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]

My contention is that perfection is reserved for whatever role one chooses to place upon it, not that perfection is somehow an absolute, even in philosophical/metaphysical terms.

Right, but my counter point was: for whatever role one chooses to place upon reality as it stands now, this universe - specifically this planet, it is not perfect. Which contradicts with the premise of a perfect creator.

As such, I speak to this universe - specifically this planet - as perfect for the task at hand in relation to interacting processes I have already mentioned in this thread.

Right, and in response I pointed out that some process is happening means it's not as good as it can be.

What you speak of here is what I refer to as First Source Reality [FSR] - the abode of the undivided First Source.

To make things happen, FS creates them and experiences them by divesting aspects of Its consciousness into the creations.

And that is less that perfect and hence the problem of evil.

If you are NOT in a static environment where nothing ever happens because every aspect of every thing are by definition, the best it can logically possibly be and this is your understanding of perfection and thus you can say 'things are currently not perfect.'

I do not define perfection in the same way, so no, we do not agree.

But you are saying this environment is perfect for learning, which means we, as being that is not as knowledable as can be, are not perfect.

Can an omniscient being be ignorant of ignorance and still be referred to as an omniscient being?

Persumably one need not be ignorant to know all about ignorance?

And should that not be considered 'perfect'?

In one aspect of power, yes.

Exactly why I promote the idea that it is the other way around. Only of course, there was no 'starting' involved. There was always knowledge, even the knowledge of ignorance.

That does not seem to gel with the idea that the enviroment is perfectly designed for learning.

We are that aspect of ignorance moving into knowledge, as we experience this within that sector of the overall mind of GOD/First Source.

And this does not gel with the idea that God is omniscient.

Ignorance is perfect as a means of gathering knowledge. Call it a game FS plays creating areas within Its mind in which it can escape knowing everything, experience knowing nothing and thus experience gaining knowledge...

Why is FS changing the FSR at all, it was supposed to be perfect already, any change moves away from perfection. That is the ultimate contradiction.

Solipsism is only relevant to FSR the one being in all its wholeness. We understand it as conceptually possible because we are aspects of Source Consciousness (whether consciously aware of this or not).

Doesn't that mean you believe other minds, not least the mind of this FS exist? How is that solipsism?

I am an aspect of FS Consciousness as is every one. At this level of environment, an aspect of FSC engaged with the planet and wears it like a body. We derive from the Earth Entity Consciousness as the most direct source of our experience as human beings.
It is a potential means for us to learn about godhood, although there is no thing which prevails upon us to do so if we choose not to.

Okay, to recap, God the FS knows everything except what it would be like to not know something, so God split up into us; where God can, through us in this universe, learn what it would be like to not know something.

[William]

[Replying to post 61 by Bust Nak]

Right, but my counter point was: for whatever role one chooses to place upon reality as it stands now, this universe - specifically this planet, it is not perfect. Which contradicts with the premise of a perfect creator.

There is no premise for a perfect creator. The OP makes that clear enough.

The argument therefore focuses on what individuals consider to be 'perfect' and 'imperfect' as a result.

My argument is that this itself is folly, because there is no thing outside the universe which can be shown as the absolute example of perfection. Even concepts come up short on that.

We are thus left with what we have, and in that - all I am pointing out is that the universe could be 'perfect for the job' as all we mainly have to go on is the universe itself.

When 'what about the planet is imperfect?' is examined, what can be shown to actually be imperfect?
In a similar way, when 'what about the planet is perfect?' is examined, what can be shown to actually be perfect?

The OP may well be based upon the premise of some assumed idea of 'perfection' in regard to the idea of Christian ideas of GOD, and therein ideas of perfection of which one can then identify imperfection.

Perhaps a ground up approach might help here.

If you sincerely believe that human beings are not perfect, then how are you - a human being - able to argue for perfection? How is an imperfect creature supposed to know what perfections is? :think:

Isn't it better to assume (based on that premise) that human beings have no idea what perfection is? Any more than we can deduce what a 'True Scotsman' is.

Right, and in response I pointed out that some process is happening means it's not as good as it can be.

And my point is that perhaps the whole thing was created for that purpose. To experience imperfection with the ability to always improve upon. In that sense my argument is that 'it is perfect for the job'. There is something to do and be done, which imperfection perfectly provides.

