Unintelligent Design

[AndromedaRXJ]

Perfection would be rather boring. If things were designed perfect, you would not be able to find joy in these cynical threads that you create. Consider the goofs for your own happiness. If things were perfect, you wouldn't be able to be a cynic. Oh no! What a lame and terrible perfect life that would be. You obviously find joy in creating and chatting about goofs... no goofs, no joy.

If things were perfect, you'd still manage to find something to complain about... but that's the joy of imperfection, it doesn't make things lame, boring, one-dimensional, and redundant. Gives you the opportunity to complain and for a bunch of different people to reason and communicate. Perfection would equal no debate forums, how boring! Intelligent goofs.

That's just your opinion in the end. Since no one has truly experience ultimate perfection of anything, no one can really make the claim that it would be "boring". I could just as well make some baseless claim that a perfect mind is incapable of being bored.

Second, there's a difference between being perfect and being flawless. All of the "unintelligent" designs that have been pointed out in this thread, are flaws that are unnecessary and don't have to be there. Something can be flawless (as in have no flaws), but it won't necessarily be perfect. Perfect basically means it's so good and well designed that there's literally nothing more to improve.

I don't see why an omnipotent and omniscient being can't make something flawless.

 

[Skwim]

I don't see why an omnipotent and omniscient being can't make something flawless.

Maybe it can, but I don't think being all powerful and all knowing necessarily makes anyone all smart.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Maybe it can, but I don't think being all powerful and all knowing necessarily makes anyone all smart.

But isn't that what all-knowing is? If a being is all-knowing, then it means there's literally nothing they don't know. They would know how to make a flawless organism, and they could easily design our brains of being incapable of boredom.

 

[Unification]

That's just your opinion in the end. Since no one has truly experience ultimate perfection of anything, no one can really make the claim that it would be "boring". I could just as well make some baseless claim that a perfect mind is incapable of being bored.

Second, there's a difference between being perfect and being flawless. All of the "unintelligent" designs that have been pointed out in this thread, are flaws that are unnecessary and don't have to be there. Something can be flawless (as in have no flaws), but it won't necessarily be perfect. Perfect basically means it's so good and well designed that there's literally nothing more to improve.

I don't see why an omnipotent and omniscient being can't make something flawless.

Yes it is my opinion as I appreciate hearing your harmless opinion also. Thank you for the response.

The entire universe is based on opposites.

There is no "in the end" without "in the beginning."

You wouldn't know what intelligent was without unintelligent.

You wouldn't know what unnecessary means without necessary.

You wouldn't know what good is without bad.

You wouldn't know what flawless even was without being able to measure/compare it with its opposite... flawed.

You wouldn't know what perfection is if there is no imperfection.

You wouldn't know boring without fascination.

 

[Skwim]

But isn't that what all-knowing is? If a being is all-knowing, then it means there's literally nothing they don't know. They would know how to make a flawless organism, and they could easily design our brains of being incapable of boredom.

You're probably right. I never thought of taking omniscience in that direction..

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

The entire universe is based on opposites.

Even if all this were true, pointing out that one thing has to exist for it's "opposite" to exist is a red herring. None of it does anything for the claim of there being a creator. That aside, I can think of a large list of things that don't have opposites, but that would lead to an irrelevant tangent.

You wouldn't know what perfection is if there is no imperfection.

I beg to differ. There isn't any known example of a perfect anything actually existing, yet we're able to conceptualize perfection it self and have clear definitions of that and it's "opposite". Do perfect circles exist in nature? No. But we know what one is.

 

[Skwim]

Even if all this were true, pointing out that one thing has to exist for it's "opposite" to exist is a red herring. None of it does anything for the claim of there being a creator. That aside, I can think of a large list of things that don't have opposites, but that would lead to an irrelevant tangent.

I beg to differ. There isn't any known example of a perfect anything actually existing, yet we're able to conceptualize perfection it self and have clear definitions of that and it's "opposite". Do perfect circles exist in nature? No. But we know what one is.

