perfect versions of those things} . but how is it that such a world continues to exist???? how is it that we know that a line has 180 degrees on both sides on the infinite points that make it up? how is it that people can even have a concept of perfection and come very close to acheiving it and actually be able to tell how close they are to it and just where they missed it in confined samples like making real llife physical lines???? etc etc etc

it wud appear that your basic assumption is wrong then wudnt it, based on the world and what you urself had to admit in the above post?

also tell me sumthing,. why does the word "perfect" exist and is used in this conversation and you say that nuthing can be perfect{giving the impression that you actually KNOW what perfect is and hence can make the claim about all things in this world} and you and i can understand the meaning and significance of it , if indeed it is sumthing that can never be grasped and doesnt physically exist????

Originally posted by Robtard
That's according the the OT 'Jew God', the NT "Santa God" is here to love and save us.

Originally posted by Robtard
the NT "Santa God" is here to love and save us.

From what? Himself?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^ahan, but the consequence of that thought is that we can not develop ANY sort of precise mental concept as long as it doesnt precisely exist in the real world. so seeing that ultimate mathematical errors in measurement and observation are an inevitability, due to the rules of infinite{and our lack thereoff of infinite insight} , then you are implying that nothing in thw world can be known and no mental contructs can be form which even accurately portray one aspect of things in the real world itself{much less perfect versions of those things} . but how is it that such a world continues to exist???? how is it that we know that a line has 180 degrees on both sides on the infinite points that make it up? how is it that people can even have a concept of perfection and come very close to acheiving it and actually be able to tell how close they are to it and just where they missed it in confined samples like making real llife physical lines???? etc etc etc

it wud appear that your basic assumption is wrong then wudnt it, based on the world and what you urself had to admit in the above post?

also tell me sumthing,. why does the word "perfect" exist and is used in this conversation and you say that nuthing can be perfect{giving the impression that you actually KNOW what perfect is and hence can make the claim about all things in this world} and you and i can understand the meaning and significance of it , if indeed it is sumthing that can never be grasped and doesnt physically exist???? Alright now I think you getting some stuff here.

You can do what you wanted to do but you can not say it the way you were trying to say it.

You can say that there can be no perfect being in existence because everything leading up to it begins to contradict itself. And there is measurable observable traits that show this.

But once you get out of that observable, measurable territory like you did by trying to say what a perfect being would or would not do. Then you also have to except that it becomes a baseless assumption. As everything past that no longer has any weight.

Now you can say that you believe that perfection in and off itself becomes contradicting but at the same time you can not try and tout it as fact when someone says you really don't know what a perfect being would do.

Now what I would say is that Imperfection and perfection could in fact exist and become true perfection. And fro mthere a good civil discussion can take place about the metaphysical nature of a perfect being.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^ahan, but the consequence of that thought is that we can not develop ANY sort of precise mental concept as long as it doesnt precisely exist in the real world. so seeing that ultimate mathematical errors in measurement and observation are an inevitability, due to the rules of infinite{and our lack thereoff of infinite insight} , then you are implying that nothing in thw world can be known and no mental contructs can be form which even accurately portray one aspect of things in the real world itself{much less perfect versions of those things} . but how is it that such a world continues to exist???? how is it that we know that a line has 180 degrees on both sides on the infinite points that make it up? how is it that people can even have a concept of perfection and come very close to acheiving it and actually be able to tell how close they are to it and just where they missed it in confined samples like making real llife physical lines???? etc etc etc

I believe that life is primarily one's perception of events with all the imperfections inherent to that.

A line has 180 on both sides because the majority of people say so.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it wud appear that your basic assumption is wrong then wudnt it, based on the world and what you urself had to admit in the above post?

Which assumption?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
also tell me sumthing,. why does the word "perfect" exist and is used in this conversation

Because some Latin speaking person made a word out of "per-" and "farcere" and it eventually found it's way into modern English.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and you say that nuthing can be perfect{giving the impression that you actually KNOW what perfect is and hence can make the claim about all things in this world} and you and i can understand the meaning and significance of it , if indeed it is sumthing that can never be grasped and doesnt physically exist????

I never said I knew what was perfect. I said that you don't. Such knowledge is not possible for an imperfect being because you are not equipped to perceive or understand something outside of imperfection.

Simply my opinion.

^ no , i can just as easily forget the contradiction and accept the sontradicting premise FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. then i can seperate the contradicting parts and make an argument based on an a single attribute without considering that the other is{for that sake of this specific hypothetical argument} automatically negating the possibility of it happening. as such the argument is not based in the contradiction but one of the traits which is not mutually exclusive of the other ones bit is impartial to the other ones.

