Is Existence a Form of Perfection?

[neodude1212]

I was recently exposed to the ontological argument for God's existence, which states that

A. To rationally conceive of the idea of God, one must be thinking of that which nothing greater can be conceived. This basically is saying that you must be thinking of that which has all perfections.

B. Existence is a type of perfection, because, since there are only two options regarding existence, it is better to have existence.

Therefor, the rational idea of God must include existence.

So, according to this, how do we know that existence is a form of perfection, since we cannot conceive of non-existence?

[RELAYER]

I dont know, let me trip on it and I'll get back to ya :cheers2:

[neodude1212]

haha that's where all the answers lie :willy_nilly:

[RELAYER]

Lie? As in they are illusions? Or lie, as in embedded? :cheers2:

[neodude1212]

dammit I didn't want to use that word b/c of this lol.

stupid english language :banghead:

[Hoatzin]

Existence is a form of RACISM.

[BlackBillBlake]

I don't think you can say that because a thing is it is perfect.

Imperfection itself has existence. Unless we say imperfection is another form of perfection. But that's really just a contradiction in terms.

The argument that god must exist because nothing higher can be conceived and existence is a neccessary quality of the highest is an old argument first put forward in the early middle ages by St. Anselm.

The problem is that there is no actual reason to assume that becasue we can conceive of a thing it actually exists.
Bertrand Russell said it involves an illicit transition from the realm of the ideal into that of the actual, and I tend to agree with him on this.

[Stephæ]

Why is existence better than nonexistence? We have no idea which one is better. Personally I think nonexistence would be pure and perfect.

[neodude1212]

Why is existence better than nonexistence? We have no idea which one is better. Personally I think nonexistence would be pure and perfect.


Nonexistence can't be pure and perfect, because nonexistence is NOTHING.

[neodude1212]

Imperfection itself has existence. Unless we say imperfection is another form of perfection. But that's really just a contradiction in terms.

This is probably one of the better counter-arguments I've heard someone come up with. The only problem is how do we know that imperfection has existence though? If existence is indeed a form of perfection, then no, imperfection would not have existence.

The problem is that there is no actual reason to assume that becasue we can conceive of a thing it actually exists.



I would say that because we can conceive of a thing, it does mean it exists, just not necessarily on our level of reality.

If I imagine a rock, and I throw it at an imaginary window, I can make my rock break my window, because they both have the same amount of reality in them, if you will.

However, if I imagine a rock, and throw it at a real window, the real window wont break, because there is more reality in the "real" window than there is in my "imaginary" rock.

So, it isn't that I'm assuming my conceptions exist, I know they exist, just not on the same level of reality that I am physically operating at.

[Stephæ]

Nonexistence can't be pure and perfect, because nonexistence is NOTHING.

Please elaborate...

[neodude1212]

Please elaborate...


Think of it as a math problem.

For you to say that nonexistence is pure and perfect you are saying

Nonexistence = pure; perfection.

This cannot be true, because by definition, nonexistence is the absence of everything. Nonexistence is even the absence of absence if that makes any sense.

The only thing that nonexistence can equal is itself, which is nothing.

[BlackBillBlake]

This is probably one of the better counter-arguments I've heard someone come up with. The only problem is how do we know that imperfection has existence though? If existence is indeed a form of perfection, then no, imperfection would not have existence.



It would dpend on what you define as 'perfection'.

But according to what you say, imperfection must exist because it is a concept in my head.


So, it isn't that I'm assuming my conceptions exist, I know they exist, just not on the same level of reality that I am physically operating at.

That isn't to say your conceptions line up with actual realities with an independent existence. If it were so, then we'd have to say anything we can imagine exists, mickey mouse, unicorns etc.

[neodude1212]

It would dpend on what you define as 'perfection'.

But according to what you say, imperfection must exist because it is a concept in my head.

Maybe, but how do you know it's imperfection? That's another point to the thread, how do we define and know what is perfection and imperfection without simply using the opposite term in their respective definitions?




That isn't to say your conceptions line up with actual realities with an independent existence. If it were so, then we'd have to say anything we can imagine exists, mickey mouse, unicorns etc.

If you can imagine it, then it exists at least in your mind, no? What makes something an 'actual' reality? and as opposed to what?

[Tymar]

Kudos to you, neodude, for tackling this one and your concluding question is excellent. I think the implication of your concluding question is astute:

We're stuck inside of existence. To be outside of it is not to be. So how can we know if it is perfection? To me this point is nothing more than semantics. Because something exists is no indication of perfection. If you could know my life, you would know this is true.

Further more, how can we know by this that God exists? If God exists then God is part of existence, if God doesn't exist, well then...

I would like to suggest a view of the ancient Greeks. One of the many views of the Greeks--they were, after all, a prolific people--was that somewhere there was a perfect world, but not this one. This world was an imperfect manifestation of the other perfect world. Thus, the Greek Tragedy. The Greek Tragedy grew up around the idea that because this world was imperfect ideals such as beauty, love, etc., which were born in the perfect world, could never exist in this imperfect world. But then what could one expect of the Greeks? They had to come up with all these thoughts of art, theatre, philosophy, law, etc. They had no television to watch.

