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 99 by 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.

But you are ignoring the obvious. You cannot say a person is "absolutely imperfect" as you think humans are, since this would mean that any human cannot define either absolute perfection or absolute imperfection if they were indeed "absolutely imperfect" as you claim they are.
Your saying that someone can be correct without being perfect does not address what I wrote. What I wrote was not a suggestion, but an argument against your use of those absolutes.

Being correct about some things and not about others is not something one would expect from anyone who is absolutely imperfect (or absolutely perfect for that matter). One could only expect the absolutely imperfect to only ever be incorrect.

Indeed, your introducing the idea into the argument only serves to underline what I have been saying...that there are no absolutes in regard to either perfect or imperfect. They are subjective opinions only.

[Bust Nak]

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.

Which is better? The completed version or the imcomplete version? If one is better than the other then it follows trivially that at least one is imperfect.

[Bust Nak]

But you are ignoring the obvious. You cannot say a person is "absolutely imperfect" as you think humans are, since this would mean that any human cannot define either absolute perfection or absolute imperfection if they were indeed "absolutely imperfect" as you claim they are.

That still does not follow, why would you keep insisting that human cannot define either absolute perfection or absolute imperfection just because we are absolutely imperfect? This claim of yours is exactly why I brough up the fact that "someone can be correct without being perfect" to counter.

Your saying that someone can be correct without being perfect does not address what I wrote.

Yes it does, if someone can be correct without being perfect, and you seemed to have agreed with that premised, then it follows what I labelled as your "suggestion" can be discarded.

Being correct about some things and not about others is not something one would expect from anyone who is absolutely imperfect (or absolutely perfect for that matter).

Why not? This is all the more odd as you have seemingly accepted that one does not have to be perfect to get some things correct.

One could only expect the absolutely imperfect to only ever be incorrect.

That makes zero sense. Lets say there is a math test with 100 question where you get 1 point for each correct answer. Someone who gets 100 has got the perfect score. Someone who gets 99 has the imperfect score, yet has got the vast majority of the questions correct.

What you have suggested here implies you think only those who got 0 would qualify as getting an imperfect score.

The thing that you can expect is that the absolutely perfect to get everything correct.

[William]

[Replying to post 102 by Bust Nak]

Which is better? The completed version or the imcomplete version? If one is better than the other then it follows trivially that at least one is imperfect.

How is it that the incomplete is considered imperfect (trivially or otherwise is besides the point) yet the complete is better than that which allowed for it to become so?

[William]

[Replying to post 103 by Bust Nak]

But you are ignoring the obvious. You cannot say a person is "absolutely imperfect" as you think humans are, since this would mean that any human cannot define either absolute perfection or absolute imperfection if they were indeed "absolutely imperfect" as you claim they are.

That still does not follow, why would you keep insisting that human cannot define either absolute perfection or absolute imperfection just because we are absolutely imperfect?

Really? Why must you go over ground we have already been? I explained many posts back that I am not arguing that absolutely imperfect humans cannot define anything they want to. My argument is - and has always been - that IF humans are absolutely imperfect (as you argue they are) THEN their definitions have to also be absolutely imperfect. Otherwise your argument that they are absolutely imperfect wouldn't float.

So an absolutely imperfect human would never define anything correctly, because to do so would show that he/she was NOT absolutely imperfect.
Since humans are obviously correct now and again, your claim that humans are 'absolutely imperfect' is obviously false.

The rest of your post remains unread by me until I am satisfied that what is occurring here is genuine misunderstanding on your part, since I have made every effort to explain my position clearly enough and often enough for any intelligent individual to understand adequately and so I suspect one has resorted to playing a game now, which I am personally not interested in prolonging as I am here for serious discussion/debate and expect respect from those I am engaging with.

[Bust Nak]

How is it that the incomplete is considered imperfect (trivially or otherwise is besides the point) yet the complete is better than that which allowed for it to become so?

How is it not? Which do you perfere, an incomplete house, or a completed one? An incomplete meal, or a completed one? An incomplete book, or a completed one? And so on.

My argument is - and has always been - that IF humans are absolutely imperfect (as you argue they are) THEN their definitions have to also be absolutely imperfect.

And that's the argument I addressed, it's not the case that their definitions have to be absolutely imperfect because an absolutely imperfect human can still get things correct every now and then.

So an absolutely imperfect human would never define anything correctly, because to do so would show that he/she was NOT absolutely imperfect.

Why not? If you accept that an imperfect human can define some thing correctly, then why can't you accept that an absolutely imperfect human can also define something correctly?

Since humans are obviously correct now and again, your claim that humans are 'absolutely imperfect' is obviously false.

Alternatively, since humans are obviously correct now and again, your claim that absolutely imperfect humans would never define anything correctly is obviously false.

The rest of your post remains unread by me until I am satisfied that what is occurring here is genuine misunderstanding on your part...

There you go again with declaring misunderstanding on my part. Can you not see that you might be simply be mistaken here?

[William]

[Replying to post 106 by Bust Nak]

If you accept that an imperfect human can define some thing correctly, then why can't you accept that an absolutely imperfect human can also define something correctly?

I already answered that clearly and more than a few times already. I am left with no choice therefore than to no longer continue any further interaction with you on the subject as it appears to be the case that you are simply playing games.

[Bust Nak]

I already answered that clearly and more than a few times already.

Where? You have stated that absolute imperfect being cannot get definitions correct clearly and more than a few times, sure; but that doesn't explaining why you think that.

I don't know what you have in mind when you say you've answer my question. All I am left with is a circular argument: Absolutely imperfect being cannot get anything correct because an absolutely imperfect being can only ever be incorrect. And why is that? Because a being who gets anything correct is not absolutely imperfect. And why is that? Because Absolutely imperfect being cannot get anything correct...

Earlier you asked why must you go over ground we have already been? It's because you don't address the counter-arguments and refers back to your old claim as if they are sufficient. You have some nerve accusing me of playing games.

[ttruscott]

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.

Which is better? The completed version or the imcomplete version? If one is better than the other then it follows trivially that at least one is imperfect.

You go astray with this direction...

When we were created in HIS image we were made perfect for HIS purpose, ie fully and completely able to fulfill HIS purpose but we were not yet compete in that we had not yet done that which fulfilled HIS purpose or which made us perfectly, ie completely, unable to ever fulfill that purpose. Being perfectly holy is not better than (whatever that might mean in this context) a perfect innocence, it is just finished, complete in HIS purpose.

I could call it the perfection of ability or potential and the perfection of completion... both are perfect, only one is complete. The only imperfection is the inability to fulfill HIS purpose which is to be sinful.

[Clownboat]

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.

Which is better? The completed version or the imcomplete version? If one is better than the other then it follows trivially that at least one is imperfect.

You go astray with this direction...

Fascinating! I can't wait to see it personally.
Maybe you will even get around to answering the question that was posed to you. Bolded above for you.

When we were created in HIS image

And... you lost me.
Be well.