why were we created

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 [and what iw as doing] 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.

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.

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. 😉

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.

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

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 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.

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.