But to get back to the original thread, point (A) is merely a statement. The Israelites believed that their God was perfect. The Greeks didn't see their dieties as being all that perfect, just beings that you didn't want to piss off.

Point (B), again I see as semantics. Just because existence is preferable to non-existence is no indication of perfection.

[Hoatzin]

I don't think you can say that because a thing is it is perfect.

Indeed, and yet it has been the basis of so much religious philosophy over the ages, a cyclic argument that God must exist because the world is so perfect, and yet anything that seems flawed must somehow be shown to be perfect, for it was created by God.

Sorry, I'm just so high on Voltaire these days.

It is nonsense for us to imagine what perfection is. Whether or not the Universe is shown to be perfect, we'll still have to live in it.

[Hoatzin]

We're stuck inside of existence. To be outside of it is not to be. So how can we know if it is perfection?

Yeah, we're kind of looking at the situation from the wrong end. We see laws of physics that seem perfect, but we have no basis for thinking that they are. We might imagine that the world is made for us, because it serves us so well, and yet, if we accept that we are made the way we are because of the way the world is, this would seem foolish.

In other words, the laws of physics and the Universe seem perfect because they're better for us than not. If they were not, we would not survive long, and doubtless there are countless extinct species who would dispute the existence of God most heartily. But in truth, there is a lot about the Universe that is not perfect. Entropy, gravity, linear time... all these things have greatly inconvenienced humanity over the years, and yet still some of us imagine the Universe is designed with us in mind.

[BlackBillBlake]

Maybe, but how do you know it's imperfection? That's another point to the thread, how do we define and know what is perfection and imperfection without simply using the opposite term in their respective definitions?



I think we have to use common sense. For instance, it's clear that people born with no legs have imperfect bodies. Don't need to be a philospher to work that out.







If you can imagine it, then it exists at least in your mind, no? What makes something an 'actual' reality? and as opposed to what?

Some things exist only as imagination - unicorns for instance. There are no physical unicorns out there. Different in the case of a black dog - there are millions of actual examples.

[BlackBillBlake]

It is nonsense for us to imagine what perfection is. Whether or not the Universe is shown to be perfect, we'll still have to live in it.

I'm not sue its complete nonsense. Maybe by 'visioning' a more perfect state, we can then work to create it for ourselves. Perhaps we can create perfection, or little islands of perfection, as for example some artists seem to have at least come close to.
Isn't that really how we progress?

[BlackBillBlake]

, if we accept that we are made the way we are because of the way the world is, this would seem foolish.

.

An evolutionary biologist might disagree with that. Adaptation means we are the way we are because of the conditions that exist in the world.
I guess that from that point of view we are more 'perfect' than lower animals, because better equipped to survive and promulgate our genes.

[neodude1212]

I think we have to use common sense. For instance, it's clear that people born with no legs have imperfect bodies. Don't need to be a philospher to work that out.

I disagree that it is so cut and dry. On what grounds can you say that their body is not perfect? Because it is not like the majority of people's bodies?


Conversly, there is nothing I can say to you to convince you that it is perfect.

This is kind of what this thread is getting at. Something is either imperfect or perfect, but how do we know which? Or is that up to the discretion of the perceiver?

[pineapple08]

So, according to this, how do we know that existence is a form of perfection, since we cannot conceive of non-existence?[/quote]

We can conceive of non existent entities all the time such as unicorns and ghosts with out worrying about it to much.

[Hoatzin]

I'm not sue its complete nonsense. Maybe by 'visioning' a more perfect state, we can then work to create it for ourselves. Perhaps we can create perfection, or little islands of perfection, as for example some artists seem to have at least come close to.
Isn't that really how we progress?

Well, define "progress". But no, I'd say the problem here is that we're working with an ill-defined understanding of "perfection". Something is perfect for a purpose. The notion of something being perfect regardless of its purpose is a bit old-fashioned these days, isn't it?

But yeah, this is basically my argument: what's being said is that the universe is perfect, and that if it seems like it isn't, it's because we are unable to see its purpose. So I say, if that's the case, then all things must be perfect for their purpose in order for them to be perfect, not just the things that seem imperfect to us. But someone who claims that the universe is perfect must, presumably, know that purpose, otherwise their diagnosis would be baseless. So they should, for example, be able to tell us the purpose of a rock. What is a rock perfect for? We use them to build with, but how are we able to state that that's what they were intended for? It's not like Man isn't generally considered capable of misusing things by most religions and a fair chunk of philosophy.

An evolutionary biologist might disagree with that. Adaptation means we are the way we are because of the conditions that exist in the world.
I guess that from that point of view we are more 'perfect' than lower animals, because better equipped to survive and promulgate our genes.

Possibly you misread me: I was saying exactly that. The world seems like it was created for us to live in because, if it was NOT the kind of world we need to live on, we wouldn't be able to live in it. ID fans like to think that the world must have been created for us, but why? There's a hell of a lot of the world that is a massive pain in the arse. And what about the rest of the universe? If it's been designed for us, why would there be so much vacuum in it? Man can't breathe in a vacuum, so why would God make it?

