What type of design is this? - 2nd atttempt

[OnceConvinced]

Ok, my first thread on this topic went a little off topic. So I'm going to try again, this time with different poll options. I wish I could allow multiple boxes to be checked for this poll, but unfortunately I can't.

Hopefully though I will have the right options this time:

Note: This poll is not talking about any other act of creation except for the creation of angels who fell from grace.

So:

Presuming God is real and presuming demons and Satan is real...

Presuming God created them as angels and then the ones that rebelled became the demons, led by Satan himself. These fallen angels became so corrupt that they became completely evil, with no redeeming features at all. They are only set on doing evil and are not interested in doing anything good.

So God created these beings and for whatever reason they became pure evil. Yet God, even if he didn't know for sure, had a good idea they would become that way. Yet he created them anyway, knowing they would be come corrupted and turn against him.

Or maybe he had no idea at all? Maybe their corruption was a complete surprise to him?

Or perhaps he just didn't care about how he had created them? Perhaps he really did consider the consequences of what he was doing but then thought "It's good enough"?

So....
What sort of design would this be?

Malevolent?
Incompetent?
Foolish?
Apathetic?
Benevolent?

Please justify your answer.

[William]

[Replying to post 83 by Bust Nak]

There is no example of absolute perfection.

Likewise there is no example of absolute imperfect. Thus we have to conclude that - like 'good' and 'evil' the concepts are based in subjective opinion rather than anything empirical.

Why presume there is any sort of purpose?

Why presume there is not? The choice either way is a subjective one based upon how the empirical evidence is interpreted by the individual.

On the contrary Bust Nak. I only ask such a thing of my self. You are free to accept or reject your circumstance in whatever manner you choose. In that, my sharing the reasons for my position are for the purpose of encouraging the acceptance of other types of thinking related to that, but such thinking is only 'unacceptable' to those who won't accept such. Not because it is absolutely unacceptable

It is absolutely unacceptable if you stick to absolute definitions that does not allow wiggle room.

Fortunately it is not I who is insisting on "absolute definitions that do not allow wiggle room". Are you?

How can I argue that, when the creation is seen by me to being 'perfect for the job at hand?'

Because you've acknowledge that a) we are imperfect. and b) imperfection cannot be the product of a perfect creator.

Where did I claim that to being the case? Please remember to provide quotes when making claims as to what others 'acknowledge'.

Meantime I will remind the reader that what I have acknowledged is that IF imperfect critters cannot determine in any absolute manner what 'perfect/imperfect' is, THEN how can they know if they are or anything else is, 'perfect/imperfect'?

That is a reasonable observation.

I could look at my circumstance and say "I am not perfect because I do not know or understand what perfection actually is" but that would be oxymoron, would it not?

You tell me, you are the one saying our imperfection is perfect for the job...

Again;

Where did I claim that to being the case? Please remember to provide quotes when making claims as to what others are 'claiming'.

Meantime I will remind the reader that what I have acknowledged is that what we think of as 'imperfect' may indeed actually be 'perfect for the job'.

Rather, I accept my circumstances and my self within said circumstance as 'perfect for the job at hand' which allows for me to think beyond the barriers which are otherwise in place if I do not accept such.

Sounds to me like an "I am perfect for the job even if I do not know or understand what perfection actually is." Is that not an oxymoron ?

I don't think so. I think it is an acknowledgment that my situation is perfect for the job at hand based upon my acceptance of said situation as being for that precise purpose. This works for me, as far as my subjective experience goes in relation to the objective situation - remembering of course that I am using the word "perfect" - as I explained in post #70;

"I also am arguing that the forms may be 'perfect for the job at hand' while using the word 'perfect' in a less literal, non-absolute manner. "

I accept that if indeed a creator is involved in the formation of this creation and my circumstance within it, the creator need not be regarded as 'imperfect' because I cannot know that is actually the case.

That's where logic comes in, you can know this.

Untrue. The 'logic' is based upon the premise that the idea of perfection is an absolute. As such, the 'logic' is errant. It is not logic at all, but misplaced perception based upon faulty premise.

True premise is that one has to acknowledge that ideas of perfection/imperfection are not absolutes. Logic thus requires one to understand this as the appropriate premise to start from.

Thus one has to use the word 'perfect' and 'imperfect' in a less literal, non-absolute manner as the true premise to adopt.

I have not argued that I lack anything or that lacking something somehow infers imperfection. I am arguing that there are those who equate one with the other, but such is not an absolute truth, such is simply subjective perception and interpretation.

Surely whether you lack something or not is the subjective perception part, once it's been devided that you do indeed lack something, then it follows trivially that you are indeed imperfect.

