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 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.
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.
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 😈 😈 😈 😈