And we're far from perfectly suited to our world. Man is not in a stable, tenable relationship with his environment, so unless someone supposes that God made a shit ton of species with the specific intention that we'd drive them into extinction, I'd hardly see it as a reason to abandon my belief that we are just a happy (?) accident (felix culpa).

[Hoatzin]

So, according to this, how do we know that existence is a form of perfection, since we cannot conceive of non-existence?

We can conceive of non existent entities all the time such as unicorns and ghosts with out worrying about it to much.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, but we are (usually) aware that we are conceiving a mental picture, not the being itself. So a mental picture of a unicorn exists, but doesn't prove the existence of a unicorn, any more than the existence of a nose proves the existence of spectacles.

[pineapple08]

Substitute the word unicorn for God. Mental pictures ah.

[Hoatzin]

Well yeah. I wouldn't ever argue that there was a god.

Then again, substitute unicorn for "King George III". I personally have no idea what he looks like. From a description I might form a mental picture. But this does not mean that only the mental picture of King George exists; his body can easily be found, albeit in a less than recognisable state :)

[neodude1212]

We can conceive of non existent entities all the time such as unicorns and ghosts with out worrying about it to much.


This is illogical. There is no way for you to assert that unicorns and ghosts are non existent entities.

At the same time, as soon as you think of a unicorn or ghost, you have automatically brought the idea of one into existence. Perhaps they don't exist on our level of reality (which we will never know), but they definatly exist inside a lesser level of reality (inside your head)

[Hoatzin]

I believe that's a fallacy. The notion that anything we can imagine is real relies on a very anthropocentric view of the universe - the same kind that gives us infinite parallel universes based on different (human) decisions - that isn't really borne out by how downright indifferent to life the laws of physics appear to be.

[neodude1212]

Rather than saying it's a fallacy, I think it just really boils down to what you consider reality to be.

[Waking Life]

I was recently exposed to the ontological argument for God's existence, which states that

A. To rationally conceive of the idea of God, one must be thinking of that which nothing greater can be conceived. This basically is saying that you must be thinking of that which has all perfections.

B. Existence is a type of perfection, because, since there are only two options regarding existence, it is better to have existence.

Therefor, the rational idea of God must include existence.

So, according to this, how do we know that existence is a form of perfection, since we cannot conceive of non-existence?


Neodude, within most ontologies that posit a supreme being a principle is assumed which holds that there must be at least as much reality in the cause of an idea as there is in the effect of an idea.

[Hoatzin]

Rather than saying it's a fallacy, I think it just really boils down to what you consider reality to be.

A different tack, then: if everything that exists is perfect, how can we have a concept of imperfection to compare it to? [/derrida]

[neodude1212]

A different tack, then: if everything that exists is perfect, how can we have a concept of imperfection to compare it to? [/derrida]

Duality.

But how do we know we even have a concept of imperfection? Perhaps the concept is perfection is and of itself?

I know it's tedious, but that's really how I think of it. If everything that exists is perfection, then I would say that you aren't really thinking of imperfection when you think you are.

I'm not asserting that existence is perfection. I'm just trying to see what people think perfection/imperfection is, and what sort of things meets their requirements.

[neodude1212]

Neodude, within most ontologies that posit a supreme being a principle is assumed which holds that there must be at least as much reality in the cause of an idea as there is in the effect of an idea.


Yes, it's known as Aristotelian causality. Descartes has a seperate argument for God's existence that depends on that idea, however, this argument is not based on causality.

[relaxxx]

Scientifically, rationally and logically we know the earth/solar system/galaxy is imperfect fragile, and finite.

For the creationist mind, we know the earth is imperfect because there is a promise of heaven. By heavens popular definition we have means of comparison to show that the physical world is imperfect.

Now explain to me why a God, who must be perfect by popular definition, would consist of imperfections such as this physical planet? Would a PERFECT woman have an ugly mole on her face?

God can not possibly be perfect! God has no power to end suffering. God has no power to save earth from destruction. Why? Because God is an imaginary creature!

[Tymar]

So what do you think about this? Not that you haven't thought of it before.

Look at existence as an object or any one single object as you define it. An object is what it is in and of itself. That's it. When the human mind experiences the object, consciousness does its thing, abstracting, categorizing, etc., and then you have abstract concepts such as shape, color, size, etc. Then higher concepts are built and so on up the conceptual hierachy. Anything such as concepts or ideas or understandings that are produced by the functions that the human consciousness performs concerning an object are denizens of the metaphysical.

Perfection is an abstract concept. There's a perfect bowling score, but there's not a perfect circle. The kind of perfection that has to do with the latter is like God and infinite. God, infinite, perfect are sort of pretend concepts. They really cannot be grasped. Not to suggest Orwellian word reduction, but we could just take concepts like infinite, perfect, God and refer to all of them as "go figure" because there's really no concept there.

If you're looking for proof of God in the metaphysical its not there.

[BlackBillBlake]

So what do you think about this? Not that you haven't thought of it before.

