Is Existence a Form of Perfection?

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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!

 

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

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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)

 

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.

 

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........

 

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".

 

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'.

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.

Laugh? I would

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.

 

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.

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.