And that is less that perfect and hence the problem of evil.

The 'problem of evil' most likely persists because individuals do not consider their environment to be perfect and react to that consideration in a manner which does not contribute to making things better, but actually making things worse. They react as if they are victims of it.

But you are saying this environment is perfect for learning, which means we, as being that is not as knowledable as can be, are not perfect.

Only if the premise is that perfection is knowing everything. Humans default to being imperfect, based on such premise. But my argument isn't based upon such premise.

Persumably one need not be ignorant to know all about ignorance?

To know something is to experience something. We cannot know about ignornace if we do not experience it.

That does not seem to gel with the idea that the enviroment is perfectly designed for learning.

I speak to FSR as the essential starting point for all subsequent reality experiences, based on the premise that FS is omnimax. I am not claiming FS is omnimax, but going along with the premise and examining that idea from that position.

FSR contains all realities. Realities can be likened to sectors of the mind of FS, whereas FSR is the totality of All That Is - all realities.

We are that aspect of ignorance moving into knowledge, as we experience this within that sector of the overall mind of GOD/First Source.

And this does not gel with the idea that God is omniscient.

Why do you think that is the case?

Why is FS changing the FSR at all, it was supposed to be perfect already, any change moves away from perfection. That is the ultimate contradiction.

What I offered was an analogy. FSR isn't changed. It is as it has always been. Experiencing any sector of FSR is what gives the one experiencing that, the illusion of change.

In order to claim to know total ignorance, one has to experience genuine ignorance, thus one would have to create a sector which enables those experiencing it to have no formative memory of prior existence.

Since FS has always existed, It cannot experience never having ever existed unless It creates a sector in Its mind in order have the genuine experience of that, through us, who are aspects of FS consciousness.

Our experience is data flow which provides FS with the first hand knowledge. Our individual experiences altogether are what FSC experiencing in that data flow.

Doesn't that mean you believe other minds, not least the mind of this FS exist? How is that solipsism?

I referred to solipsism in relation to FS. We are aspects of It, having this particular experience. In essence there is really only ONE being. The divestment of FS consciousness into forms suitable for a particular experiences within the overall context of shared environment (this universe in general, this planet specifically) allow for solipsism to be diminished.

Okay, to recap, God the FS knows everything except what it would be like to not know something, so God split up into us; where God can, through us in this universe, learn what it would be like to not know something.

Yes. But it isn't so much that FS really 'split up' or removed Itself totally from FSR.
Add to that the analogy that the thought from FS "I wonder what it is like to know nothing as a starting point" (plus no doubt other variables involved rethis particular universe reality we are experiencing) created the various interconnected realities which enabled this to occur.

From our perspective, in this time and space (at a point nearer the beginning of the process rather than the middle or the end) a sometimes tedious adventure, but always rather interesting too.

From FS perspective, instantaneously. Past present and future happening all at once, like the question is asked and immediately answered as a universe reality (a set of universe realities really) created for that purpose.

[Bust Nak]

There is no premise for a perfect creator. The OP makes that clear enough...

The OP may well be based upon the premise of some assumed idea of 'perfection' in regard to the idea of Christian ideas of GOD, and therein ideas of perfection of which one can then identify imperfection.

Then you can ignore much of what I said before, the problem of evil is only applicable to a pefect creator.

If you sincerely believe that human beings are not perfect, then how are you - a human being - able to argue for perfection? How is an imperfect creature supposed to know what perfections is? :think:

By appealing to definitions of perfection.

Isn't it better to assume (based on that premise) that human beings have no idea what perfection is?

If a flawed human can nit-pick at it, the this "it" is imperfect.

To know something is to experience something. We cannot know about ignornace if we do not experience it...

Since FS has always existed, It cannot experience never having ever existed unless It creates a sector in Its mind in order have the genuine experience of that, through us, who are aspects of FS consciousness.

So for God to know what non-existence is, God would cease to exist?

Why do you think [this does not gel with the idea that God is omniscient] is the case?

That God/FS needed to learn about anything at all.