Look at existence as an object or any one single object as you define it. An object is what it is in and of itself. That's it. When the human mind experiences the object, consciousness does its thing, abstracting, categorizing, etc., and then you have abstract concepts such as shape, color, size, etc. Then higher concepts are built and so on up the conceptual hierachy. Anything such as concepts or ideas or understandings that are produced by the functions that the human consciousness performs concerning an object are denizens of the metaphysical.

Perfection is an abstract concept. There's a perfect bowling score, but there's not a perfect circle. The kind of perfection that has to do with the latter is like God and infinite. God, infinite, perfect are sort of pretend concepts. They really cannot be grasped. Not to suggest Orwellian word reduction, but we could just take concepts like infinite, perfect, God and refer to all of them as "go figure" because there's really no concept there.

If you're looking for proof of God in the metaphysical its not there.

You only have to look at the sky and you're seeing infinity.
It doesn't only exist as a concept.

[snake_grass]

i dont know might be imperfect for freedom of freestyling what you want to put in your life to make it perfect in your own definition

[Tymar]

BlackBillBlake

You only have to look at the sky and you're seeing infinity.
It doesn't only exist as a concept.

I see what you mean, but as I was suggisting, the universe may be infinite, but when I look at the sky, I see the sky. I was suggesting that infinity does exist, but not as a concept. Shape, color, the U.S. Congress--in spite of being about the best example of a co-dependent relationship that there is--are all concepts because they are understood, with the possible exception of the U.S. Congress whose rationality is suspect.

[Capn_Danger]

I'd like to take a closer look at the word "existence". Hume attacked the ontological argument in this way, saying existence isn't really a property something can have, because no possible thing can lack it.

If we say "that thing does not exist", what we really mean is "there is no such thing". The phrase "that thing does not exist" is actually nonsensical, because there is no "thing" to talk about in the first place!

Likewise, it makes no sense to talk of something "having existence". Its a redunant phrase, you're saying "this thing is a thing". If there IS a thing to even discuss, of course it exists!

Therefore, you can't say that existence is a property something has, or even a state of being: existence IS being, and not a state thereof.

So, we can't really say that God would be less perfect if he/she/it did not exist, since existence and nonexistence are not states that something can be said to have or not have.

Also, its easier to feel that something is wrong with the ontological argument than to actually nail down what it is. I hope that was at least a little bit clear.

[Hoatzin]

You only have to look at the sky and you're seeing infinity.
It doesn't only exist as a concept.

Hardly. There are limits to what we can perceive from a fixed point in space and we know it. What we see in the sky is not necessarily infinite, just distant.

[Hoatzin]

Scientifically, rationally and logically we know the earth/solar system/galaxy is imperfect fragile, and finite.

To whom?

By some accounts, heat death will set in in trillions of years, and thenceforth, nothing will move again. If the universe is gradually cycling down to a state of non-change, the only imperfection is that it's not already at that point.

You have no basis for believing that the universe is imperfect merely because it is changing. Your attempts to assert that your belief is scientific, rational and logical are equally baseless; no scientist would describe the universe as imperfect if they had any sense, because it is theirs to study and observe. If a scientist finds an imperfection, he adjusts his theory; he does not get to simply blame the universe for not fitting his theory.

So, you have made a deeply flawed argument: you have purported to know what a perfect universe would be like, and then claimed that the only universe you know to exist must be imperfect because it does not resemble your imaginary perfect one.

For the creationist mind, we know the earth is imperfect because there is a promise of heaven. By heavens popular definition we have means of comparison to show that the physical world is imperfect.

Nope, that's stupid. A waiting room isn't imperfect just because it isn't the office of the doctor that you're waiting to see. It's the place where you wait for your appointment with the doctor (hence the name "waiting room", and it serves that purpose, potentially perfectly if there's a decent stock of magazines.

So, by the same token, the world is not proven to be imperfect, neither to a creationist mind nor any other with an iota of imagination, simply by its impermanence. You've proved nothing and are just making emotive statements. But let's read on.

Now explain to me why a God, who must be perfect by popular definition, would consist of imperfections such as this physical planet? Would a PERFECT woman have an ugly mole on her face?

So human aesthetics define perfection now? That's hardly rational. I mean, why not a perfect mole on an ugly woman's face? Because you say so?

I hope you're not trying to claim that this is scientific, rational and logical proof too?

God can not possibly be perfect! God has no power to end suffering. God has no power to save earth from destruction. Why? Because God is an imaginary creature!

Regardless of what you believe, you've proved nothing. For example, you assume the absence of power merely because it has not been used within your experience. Without knowing what the universe is for, it's utterly ridiculous to state that it's perfect or imperfect.

You say God has no power because he doesn't prevent things that YOU consider bad from happening. How totally irrational to assume that an effect is "bad" just because it appears so from one anthropocentric perspective.

In general, throughout this post you have been incapable of imagining a concept of perfection that doesn't include life, that doesn't include humanity, that doesn't include YOU. All of your arguments that the universe is imperfect ultimately boil down to it not meeting YOUR expectations. And I guess you could argue that it is imperfect because, if it was perfect, you wouldn't be in it to disagree with it. But maybe you're meant to disagree with it. Maybe perfection requires that your look-look-I'm-so-rational mind goes out and finds some amazing new power source which increases the progress of human civilisation exponentially, resulting in us destroying ourselves and thus removing one more piece of clutter from a universe that should never have had life in it in the first place.

