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.

[Bust Nak]

What I spoke to was to question the idea that imperfect beings could define perfection correctly. I did not say they couldn't create definitions of perfection.

The response is still the same: that's all the more reason to stick with absolutes instead of relying on subjective judgement of what is and isn't perfect.

Which lead to you saying that the universe was not perfect - at least not in your subjective opinion - 'because there is suffering'.
That itself is a strange conclusion to draw. It would be like someone claiming the universe was perfect 'because there is happiness'.

That's irrational, the existence of happiness is only enough to warrent the conclusion that the universe is better than totally corrupted.

But regardless, I continue to point out that the idea of perfection is based upon a subjective opinion rather than anything absolute, and you appear to still be struggling to accept this as the case.

Hardly surprising since you are asking me to accept the unacceptable.

I am not arguing that...

I know you are not, but you are contradicting yourself when you have acknowledge that 1) we are imperfect, and that 2) a creator is not prefect if his creations are not perfect. That should have lead you to the conclusion that the creator is not perfect, and yet ther you are "not arguing that."

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.

In line with the OP, perfection is not that which is under question. Rather type of design is under question, and that - mainly to do with angels who fell from grace - to which you and I have broadened the the subject to include this universe as a supposed creation of a GOD. My original post re the OP is post#28

My argument is not and can not make calls upon a supposed creators absolute perfection or lack thereof. Indeed, the question itself seems a pointless one to be asking, for reasons already given...

Then surely you need to the acknowledgement I referred to above?

...that the idea of perfection is formed through the minds of those who apparently see themselves as lacking something, and who apparently see a type of lack in things they observe outside of themselves as well. The two perceptions appear to be related.

And that includes you, as someone who see themslve as lacking something?

My main point herein is that you brought the argument of an absolute perfection into the stream, and I am attempting to get you to grasp the idea that there is no such thing as perfection in the absolute objective sense, so it is fallacy to argue for it.
This is why - when I wrote;

Perhaps it's imperfections are what is perfect about it.

...one can clearly see that absolutes are not being spoken to.

Or perhaps one can clearly see that startment is self contradictory and is trivially false.

Perfect by what criteria? Is the criteria perfect in itself? How is anyone able to tell?

Perfect by every criteria. Yes. By looking.

Your deducing you have had no prior existence comes from your lack of memory as to having any prior existence.

Incorrect, I have deducing we have had no prior existence comes from the premise that one need to exist to have an experience.

Have you ever observed atheists arguing that when a person dies they return to that blank state of nothingness from which they came from?

Yes.

The BSOT is known, because it is remembered, not because it has been 'deduced'.

That's logically absurd.

[William]

[Replying to post 81 by Bust Nak]

What I spoke to was to question the idea that imperfect beings could define perfection correctly. I did not say they couldn't create definitions of perfection.

The response is still the same: that's all the more reason to stick with absolutes instead of relying on subjective judgement of what is and isn't perfect.

Which is why I asked you for examples. What example of absolute perfection or imperfection can you give the reader which is objective? Examples, not definitions.

Which lead to you saying that the universe was not perfect - at least not in your subjective opinion - 'because there is suffering'.
That itself is a strange conclusion to draw. It would be like someone claiming the universe was perfect 'because there is happiness'.

That's irrational, the existence of happiness is only enough to warrent the conclusion that the universe is better than totally corrupted.

So are you saying in that, that the subjective definition you are using for 'imperfect' is different from that of 'total corruption'? Are you saying that imperfection is not totally corrupt?

If so, then we can agree that the existence of suffering - like the existence of happiness - is only enough to warrant the conclusion that the universe is better than totally corrupted and therefore the terms are only relative to the participating observer from their subjectivity. Still not absolutes.

This is what I have been speaking to Bust Nak, in relation to things being understood as 'perfect for the task at hand - perfect for the job.' Obviously suffering and happiness coexisting in the same framework are part of that. One - such as myself - who understands this can then look to the puzzle of the universe and my being within it in the light of that revelation, and ask myself, "What is the purpose [the job] of the universe and my being in it?"

My answers are shared in my Members Notes.

But regardless, I continue to point out that the idea of perfection is based upon a subjective opinion rather than anything absolute, and you appear to still be struggling to accept this as the case.

Hardly surprising since you are asking me to accept the unacceptable.

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.

I know you are not, but you are contradicting yourself when you have acknowledge that 1) we are imperfect, and that 2) a creator is not prefect if his creations are not perfect. That should have lead you to the conclusion that the creator is not perfect, and yet ther you are "not arguing that."

How can I argue that, when the creation is seen by me to being 'perfect for the job at hand?' If one's position is that there are no known examples of absolute perfection or imperfection which can be agreed upon objectively, one is left to ones own devices, as it were...

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?

If I do not know, how can I say?

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.

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.