Such a perception is purely subjective and cannot be truthfully used to judge oneself or others by. Indeed, as you point out, it is 'trivial' and the reason this is so, is because it is not - and never can be - an absolute. You whole argument is based upon the idea that it is an absolute, which is the incorrect premise.

[Bust Nak]

Likewise there is no example of absolute imperfect. Thus we have to conclude that - like 'good' and 'evil' the concepts are based in subjective opinion rather than anything empirical.

I gave you an example of absolute imperfection - us human.

Why presume there is not?

Because that's the default position.

The choice either way is a subjective one based upon how the empirical evidence is interpreted by the individual.

You think there is empirical evidence for purpose?

Fortunately it is not I who is insisting on "absolute definitions that do not allow wiggle room". Are you?

Yes, I've been insisting on that for ages.

Where did I claim that to being the case? Please remember to provide quotes when making claims as to what others 'acknowledge'.

Easy enough, we are imperfect:

"Perhaps it's imperfections are what is perfect about it? For it makes things very difficult for the spirit to understand itself through, coming as it does, from a state of pure ignorance..."

"the state of perfection either does not exist, or if it does, is undefinable by those who are imperfect."

And for creator of imperfect cannot be perfect:

"No, it is not." Click link for context.

Meantime I will remind the reader that what I have acknowledged is that IF imperfect critters cannot determine in any absolute manner what 'perfect/imperfect' is, THEN how can they know if they are or anything else is, 'perfect/imperfect'?

That is a reasonable observation.

That's moot because we imperfect critters can determine in an absolute manner what is perfect or imperfect. All you have to do is appeal to an absolute definition of perfection that does not allow wiggle room.

Meantime I will remind the reader that what I have acknowledged is that what we think of as 'imperfect' may indeed actually be 'perfect for the job'.

Well there you go. What exactly is wrong with my paraphrasing that to "our imperfection is perfect for the job."

I don't think so. I think it is an acknowledgment that my situation is perfect for the job at hand based upon my acceptance of said situation as being for that precise purpose.

But what good is acknowledge and acceptance from an imperfect critter who cannot determine in any absolute manner what is and isn't the precise purpose?

Untrue. The 'logic' is based upon the premise that the idea of perfection is an absolute. As such, the 'logic' is errant. It is not logic at all, but misplaced perception based upon faulty premise.

What's flawed about that premise? You mentioned that an imperfect being came up with it, that's enough to render it false?

True premise is that one has to acknowledge that ideas of perfection/imperfection are not absolutes. Logic thus requires one to understand this as the appropriate premise to start from.

Thus one has to use the word 'perfect' and 'imperfect' in a less literal, non-absolute manner as the true premise to adopt.

That doesn't mean much until you demonstrate the premise that one has to acknowledge that ideas of perfection/imperfection are not absolutes is true.

Such a perception is purely subjective and cannot be truthfully used to judge oneself or others by. Indeed, as you point out, it is 'trivial' and the reason this is so, is because it is not - and never can be - an absolute. You whole argument is based upon the idea that it is an absolute, which is the incorrect premise.

I don't understand what you are saying here, I say it is trivial because it's absolute, and yet there you are, pointing to the same triviality and saying it's not absolure. More to the point, you've subjectively decided that we are indeed missing something. That's enough to warrent the claim that we are imperfect.

[ttruscott]

Could you please direct me to the post where I made the statements you quoted. They do not appear to be in this thread and I would like to check.

brunumb Post 104: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:43 pm

Which thread?

viewtopic.php?t=34788&start=100&postday ... highlight=

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

I gave you an example of absolute imperfection - us human.

On that assumption, how can you - as the absolutely imperfect human being you believe that you are - make an absolutely perfect call on what is and isn't perfect?
Can you not understand the dilemma therein?
As well as this, are we really to believe that humans are absolutely imperfect? Given our circumstances we have done well to survive thus far as a specie in a rather inhospitable environment.
Don't you think that you are being a little bit too sweeping in your assessments here Bust Nak?

Isn't it the better observation to see that humans are neither absolutely perfect nor absolutely imperfect. Isn't that the fairer option to assume?

Because that's the default position.

How is it that the default position of a human being is to have no purpose? What gives you that impression?

The choice either way is a subjective one based upon how the empirical evidence is interpreted by the individual.

You think there is empirical evidence for purpose?

Read what I wrote again. One chooses to see purpose based upon how they interpret what is experienced as real aka their environment.

It is absolutely unacceptable if you stick to absolute definitions that does not allow wiggle room.

Fortunately it is not I who is insisting on "absolute definitions that do not allow wiggle room". Are you?