I'm not claiming that any of this proves the universe is perfect. All I'm saying is that, if you're right, and it's not, making such claims without basis won't do you or anyone any good. You, as a rationalist, should be better than those who merely state and restate beliefs. You should WANT to be better still.

And so on. In summary: stop making assertions in the name of science, logic and rationalism, because you're very rarely even making convincing arguments, and to associate yourself with signs of truth and certainty when all you've got are a few flimsy assertions built on sand is deeply disingenuous.

[relaxxx]

You have no basis for believing that the universe is imperfect merely because it is changing.

Do you even grasp the concept of perfection? If something was absolutely perfect it would never be changing. Changing into what, something MORE perfect than perfect!!!??

And you've got the balls to call my post stupid! I don't even need to read the rest of your stark raving idiocy.

[BlackBillBlake]

Do you even grasp the concept of perfection? If something was absolutely perfect it would never be changing. Changing into what, something MORE perfect than perfect!!!??

.

Why should perfection be static? Why not a dynamic perfection?

[relaxxx]

Even if the universe itself was in perfect balance (which it is not because energy itself is a result of imbalance) in some trillion year energy cycle expansion collapse rebirth thing that runs for eternity. The cycle itself 'could' be considered perfect but is it perfect for life, is it perfect for a spiritual model of infinite consciousness? Is it a perfect model for eternal happinesses and peace? No it's a perfect model for periods of finite consciousness and struggle for existence. It's a perfect model for extremely brief periods of misery mixed with even fewer periods of bliss.

Why is there no perfection? Because I am part of the universe and I say so. Even if I'm only 0.0000000000000000...000001% of the universe. For true perfection there must be 100% agreement and if it was perfect, there would be 100% agreement but it s not!

[BlackBillBlake]

Even if the universe itself was in perfect balance (which it is not because energy itself is a result of imbalance) in some trillion year energy cycle expansion collapse rebirth thing that runs for eternity. The cycle itself 'could' be considered perfect but is it perfect for life, is it perfect for a spiritual model of infinite consciousness? Is it a perfect model for eternal happinesses and peace? No it's a perfect model for periods of finite consciousness and struggle for existence. It's a perfect model for extremely brief periods of misery mixed with even fewer periods of bliss.

!

But maybe it's all evolving towards an as yet unrealized perfection.
Mybe we are supposed to be a conscious part of that process.

[relaxxx]

Evolution could be considered a struggle for perfection but it's highly unlikely to produce actual perfection due to natural limitations of energy. Evolution itself is not a perfect process and absolutely depends on imperfections in reproduction to function.

[BlackBillBlake]

Evolution could be considered a struggle for perfection but it's highly unlikely to produce actual perfection due to natural limitations of energy. Evolution itself is not a perfect process and absolutely depends on imperfections in reproduction to function.

'The natural limitations of energy' might change.

New energy may emerge, as it did for example when life first appeared, followed in humans by mind. Prior to the human, there was no thinking creature on earth. The human mind has already moved things further towards perfection then the more limited consciousness of the animal.

If a higher mode of consciousness than the mental were to appear, who can say what the limitations would be?

[Hoatzin]

Even if the universe itself was in perfect balance (which it is not because energy itself is a result of imbalance) in some trillion year energy cycle expansion collapse rebirth thing that runs for eternity. The cycle itself 'could' be considered perfect but is it perfect for life, is it perfect for a spiritual model of infinite consciousness? Is it a perfect model for eternal happinesses and peace? No it's a perfect model for periods of finite consciousness and struggle for existence. It's a perfect model for extremely brief periods of misery mixed with even fewer periods of bliss.

Why is there no perfection? Because I am part of the universe and I say so. Even if I'm only 0.0000000000000000...000001% of the universe. For true perfection there must be 100% agreement and if it was perfect, there would be 100% agreement but it s not!

As has been said, there is no reason why perfection cannot be dynamic. And frankly, I doubt many would agree with your definition of perfection.

As I've said before, something can only be perfect for a purpose. A perfect brick is not one that tastes good, any more than a perfect sandwich is one that one can build houses out of. A perfect universe, by extension, would be perfect for its purpose, and since you don't know what that purpose is, you're wrong.

As to 100% agreement being necessary for perfection, that's genuinely absurd, and by this definition, you're actually disproving your own argument; if inertia, total stillness and agreement is necessary to perfection, then the universe in a state of heat death would in fact be as near to perfect as possible. Yes, everyone would be dead and no particle could move ever again, but hey, as long as they're not fighting each other, that's perfection, right?

[Hoatzin]

Do you even grasp the concept of perfection? If something was absolutely perfect it would never be changing. Changing into what, something MORE perfect than perfect!!!??

Good god you're narrow minded. I really don't know how to explain this to you, since it was hard enough for someone to explain it to me and I wasn't being a bloody-minded dismissive asshole, but fluidity is the new stasis, and your definition of perfection belongs somewhere in the 17th century.