Whom are you talking to?

It's always best to use the quote function to

1. make it clear whom your addressing.
2. Let that person know you've replied to them through the automatic Alert function.​

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Whom are you talking to?

It's always best to use the quote function to

1. make it clear whom your addressing.
2. Let that person know you've replied to them through the automatic Alert function.​

What do you mean? I did use the quote thing.

 

[Unification]

Even if all this were true, pointing out that one thing has to exist for it's "opposite" to exist is a red herring. None of it does anything for the claim of there being a creator. That aside, I can think of a large list of things that don't have opposites, but that would lead to an irrelevant tangent.





I beg to differ. There isn't any known example of a perfect anything actually existing, yet we're able to conceptualize perfection it self and have clear definitions of that and it's "opposite". Do perfect circles exist in nature? No. But we know what one is.

I didn't claim any creator. We are creators.
I also didn't claim that anything "has" to exist. It just does and is.

That was pretty much my point, it's all mind and our opposite conceptualizations, definitions, etc. are created within. We couldn't conceptualize anything if we didn't exist and create within our nature.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I didn't claim any creator. We are creators.

Well you seem all over the place with your posts then. It was asked in this thread why there were imperfections in nature if we're to assume there's a creator. You replied basically saying that perfection would be boring, implying that a creator made bad designs so we wouldn't be bored.

I also didn't claim that anything "has" to exist. It just does and is.

You basically said that some things have to exist for us to know it's opposite. I'm saying that that's not necessarily true (know of any perfect circles?).

 

[Unification]

Well you seem all over the place with your posts then. It was asked in this thread why there were imperfections in nature if we're to assume there's a creator. You replied basically saying that perfection would be boring, implying that a creator made bad designs so we wouldn't be bored.



You basically said that some things have to exist for us to know it's opposite. I'm saying that that's not necessarily true (know of any perfect circles?).

If we were to assume there was a single creator that is separate from creation..then yes... that would be my best guess, for the ability of human beings to create and experience an infinite spectrum of possibilities with abstract freedom. Oddly enough, whether there is or there isn't a creator... it still is that way.

Assuming there is a creator then, what would be your best guess for why there are "imperfections?" Are there even "imperfections?" How can one even describe imperfections without understanding or describing what perfection is?

How can you know what an imperfect circle is without knowing what a perfect circle is, which exists abstractly?

 

[Unification]

Well you seem all over the place with your posts then. It was asked in this thread why there were imperfections in nature if we're to assume there's a creator. You replied basically saying that perfection would be boring, implying that a creator made bad designs so we wouldn't be bored.



You basically said that some things have to exist for us to know it's opposite. I'm saying that that's not necessarily true (know of any perfect circles?).

A circle is a circle. If we remove the "perfect" and "imperfect" judgements and conceptualizations... it still is a circle.

We can go back and forth, but that too is circular.

If we don't exist, no concepts of circles exist.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Assuming there is a creator then, what would be your best guess for why there are "imperfections?"

My guess would be that the creator isn't omnipotent or omniscient.

Are there even "imperfections?" How can one even describe imperfections without understanding or describing what perfection is?

I already went over this. We can conceptualize perfection without it existing physically. I don't see why we couldn't do the same for imperfection if it didn't exist.

How can you know what an imperfect circle is without knowing what a perfect circle is, which exists abstractly?

Let's not deviate from my main point. My main point is that a perfect god should be able to make everything perfect.

How will we know what imperfection is? Well you answered your own question. It will exist abstractly while everything physical can be perfect. Seems implausible? Yeah I agree. Which is why I think a perfect omniscient creator can't exist either.

 

[Skwim]

What do you mean? I did use the quote thing.

Never mind, there was a setting in my RF configuration that prevented your post from displaying the identity of the person you were responding to. Fixed it.

 

[prometheus11]

What law is higher than God that informs God what logic must be that he has no choice but to follow and what must be opposites?