Yes, I've been insisting on that for ages.

Then by your own definition, what you have been 'doing for ages' is unacceptable.



Perhaps you might contemplate redeveloping your approach Bust Nak...

I could look at my circumstance and say "I am not perfect because I do not know or understand what perfection actually is" but that would be oxymoron, would it not?

You tell me, you are the one saying our imperfection is perfect for the job...

Where did I claim that to being the case?

Easy enough, we are imperfect:

You are quoting me out of context. I did advise that my argument has been thus throughout this exchange;

Where did I claim that to being the case? Please remember to provide quotes when making claims as to what others are 'claiming'.

Meantime I will remind the reader that what I have acknowledged is that what we think of as 'imperfect' may indeed actually be 'perfect for the job'.

I think that once you yourself come to understand this Bust Nak, you will desist with attempting to use these assumed absolutes and understand that good/evil right/wrong perfect/imperfect are - at best - simple individual subjective opinions, and perhaps even learn to be happy with accepting that as the case.

Meantime I will remind the reader that what I have acknowledged is that IF imperfect critters cannot determine in any absolute manner what 'perfect/imperfect' is, THEN how can they know if they are or anything else is, 'perfect/imperfect'?

That is a reasonable observation.

But what good is acknowledge and acceptance from an imperfect critter who cannot determine in any absolute manner what is and isn't the precise purpose?

That is precisely why I state that it is best not to use absolutes in trying to claim what is perfect or imperfect in ones subjective opinion.

Purpose too, is a subjective opinion. Be that as it may, there is no reason to think that one cannot find purpose and reason within the context of ones subjective human experience, in relation to the objective environment one exists within, for a time. Given the opportunity, most people do.

I accept that if indeed a creator is involved in the formation of this creation and my circumstance within it, the creator need not be regarded as 'imperfect' because I cannot know that is actually the case.

That's where logic comes in, you can know this.

Untrue. The 'logic' is based upon the premise that the idea of perfection is an absolute. As such, the 'logic' is errant. It is not logic at all, but misplaced perception based upon faulty premise.

True premise is that one has to acknowledge that ideas of perfection/imperfection are not absolutes. Logic thus requires one to understand this as the appropriate premise to start from.

Thus one has to use the word 'perfect' and 'imperfect' in a less literal, non-absolute manner as the true premise to adopt.

What's flawed about that premise?

The premise based in absolute perfection/imperfection is flawed for the reasons I already gave.

That doesn't mean much until you demonstrate the premise that one has to acknowledge that ideas of perfection/imperfection are not absolutes is true.

I have demonstrated sufficiently. You have yet to give any real examples of what is absolute perfect or imperfect. You stated that 'us human' are absolutely imperfect but I showed where your reasoning was faulty in that example, even that the example lacked any depth or substance.

As an example, you could argue that the human being in the video story is not perfect;

[yt]iZVd0olZsSc[/yt]

4:40 the woman's husband has this to say about his wife;

"She's just perfect."

You might have a different opinion, but the point is (and has been all along) that there are no absolutes at all, only opinions regarding 'perfection and imperfection'.

Unless you have the good grace to agree that this is the case, we will only continue arguing in this circular fashion and achieving little which is of use. In that, I think I have said all that needs to be said on the subject and see no sense in continuing with this interaction.

[Bust Nak]

On that assumption, how can you - as the absolutely imperfect human being you believe that you are - make an absolutely perfect call on what is and isn't perfect?

By being absolute correct occasionally.

Can you not understand the dilemma therein?

No, you asked me this before and the answer is still the same. I don't know why you think an absolutely imperfect human can't get things absolutely correct every now and then.

As well as this, are we really to believe that humans are absolutely imperfect? Given our circumstances we have done well to survive thus far as a specie in a rather inhospitable environment.

That's merely good enough, as opposed to absolurely perfect.

Don't you think that you are being a little bit too sweeping in your assessments here Bust Nak?

Not at all.

Isn't it the better observation to see that humans are neither absolutely perfect nor absolutely imperfect. Isn't that the fairer option to assume?

No, because that is self contradictory. Not absolutely perfect IS absolutely imperfect.

How is it that the default position of a human being is to have no purpose?What gives you that impression?

Because we can't see, touch, smell or otherwise detect purpose.

Read what I wrote again. One chooses to see purpose based upon how they interpret what is experienced as real aka their environment.

You said empirical evidence.

Then by your own definition, what you have been 'doing for ages' is unacceptable.

That's very the opposite of what I thought I wrote. Did you misread what I wrote?

You are quoting me out of context.