And to be honest, I'm quite frustrated that you didn't read beyond this. My comments about anthopocentricity were NOT stupid, they were NOT ravings, and since you have neatly side-stepped having to rebut them by saying you've not read them, I have no reason to believe that you are capable of dismissing them. I guess if you were more patient and conscientious, I might have a higher opinion of you by now, but instead I just have to go on what I know.

[Hoatzin]

Evolution could be considered a struggle for perfection but it's highly unlikely to produce actual perfection due to natural limitations of energy. Evolution itself is not a perfect process and absolutely depends on imperfections in reproduction to function.

Ever heard of felix culpa? Your talk of an imperfection is interesting; if something happens by accident, and it makes the world a better place, regarding it as an imperfection seems rather foolish. If anything, all the "perfect" things that prevented the world from being a better place were the "imperfections", since they were actively preventing perfection.

[bthizle1]

Nonexistence can't be pure and perfect, because nonexistence is NOTHING.According to our definition yes...then again, look at the common held notion of what pertains to the term "time". In essence it is a system of measurement, in order to capture change, however time as far as we know could be infinite, temporary, have a beginning but no end, and vice versa. Putting a label on something does not mean we understand it, often times by putting a label on "something" we limit ourselves by virtually tricking the mind into thinking we have a much better ideal than that of which we realistically do. That's not true in all cases, in fact most the time when we label something, or attempt at describing it we come to a better understanding, however it is wrong for us to assume to know anything that we cannot fully comprehend, or in other words regard "it" as absolute truth.

Nonexistence by definition is complete (ironic term?) and utter nothingness. So, what about dark matter.....for many many years it appeared to be absolutely "nothing" to humans, and only fairly recently have we began to look at is a "matter". Just because something is not present to our developed, yet still incredibly dull senses does not mean it doesn't exist. Therefore to make an assumption that a state of nonexistence even exists in the first place may not necessarily be "right", yet simultaneously not "wrong". It's a hard concept to grasp, as we're so use to being either one or the other...right? (pun intended)...I mean how can someone possibly be both right and wrong?

Well, think of it this way....A ball drops and creates a loud noise, however it is neither seen nor heard because there's a hill in between the individual and the place at which the ball was dropped and hit land. The sound waves didn't reach the person, because most are reflected while others go through a process of transmission (basically absorbed in to the hill). The ball and it's meeting with land are completely unknown to the individual on the other side. Does this mean it didn't happen? Does this mean the ball doesn't exist (because one cannot see or hear it?) This is a horrible example too, but it just goes to show, even things that our senses have adapted to be aware of (ie. sound waves of certain frequencies and sight allowing us to see the ball drop), can be distorted/interrupted to the point that we cannot realize their existence...Now, take that only now there's "things" that we have no ability to see, hear, etc....are those "things" nonexistent, simply because we are unaware of them?

Is there even such thing as non-existence? Hmmm...well I personally think so, but there's really no way to know for sure. I've even heard people make the argument that non-existence is a form of perfection...and that we live in a state of non-existence. Science and everything for that matter is merely an observation that we as humans have made...what about all the observations we will never conceive or have yet to make? Do those forms of "existence" not exist? Well, in our existence they do not, but assuming to know for sure that something does or doesn't exist without having been able to detect/experience it could be detrimental to our progression of thought; as our thought is dependent upon our ability to perceive (observe)

[relaxxx]

'The natural limitations of energy' might change.

New energy may emerge, as it did for example when life first appeared, followed in humans by mind. Prior to the human, there was no thinking creature on earth. The human mind has already moved things further towards perfection then the more limited consciousness of the animal.

If a higher mode of consciousness than the mental were to appear, who can say what the limitations would be?


Well, according to popular religion a higher form of consciousness HAS existed before us and IT decided for some reason to take some huge steps backwards and invent this planet of misery. "perfect" consciousness decides to create billions of imperfect consciousnesses and make most of them suffer unbearable pain at some point in their existence? WTF is that about?

I think in the history of this universe there is a good chance that more than few states of consciousness have come and gone. Most likely some evolved beyond human consciousness. I wonder how they dealt with the realization that their states were limited and finite. Surely if any consciousness made such strides as to break the barriers of matter, light speed and time we'd have solid evidence of their existence beyond human lies fraud and fairytale. Oh great omnipotent beyond light speed eternal consciousness, prove your might and burn an image of a 2000 year old man in someones grilled cheese sandwich!!!

Back to perfection, I refuse to modify my concept of perfection to accommodate for ANY existence where an ounce of happiness costs a pound of misery. Even if misery is on the path to a better future existence, existence is the journey not the destination because the destination does not yet exist! Misery and suffering are no component of any "Form of Perfection" period! To me that is an absolutely absurd concept.

[bthizle1]

Well, according to popular religion a higher form of consciousness HAS existed before us and IT decided for some reason to take some huge steps backwards and invent this planet of misery. "perfect" consciousness decides to create billions of imperfect consciousnesses and make most of them suffer unbearable pain at some point in their existence? WTF is that about?

I think in the history of this universe there is a good chance that more than few states of consciousness have come and gone. Most likely some evolved beyond human consciousness. I wonder how they dealt with the realization that their states were limited and finite. Surely if any consciousness made such strides as to break the barriers of matter, light speed and time we'd have solid evidence of their existence beyond human lies fraud and fairytale. Oh great omnipotent beyond light speed eternal consciousness, prove your might and burn an image of a 2000 year old man in someones grilled cheese sandwich!!!

