God placing the universe

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.

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.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hey! I irony my cloth all the time. 😆

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... 🙄 😛

🙁

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 . . .