I don't think I am. Readers can click the link and see the context. How about you just give me an explicit yes or no - do you think that we humans are subjectively imperfect according to your own subjective opinion?

I think that once you yourself come to understand this Bust Nak...

You say "understand" like it's a problem with a lack of understanding on my part. How about you do the understanding that absolute perfection does not allow any subjective wiggle room?

That is precisely why I state that it is best not to use absolutes in trying to claim what is perfect or imperfect in ones subjective opinion.

Why? How is this not a reason to use absolutes in what is perfect or imperfect, as to avoid ones subjective opinion?

Purpose too, is a subjective opinion. Be that as it may, there is no reason to think that one cannot find purpose and reason within the context of ones subjective human experience, in relation to the objective environment one exists within, for a time. Given the opportunity, most people do.

Right, which is why absolutes are used, to avoid subjective opinion.

The premise based in absolute perfection/imperfection is flawed for the reasons I already gave.

That you want to avoid absolute because you want to appeal to subjective opinion? That's not a very good reason.

I have demonstrated sufficiently. You have yet to give any real examples of what is absolute perfect or imperfect.

But I have - I have stated that 'us human' are absolutely imperfect.

As an example, you could argue that the human being in the video story is not perfect...

Well there you go - that human right there is absolutely imperfect.

You might have a different opinion, but the point is (and has been all along) that there are no absolutes at all, only opinions regarding 'perfection and imperfection'.

It's not my opinion that she is absolutely imperfect though, the whole point of absolutes is that one does not need to appeal to opinions regarding 'perfection and imperfection'.

Unless you have the good grace to agree that this is the case, we will only continue arguing in this circular fashion and achieving little which is of use.

That much should have been clear the moment I said, your claims are absolutely unacceptable.

[William]

[Replying to post 95 by Bust Nak]

I don't know why you think an absolutely imperfect human can't get things absolutely correct every now and then.

If by 'correct' you mean 'perfect' then for that to be the case, the human wouldn't be 'an absolutely imperfect human'.

If by 'correct' you do not mean 'perfect', then your argument has nothing to do with my own.

[Bust Nak]

If by 'correct' you do not mean 'perfect', then your argument has nothing to do with my own.

Why not? Someone can be correct without being perfect.

[William]

If by 'correct' you do not mean 'perfect', then your argument has nothing to do with my own.

Why not? Someone can be correct without being perfect.

Why not? Someone can be correct without being perfect.

I agree. However, my argument is that absolute perfection does not exist, while you are arguing that it does.

Therefore your bringing in the idea of 'being correct' does not in itself support your argument.

"Someone can be correct without being perfect" does not support "there is such a thing as absolute perfection and imperfection', which you still have not provided any example of, and the one you attempted to give was shown by me to be false. Your example did not show absolute imperfection. You have yet to attempt to provide an example of absolute perfection as well.

As the reader can verify, I have been attempting to reason with you that such absolutes do not exist and ideas of perfection and imperfection are subjective opinion, that you might change you position on the matter and drop these absolutes as the false premise they are.

There is little more which can be said by me if you continue to chose to cling to such notions.

[Bust Nak]

I agree. However, my argument is that absolute perfection does not exist, while you are arguing that it does.

Therefore your bringing in the idea of 'being correct' does not in itself support your argument.

"Someone can be correct without being perfect" does not support "there is such a thing as absolute perfection and imperfection'

Right, but it was not supposed to do that. Instead I brought that up to address your suggestion that an imperfect being cannot define absolute perfection and imperfection correctly.

which you still have not provided any example of, and the one you attempted to give was shown by me to be false.

Meh, you keep saying things like flawed premise, or shown to be false or understanding; yet much of what you are doing is disagreeing with me. Don't just declare you have the truth when there are still unaddressed counter-arguments.

As the reader can verify, I have been attempting to reason with you that such absolutes do not exist and ideas of perfection and imperfection are subjective opinion, that you might change you position on the matter and drop these absolutes as the false premise they are.

Well, there was an attempt, I can give you that much. I've made sure to appeal to absolute perfection instead of subjective opinion, to remove wiggle room for subjective opinion.

There is little more which can be said by me if you continue to chose to cling to such notions.

There is still two side topics of whether you think we are subjectively imperfect; and whether or not something less than absolutely perfect is automatically absolutely imperfect.

[ttruscott]

If by 'correct' you do not mean 'perfect', then your argument has nothing to do with my own.

Why not? Someone can be correct without being perfect.

Some people use perfect to mean perfectly correct. The bible tends to use perfect to mean complete. Therefore we can have a perfect person who is not yet complete to fulfill HIS purpose for them.