Back to perfection, I refuse to modify my concept of perfection to accommodate for ANY existence where an ounce of happiness costs a pound of misery. Even if misery is on the path to a better future existence, existence is the journey not the destination because the destination does not yet exist! Misery and suffering are no component of any "Form of Perfection" period! To me that is an absolutely absurd concept.

Very well said man! Good form...good form (simultaneously giving a golf clap) That's why a Christian notion of God always seemed so absurd to me...God is supposidly all knowing, if indeed he is then he knows the past, present and future, which means he knowingly created man and therefore condemned millions upon millions to this "hell". Also, why should a finite crime have an infinite punishment in the first place (where is the justice in that)? Free will is also very paradoxical...God can only do good, therefore "he" doesn't really have free will, yet he created man with "free will", therefore when man chooses to do good, having had the option to do bad then it's that much "better" if you will.

[BlackBillBlake]

Back to perfection, I refuse to modify my concept of perfection to accommodate for ANY existence where an ounce of happiness costs a pound of misery. Even if misery is on the path to a better future existence, existence is the journey not the destination because the destination does not yet exist! Misery and suffering are no component of any "Form of Perfection" period! To me that is an absolutely absurd concept.

But whose saying that perfection includes misery etc? Not me.
I said that in the future a perfection may evolve - not that its here already.
A pre-existent perfection would obviously be a perfection on another level - a perfection that exists/existed prior to and /or separate from the cosmic manifestation, hence not actually 'existence' as we understand it.
As for existence being the journey not the destination - I can't see that it makes a scrap of difference. Imperfection can be perfected. The state of perfect manifest existence would indeed be the destination.

What's the alternative? Escape from 'imperfect' manifest existence into some formless and relationless type of nirvana? (relationless as any relation would imply a relation to imperfection - there are huge problems in explaining how the universe could have arisen from such a relationless absolute)

Seems to me there are broadly speaking 2 possibilities - 1. the universe is an imperfectible mistake or illusion, and our only good lies in escape from it. Or 2. the universe is perfectible, and we should work for perfection.
It's hard to see how adopting 1. can actually be seen as 'perfection' as it leaves the universe exactly as it is with all of its imperfections. A turning of one's back to existence with its problems and miseries.
Even those who say they've attained 'perfection', enlightenment etc haven't made any difference to the basic flaws in the universe, except perhaps for their own individual consciousness, which they often say is only an illusion anyway........

[BlackBillBlake]

Very well said man! Good form...good form (simultaneously giving a golf clap) That's why a Christian notion of God always seemed so absurd to me...God is supposidly all knowing, if indeed he is then he knows the past, present and future, which means he knowingly created man and therefore condemned millions upon millions to this "hell". Also, why should a finite crime have an infinite punishment in the first place (where is the justice in that)? Free will is also very paradoxical...God can only do good, therefore "he" doesn't really have free will, yet he created man with "free will", therefore when man chooses to do good, having had the option to do bad then it's that much "better" if you will.


Doing good may help alleviate some of the suffering in life - but it certainly won't lead to a perfected universe or state of existence for us.
The basic flaws of human existence still remain untouched, such as death for example, unconsciousness, pain and pleasure....

Christianity is often aimed more at instilling morality into people than tackling the basic problems of existence. That's ok provided it's not abused (as it often is). It's probably better, even in a very imperfect world, to try to act with love.
My opinion on eternal damnation is that it was something invented to try to scare people into submission - if it were true, then God would actually be on a level of compassion etc far lower then many humans, even humanist atheists.
It fits more with ideas of 'justice' from roman times, or the middle ages.
To most civilized people today, the idea of tormenting someone as a form of punishment is totally un-acceptable.

[bthizle1]

Doing good may help alleviate some of the suffering in life - but it certainly won't lead to a perfected universe or state of existence for us.
The basic flaws of human existence still remain untouched, such as death for example, unconsciousness, pain and pleasure....

Christianity is often aimed more at instilling morality into people than tackling the basic problems of existence. That's ok provided it's not abused (as it often is). It's probably better, even in a very imperfect world, to try to act with love.
My opinion on eternal damnation is that it was something invented to try to scare people into submission - if it were true, then God would actually be on a level of compassion etc far lower then many humans, even humanist atheists.
It fits more with ideas of 'justice' from roman times, or the middle ages.
To most civilized people today, the idea of tormenting someone as a form of punishment is totally un-acceptable.

I was having a similar conversation with someone just the other day, and they pointed out to me that humans aren't really "flawed"....we simply are what we are. Now while I completely agree that we have "problems", when we assume that we are flawed, by definition we are claiming we have some defect(s), or have not reached our form of "perfection"...nothing is necessarily perfect in the world, it just is what it is. The state the world is in most likely is due to a process of infinite (as far as we know) evolution (ie. change). So, nothing can really be "flawed" they simply "are."