[William]

[Replying to post 63 by Bust Nak]

If you sincerely believe that human beings are not perfect, then how are you - a human being - able to argue for perfection? How is an imperfect creature supposed to know what perfections is? :think:

By appealing to definitions of perfection.

Then it becomes a circular problem insulated from solution. And imperfect creature defines what perfection is and appeals to those misrepresentations.
The solution of course is to understand that no definition from an imperfect creature as to 'what is perfect' can be considered the truth of the matter. The state of perfection either does not exist, or if it does, is undefinable by those who are imperfect.

If a flawed human can nit-pick at it, the this "it" is imperfect.

Q: What is a 'flawed human'?
Q: How is the ability to nit-pick at anything an indication that the object is imperfect?

and in relation to that;

Ones man's rubbish is another man's treasure - if both are correct in relation to their understanding of the same object, where is the imperfection?

To know something is to experience something. We cannot know about ignorance if we do not experience it...

Since FS has always existed, It cannot experience never having ever existed unless It creates a sector in Its mind in order have the genuine experience of that, through us, who are aspects of FS consciousness.

So for God to know what non-existence is, God would cease to exist?

Nope. GOD cannot cease to exist. What GOD can do is create sectors in Its mind in order to then experience such things.

[Bust Nak]

Then it becomes a circular problem insulated from solution. And imperfect creature defines what perfection is and appeals to those misrepresentations.

Why would you think our definition of perfection, along the lines of cannot be improved upon, are misrepresentations?

The solution of course is to understand that no definition from an imperfect creature as to 'what is perfect' can be considered the truth of the matter. The state of perfection either does not exist, or if it does, is undefinable by those who are imperfect.

I will take perfection does not exist then.

Q: What is a 'flawed human'?

A human that is less than perfect, with perfection defined alone the lines of cannot be improved upon.

Q: How is the ability to nit-pick at anything an indication that the object is imperfect?

Because the object can be improved upon.

Ones man's rubbish is another man's treasure - if both are correct in relation to their understanding of the same object, where is the imperfection?

The aspect where it can be improved upon.

Nope. GOD cannot cease to exist. What GOD can do is create sectors in Its mind in order to then experience such things.

What exactly can be created to experience non-existence? In case it isn't clear, it's a rhetorical question: I am suggesting that self-referring paradoxes can be safely dismissed, and I am suggesting that knowing ignorance is a self-referring paradox.

[William]

[Replying to post 65 by Bust Nak]

Why would you think our definition of perfection, along the lines of cannot be improved upon, are misrepresentations?

Because they come from those who are imperfect in their own estimate. That is why I wrote "An imperfect creature defines what perfection is and appeals to those misrepresentations."

How is an imperfect critter supposed to correctly represent -through definition - a perfect thing?

Even defining 'perfection' as being 'that which cannot be improved upon' has to be suspect, if indeed human beings doing the defining, have already defined themselves as 'imperfect'.

This is why my argument throughout has been that we are likely approaching the whole question incorrectly. Things are perfect for the task at hand.

The solution of course is to understand that no definition from an imperfect creature as to 'what is perfect' can be considered the truth of the matter. The state of perfection either does not exist, or if it does, is undefinable by those who are imperfect.

I will take perfection does not exist then.

Why not just 'take it' as perfection is undefinable? Ether that or change the way one defines 'perfection' to better suit the reality.

Nope. GOD cannot cease to exist. What GOD can do is create sectors in Its mind in order to then experience such things.

What exactly can be created to experience non-existence?

One cannot experience non existence other than to go through such a sector created for that purpose and come out from that with the memory of having not existed.

For example, this is one such state we have each been through prior to being born as we remember the experience of not existing.

[Bust Nak]

Because they come from those who are imperfect in their own estimate. That is why I wrote "An imperfect creature defines what perfection is and appeals to those misrepresentations."

How is an imperfect critter supposed to correctly represent -through definition - a perfect thing?

By getting things right occuationally? Or do you think imperfect critters always mess up?

Even defining 'perfection' as being 'that which cannot be improved upon' has to be suspect, if indeed human beings doing the defining, have already defined themselves as 'imperfect'.

So what? I have never proposed that humans are perfect by any definition.

This is why my argument throughout has been that we are likely approaching the whole question incorrectly. Things are perfect for the task at hand.