Bearing in mind that I do not separate the creator from consciousness within and experiencing the creation. In that we are not creations/created. We are aspects of the creator.

Mirror Mirror

Thus from the understanding I have through this philosophy/theology, to judge the creator is to judge ones self. The process of knowing the creator is aligned with knowing ones self.

My argument is not and can not make calls upon a supposed creators absolute perfection or lack thereof. Indeed, the question itself seems a pointless one to be asking, for reasons already given...

Then surely you need to the acknowledgement I referred to above?

Perhaps my reply above might convey that.

...that the idea of perfection is formed through the minds of those who apparently see themselves as lacking something, and who apparently see a type of lack in things they observe outside of themselves as well. The two perceptions appear to be related.

And that includes you, as someone who see themslve as lacking something?

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.

My main point herein is that you brought the argument of an absolute perfection into the stream, and I am attempting to get you to grasp the idea that there is no such thing as perfection in the absolute objective sense, so it is fallacy to argue for it.
This is why - when I wrote;


Perhaps it's imperfections are what is perfect about it.


...one can clearly see that absolutes are not being spoken to.

Or perhaps one can clearly see that startment is self contradictory and is trivially false.

So far one has yet to show such is the case or provide any example of absolute perfection.

Perfect by what criteria?

Perfect by every criteria

Is the criteria perfect in itself?

Yes.

How is anyone able to tell?

By looking.

The above answers amount to unsubstantiated one-liners. One will need to do better than that if one's argument is to be considered pertinent enough to reply to.

[Bust Nak]

Which is why I asked you for examples. What example of absolute perfection or imperfection can you give the reader which is objective? Examples, not definitions.

I've already given you example of imperfections - this universe with the suffering there in. There is no example of absolute perfection.

So are you saying in that, that the subjective definition you are using for 'imperfect' is different from that of 'total corruption'?

Of course.

Are you saying that imperfection is not totally corrupt?

Absolutely.

If so, then we can agree that the existence of suffering - like the existence of happiness - is only enough to warrant the conclusion that the universe is better than totally corrupted and therefore the terms are only relative to the participating observer from their subjectivity.

Why? That make no sense. You need to get 100% to be able to claim perfection. You need to get 0% to claim total corruption. Anything in between, even 99%, warrent two conclusions that the score a) is better than total corruption and b) not perfect.

This is what I have been speaking to Bust Nak, in relation to things being understood as 'perfect for the task at hand - perfect for the job.' Obviously suffering and happiness coexisting in the same framework are part of that. One - such as myself - who understands this can then look to the puzzle of the universe and my being within it in the light of that revelation, and ask myself, "What is the purpose [the job] of the universe and my being in it?"

Why presume there is any sort of purpose?

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.

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.

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...

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 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.

Bearing in mind that I do not separate the creator from consciousness within and experiencing the creation...

Okay.

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.

So far one has yet to show such is the case.

Lets have a proper go at it then.
1) We are imperfect (premise)
2) We are perfect for the job (premise)
3) What is perfect for the job is perfect (premise)
4) We are perfect (2 & 3)
5) We are imperfect and perfect (1 and 4)

There is your contradiction.

or provide any example of absolute perfection.

No can do.

The above answers amount to unsubstantiated one-liners. One will need to do better than that if one's argument is to be considered pertinent enough to reply to.

That's up to you. I think I did great.

[ttruscott]

You say we can choose to do good, we can choose to do evil. What factors are involved in us making those choices?

Why is it that we can't just choose to believe in God?

On earth Christianity tends to claim it is our sinfulness that disallows us from 'just choosing to believe' in HIM on earth, especially since some are condemned already, Jn 3:18, ...but it is my contention that pre-earth in Sheol when we were innocent, the ability and the opportunity to put our faith in HIM or against him was equal for all people.

[Bust Nak]

when we were innocent, the ability and the opportunity to put our faith in HIM or against him was equal for all people.

One's nature, ability and opportunity cover all the factors that goes into making a decision. If it was the case that all the factors were indeed equal for all, then it follows that the decisions would also be equal.

[brunumb]

You say we can choose to do good, we can choose to do evil. What factors are involved in us making those choices?

Why is it that we can't just choose to believe in God?

On earth Christianity tends to claim it is our sinfulness that disallows us from 'just choosing to believe' in HIM on earth, especially since some are condemned already, Jn 3:18, ...but it is my contention that pre-earth in Sheol when we were innocent, the ability and the opportunity to put our faith in HIM or against him was equal for all people.

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.

[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

[brunumb]

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?

[Danmark]

There was no option to vote for "No design" or "absence of design."

Re: the universe, I find nothing that compels me to consider or observe any design whatsoever.

[William]

[Replying to post 89 by Danmark]

Re: the universe, I find nothing that compels me to consider or observe any design whatsoever.

Yes. It is all in the eye of the beholder and how one chooses to interpret what is being observed.

Signs We're in a Simulation