"God is a comedian..."
--Voltaire

Originally posted by Mindship
"God is a comedian..."
--Voltaire

But if we laugh he'll kill us!

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it is a bad thing because it can not be falsified and hence it is not a logical argument but a superphilosophy.


Using logic in reference to a supreme, perfect entity is in itself futile and ridiculous, though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But if we laugh he'll kill us!

very good.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But if we laugh he'll kill us! Death is the punchline.

You mean we're all part of the joke?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
You mean we're all part of the joke?
Yes. God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.

Actually, we may be more like a vaudeville act.

Or Marionettes if you believe in Calvinism.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
a perfect being like a god wud not need to create anythign outside itself. unless it was incomplete and hence not perfect.

What is perfection?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What is perfection?


At the quantum level, everything is in a state of change. How can something perfect constantly change? There is only one thing that is perfect and does not change; that is Nothingness.

* the Father created us because of His love and for His Son... They wanted all of us to be with Them in paradise...

Originally posted by peejayd
* the Father created us because of His love and for His Son... They wanted all of us to be with Them in paradise...


Where is paradise? I know where it is; it's hear, and now. Can you tell me were you think paradise is?

* the heaven where the Father and Christ is...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
At the quantum level, everything is in a state of change. How can something perfect constantly change? There is only one thing that is perfect and does not change; that is Nothingness.

Perhaps change is an expression of perfection.

Originally posted by peejayd
* the heaven where the Father and Christ is...

So where is he?

And don't say "heaven" ermm


j/k

Originally posted by peejayd
* the heaven where the Father and Christ is...

OK, but where is this Heaven?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, but where is this Heaven?

I can see where this one's going. http://images.killermovies.com/forums/customsmilies/mmm.gif

* the highest place beyond anyone's/anything's reach... paradise=third heaven, the heaven of heavens, the habitable part of God's earth...

Originally posted by chithappens
Nice reading. Notice how I said it:



I did not say I could draw a square-circle.

This was my point:



I call it possible assuming some being can do "anything."

The kicker is that it would likely change the understanding of what both a square and a circle are defined to be. I have to throw this disclaimer in there simply because everyone keeps talking about "possibility" and I know it is not possible to make a "square-circle" through the ways we define them now.

okay

Originally posted by peejayd
* the highest place beyond anyone's/anything's reach... paradise=third heaven, the heaven of heavens, the habitable part of God's earth...

When you say highest, do you mean out into space?

One interesting idea which was mentioned in the Matrix movie.

maybe we are a cancer destroying this "Earth" cell. Which is part of some living creature, after all the universe appears to consist of smaller ball things going bigger to big ball things and in between there are things and creatures consisting of these "ball things".

I doubt it though, more likely we are here to gain experiences for the great spiritual self.

Originally posted by SoylentBlue
I can see where this one's going. http://images.killermovies.com/forums/customsmilies/mmm.gif

http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/faqs/tenworlds.htm



I thought I'd save Shaky the trouble this time and recommend the 10 worlds!

I'm not kidding about the recommendation though.

Originally posted by Quark_666
http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/faqs/tenworlds.htm



I thought I'd save Shaky the trouble this time and recommend the 10 worlds!

I'm not kidding about the recommendation though.

why does a perfect being feal PLEASURE at the creation of sumthing and want to create sumthing for his pleasure when he/she is by definition, perfect and complete even before feeling the pleasure. only beings lacking in completeness or perfection wud desire sumthing more like that.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
why does a perfect being feal PLEASURE at the creation of sumthing and want to create sumthing for his pleasure when he/she is by definition, perfect and complete even before feeling the pleasure. only beings lacking in completeness or perfection wud desire sumthing more like that.

So says the imperfect being . . .

yea cause the imperfect being knows how to recognise imperfection when he sees it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yea cause the imperfect being knows how to recognise imperfection when he sees it.

Or thinks it does.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or thinks it does.

We are still talking about something that cannot be proved.

yes well we all think one thing or another dont we. but since you and i and practically every1 else can accept that i am an imperfect being, then i guess reasonably, i am in a rather good position to speak about what is IMPERFECT and recognise what is IMPERFECT. hence my claim.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes well we all think one thing or another dont we. but since you and i and practically every1 else can accept that i am an imperfect being, then i guess reasonably, i am in a rather good position to speak about what is IMPERFECT and recognise what is IMPERFECT. hence my claim.

No, I think you are a perfect being.


Perfection does not exist other then a fictional thought in our minds.

^true, in a way, if everything was perfect and unchanging, that in itself wud be worse than a dynamic world and hence imperfect. i used to understand the conept much better at a time.