The solution of course is to understand that no definition from an imperfect creature as to 'what is perfect' can be considered the truth of the matter. The state of perfection either does not exist, or if it does, is undefinable by those who are imperfect.

How can we be perfect for the task at hand if the state of perfection does not exist? Or if we are indeed perfect then would is perfection be beyond the unstanding of us perfect beings?

Why not just 'take it' as perfection is undefinable? Ether that or change the way one defines 'perfection' to better suit the reality.

Because I can define it just fine.

One cannot experience non existence other than to go through such a sector created for that purpose and come out from that with the memory of having not existed.

For example, this is one such state we have each been through prior to being born as we remember the experience of not existing.

Wait you remember what it was like to not exist?

[William]

[Replying to post 67 by Bust Nak]

By getting things right occuationally? Or do you think imperfect critters always mess up?

My main focus is on the argument you appear to be making that imperfect critters can perfectly correctly represent -through definition - a perfect thing.

I would even go so far as to say that there is no thing which anyone can point to and show conclusively it is imperfect.

Even defining 'perfection' as being 'that which cannot be improved upon' has to be suspect, if indeed human beings doing the defining, have already defined themselves as 'imperfect'.

So what? I have never proposed that humans are perfect by any definition.

What did you propose then?

How can we be perfect for the task at hand if the state of perfection does not exist? Or if we are indeed perfect then would is perfection be beyond the unstanding of us perfect beings?

I never claimed the state of perfection didn't exist. My argument against your own is that our particular situation might well be perfect for the task at hand, and therefore not imperfect for that.

Wait you remember what it was like to not exist?

Yes, and so do you.

[Bust Nak]

My main focus is on the argument you appear to be making that imperfect critters can perfectly correctly represent -through definition - a perfect thing.

I would even go so far as to say that there is no thing which anyone can point to and show conclusively it is imperfect.

That's kinda an odd claim coming from a theist. If we are perfect, why do we need to change?

What did you propose then?

I proposed that imperfection cannot be the result of perfection.

I never claimed the state of perfection didn't exist. My argument against your own is that our particular situation might well be perfect for the task at hand, and therefore not imperfect for that.

You said either perfection didn't exist, or it does and we are perfect even if we don't know it. I made two counter-points for each clause.

Yes, and so do you.

I don't though. I wasn't there to put anything into my memory.

[William]

[Replying to post 69 by Bust Nak]

My main focus is on the argument you appear to be making that imperfect critters can perfectly correctly represent -through definition - a perfect thing.

I would even go so far as to say that there is no thing which anyone can point to and show conclusively it is imperfect.

That's kinda an odd claim coming from a theist.

Remind me as to the 'rules' re being a theist...

If we are perfect, why do we need to change?

This is the point where the argument becomes circular. You have yet to acknowledge any understanding as to the idea I presented that this universe is perfect for the job.

In this case, the job requires 'the need to change' adapt, learn, adopt, etc. Again I will ask you to identify anything which might be considered to being conclusively imperfect. Perhaps we can examine the totality of the universe itself, which is consistently in the process of changing. Do you think the universe therefore is 'imperfect'? If so, why?

I proposed that imperfection cannot be the result of perfection.

You propose that human beings are imperfect. I argued that if this were the case, human beings cannot perfectly correctly represent -through definition - a perfect thing.
In the same way, how is an imperfect critter able to perfectly correctly represent -through definition - an imperfect thing?

Do you see the dilemma? Is it not more appropriate to put aside such distinctions as 'perfect' and 'imperfect' as conditions which we are unable to find anything absolute to argue from?

Also, if you are going to argue that a perfect creator cannot create imperfections, how is that creator therefore perfect? Another dilemma.

The best resolution therefore is to understand as premise, that created environments are perfect for the job, whether these are wombs, the planet, the galaxy or indeed the whole universe.

"The Job" becomes the thing of interest, in relation to the environment.

You said either perfection didn't exist, or it does and we are perfect even if we don't know it. I made two counter-points for each clause.

Are you quoting me, and if so, are you quoting me in context?

Wait you remember what it was like to not exist?

Yes, and so do you.

I don't though. I wasn't there to put anything into my memory.

So, you remember that much...you remember a time when you did not exist.