Also, while Christianity aims at instilling morals (catechism, 10 commandments, etc...) their main goals as with just about any religion are to attempt at explaining the unknown. Answers for our endless questions. Essentially that's how most all religions have began, or where it's foundations are rooted. Many of them, Christianity being a perfect example have been used to influence people's state of mind (opinions) to the point that they'll do anything "in the name of God". Just as Pope Urban said before the first Crusades' expeditions to the holy land, "Deus Vult" ("God wills it")....creepy huh?

Religion is PERFECT for humans though...and not in a "good way". Look at society, for centuries the "leaders" have depended upon the ignorance of the masses to continue to lead them in any which way they please. Religion essentially depends upon that same basic principal, that being the involuntarily, or worse voluntarily inability to look at things from more than just one perspective and to speculate on those they've already been presented with. Taking things at face value if you will....And oh my god (pun intended), I've ran into so many of these "god fearing, bible pushing" Christians (of any denomination) that know little to nothing about the history of their very own church...I mean seriously? Many of them barely even know the bible, or if they do they seem to be VERY selective with what they choose to add into their faith and what they don't.
Logic seems to go out the window when you're talking with these folk, sometimes it's hard to not laugh, especially when you've "been there done that".

[BlackBillBlake]

I was having a similar conversation with someone just the other day, and they pointed out to me that humans aren't really "flawed"....we simply are what we are. Now while I completely agree that we have "problems", when we assume that we are flawed, by definition we are claiming we have some defect(s), or have not reached our form of "perfection"...nothing is necessarily perfect in the world, it just is what it is. The state the world is in most likely is due to a process of infinite (as far as we know) evolution (ie. change). So, nothing can really be "flawed" they simply "are."

That's a matter of opinion, and also definition. Personally, I think humans are definitely flawed, as is the culture we produce. Since it's easy enough to concieve of many ways in which they could become less flawed, I don't think we just have to accept that things as they are are as they are 'meant to be'.





Also, while Christianity aims at instilling morals (catechism, 10 commandments, etc...) their main goals as with just about any religion are to attempt at explaining the unknown. Answers for our endless questions. Essentially that's how most all religions have began, or where it's foundations are rooted. Many of them, Christianity being a perfect example have been used to influence people's state of mind (opinions) to the point that they'll do anything "in the name of God". Just as Pope Urban said before the first Crusades' expeditions to the holy land, "Deus Vult" ("God wills it")....creepy huh?


Right - but personally I think our knowledge has expanded vastly since the ancient Hebrews attempted to explain the universe. In effect, I don't think the account Christianity in and of itself gives us of the universe and its origins is of much consequence.
Also, I agree it has been used to promote power agendas etc in the past, as it is to this day.




Religion is PERFECT for humans though...and not in a "good way". Look at society, for centuries the "leaders" have depended upon the ignorance of the masses to continue to lead them in any which way they please. Religion essentially depends upon that same basic principal, that being the involuntarily, or worse voluntarily inability to look at things from more than just one perspective and to speculate on those they've already been presented with. Taking things at face value if you will....And oh my god (pun intended), I've ran into so many of these "god fearing, bible pushing" Christians (of any denomination) that know little to nothing about the history of their very own church...I mean seriously? Many of them barely even know the bible, or if they do they seem to be VERY selective with what they choose to add into their faith and what they don't.
Logic seems to go out the window when you're talking with these folk, sometimes it's hard to not laugh, especially when you've "been there done that".


Laugh? I would:D

But really I think the thing is that religion gets people on an emotional level, and they let go of sound judgement in some cases. I don't tknow how many turn to it because they think the literal accounts of creation etc are satisfying to their minds.

Spirituality though is something I see as different from religion in the sense of organized religion. You can be spiritual and also retain your discernment and think for yourself.

[bthizle1]

That's a matter of opinion, and also definition. Personally, I think humans are definitely flawed, as is the culture we produce. Since it's easy enough to concieve of many ways in which they could become less flawed, I don't think we just have to accept that things as they are are as they are 'meant to be'.

I'm with you...I originally mentioned that humans were flawed to the individual that initiated the ideal that we are not. It's completely dependent on opinion and definition...there's really no "right" or "wrong" with either. It's just a shame that so many people feel there's always got to be one or the other, and no middle ground. Take virtually all of science for example. Everything is essentially theory based on observation, which at one point was theory and in a way still is. Anyone that studies the sciences and enjoys learning what they have to teach and what in turn we may further observe realizes this. However to avoid "theory" being completely misinterpreted by the masses they usually don't include that specific word "theory" or anything along those lines when describing what is to the majority of people.

For some reason the unknown is usually feared, misunderstood and therefore frowned upon by humans. It's present in religions, in the fact that they exist in the first place and that despite many of their similarities they only choose to emphasize differences, because they don't understand them and as a result fear each other. (I'm right they are wrong, so if they are right, then....I'm wrong!) Meh...I feel like I've reiterated this far to many times on these boards, so I'll just stop now.



Spirituality though is something I see as different from religion in the sense of organized religion. You can be spiritual and also retain your discernment and think for yourself.

Exactly

I'd almost go so far as to say spirituality is seeking truth (or as close as we can get), whereas religion is simply seeking comfort.