|
| Welcome to Religious Forums |
| Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page! |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#61
11-13-2004, 11:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
"Are we talking apples and apples, oranges and oranges or is it apples and oranges?"
No, perfection. "please point out where I did. I did not intent to and do not think I did. But please, point out to me where I did so that I can avoid doing it again." Wow, if you missed that point, I am wondering how the rest of this discussion "misses the point" as well. I meant, do not think that I am the only one with this idea of perfection. Attack the other great logicians who think the same way. I read you idea of the perfect bearing. However, there can be no "perfect" bearing. Not if it is man made, and even though they may get it as close as they can. If there are any limitations to it. It robs it of its perfection. Which is why there is only one perfect thing in the universe. And that is god. Perfect is perfect. Any other idea of perfection is imperfect. And what makes a perfect orange? What makes one orange more perfect than another. The answer is, none are perfect. They all ripen, spoil, and decompose. So if there was such a thing as a perfect orange, it would be perfect. It would not have more orange pigment than other pigments. It would have no beginning or end. It would be omniscient and omnipotent. It would have no need for seeds. In the end, it would be god. And no longer an orange. When you say that the bibles has it's own definition of perfection, that shows that there is more than one definition of perfection. And if you say that you use the "bibles" definition, you are using an ambiguous term. But this is where you fail in your reasoning. Because there is not ambiguity in perfection. Which is why the bibles definition is false. "Perfection of any other [than God] person or thing, then, is relative, not absolute." Any other thing than god is IMPERFECT!!! Not relatively perfect. Relatively perfect = Imperfect. I also enjoy how you try to prove things by using the bible. Which I find to be no more than myth and legend. Perhaps I can try to prove to you how the trees grow so well by using quotes from the lord of the rings. Would that help? No of course not. Don't use myth as premise to logic. Now lets do some core logic here. How about categhorical syllogism. Hmmm... Perhaps you can create one for me that is logically sound, vaild, and true. Go ahead and try. But just for fun, I will go first. No things perfect are things with limitation. All things that die are things with limitation. ----- No things that die are things that are perfect. ----- All things that are imperfect have ambiguity. All things that have limitations are imperfect. ----- All things with limitations are ambiguous. ----- All things that have limitations need interpretation . No book is without need of interpretation. ----- No book is without limitations. ----- THE BIBLE IS AMBIGUOUS AND IMPERFECT!!!!!!!! Therefore, to say the bible has it's own definition of perfection is a horrible idea for a perfect definition of perfection cannot come from an imperfect ambiguous source. Perfection is perfection. If god wasn't perfect, god wouldn't be god. And if god's perfection was ambiguous, than god wouldn't be god. If Perfection was amiguous, nothing would be perfect.
__________________
I go forth with bare feet, and a simple spirit. Lord have mercy on me. beati pauperes spiritu †  Last edited by Master Vigil; 11-13-2004 at 11:44 PM. 
|
|
#62
11-14-2004, 01:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Vigil, I am impressed. That was VERY good. You sure know how to write a good post..
|
|
#63
11-14-2004, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr_Spinkles,
Again let me say that you gave me what I asked for and that I appreciate it and will use it. I admit I need to make improvement; that is why I am here in the first place. Also, I hope everyone will take and use your suggestions. That having been said, I would like to ask you to think about yourself and the way you choose to present things. You, too (admittedly you are not the worst), do the very same things. For example (there are many more examples): --rather than because your argument: 1. Stems from a mythology . . . 2. Makes the unreasonable claim . . . 3. Makes the unreasonable assertion . . I say: Obviously, you feel and claim I am not capable of proper and correct reasoning because my arguments stem from 3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. 4. A fictitious story, person, or thing. Is that not, at the very least, condescending and dismissive and, at worse, insulting? Is that not conveying a very clear message that you have a grasp or lock on reality, facts or truths and thereby reason and reasoning ability that I do not? So, even though I may not have said it above as well as I should have, I am still asking that you get off your high horse. I will if you will. No, I will (at least try to) even if you don’t. Fair enough? Once again, Thank You! OK, enough of that. The dictionary does not agree with the definitions of ‘perfect’ I am hearing from most of the people replying to this thread: per-fect (purfikt)adj. Abbr. perf. 1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind. . . . 4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part. 5. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman. . . .USAGE NOTES: Perfect has often been described as an absolute term like chief and prime, hence not allowing modification by more, quite, relatively, and other qualifiers of degree. But the qualification of perfect has numerous reputable precedents (most notably in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution in the phrase "in order to form a more perfect Union"). What is more, the stricture is philosophically dubious. There can be no mathematically perfect forms in nature; therefore to say that any actual circle is "perfect" can mean only that it approximates the geometric ideal of circularity, a quality that it can obviously have to a greater or lesser degree. By the same token, perfect freely allows comparison in examples such as There could be no more perfect spot for the picnic, where it is used to mean "ideal for the purposes." See Usage Note at complete. It seems we cannot understand each other because we are not ‘speaking’ the same language. My definition agrees with the dictionary definition and yours doesn't, but I'm the one being unreasonable? I am open to suggestion here. How do we get around this problem? My usage of ‘perfect’ (and the definition I have supplied) is based on how I find it used in the Bible. The way ‘perfect’ is used in the Bible closely corresponds to the above dictionary definition. You have not supplied a definition, much less a basis for your definition, so how do I know that you are not grabbing your definition out of thin air? Have you come up with your definition just because it's a convenient or handy tool to use to reject the Bible? Please help me out here, I'm trying to figure this out and getting no help from you. As I said above, ”my first guess is that in this aspect of your question the actual disagreement is not about the definitions of the words “free moral agency” and “free will” and the words “self-determination” and “self-governance” as much as it is that we are disagreeing about the concept of “absolutes” versus “relatives,” am I correct? (I am guessing here because you have not explained what your belief is and on what it is based. Nor have you detailed to me what of mine you reject and why; I have no choice but to guess.) In other words the real issue is: I believe that perfection, freedom, free moral agency and all other such things, as they apply to creation, are “relative,” even in a “perfect” world, while you insist that those things can only be “absolutes” in a “perfect” world, is that right? As I said above, “I am really guessing on this one for I have absolutely no idea what your concept of God is. Hopefully you will remedy that.” As I said above, “let me ask you (all) a few questions. Does your concept of perfection mean that for a man to be considered perfect he would have to be unlimited or infinite in every aspect? Therefore to be perfect Adam would have had to have infinite knowledge and unlimited experience? And that he would be required to do everything to absolute perfection at all times and anything short of absolute perfection in every minute detail would mean that he was not perfect in any way? Is that a correct description?” As I said above, “Mr_Sprinkles and everybody else also, how can I give you an answer to your question(s) when I don't know what you mean when you say “perfect?”” Is it unreasonable of me to expect you to answer my questions?
|
|
#64
11-14-2004, 05:23 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Words are meant to serve those who use them--not the other way around. You have presented a plausible definition of "perfect" that, for the sake of argument, I will not dispute. However, this definition does little to settle any disagreement we may have in the future on what constitutes "perfect". It would be difficult for me to accept that the world was "perfect" during the Stone or Bronze Ages, and with a relative definition it will be impossible to reconcile our differing opinions. It would help if at this time you would answer my previous question as to which epoch in human (or hominid?) history you believe to have been "perfect". Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Allow me to modify my initial questions for clarity: Does God have the ability to create a perfect world that will remain forever perfect? (I realize your answer is 'yes') Why doesn't/didn't God create a perfect world that would remain forever perfect? (If your answer is "because that would violate our free moral agency" please refer back to the first question) There are possible answers to this question. Here are a couple: the world is perfect, right now, and God created it God does not have the ability to create a forever perfect world God did/does not want the world to be forever perfect God doesn't exist Quote:
__________________
|
|
#65
11-14-2004, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Master Vigil,
I said: "Are we talking apples and apples, oranges and oranges or is it apples and oranges?" You answered: “No, perfection.” I say: I am talking about ‘perfection’ (see the dictionary definition above in my reply to Mr_Spinkles) I do not know what you are talking about but it certainly is not perfect or perfection, as defined in the dictionary. Perhaps we should use different words? No, that does not seem very practical either. Why can I not use common words, with widely accepted dictionary provided definitions? What’s wrong with this picture? Can you explain it to me? You stated that I attacked you personally—I still want to know where and how! Your response was to say, “Wow, if you missed that point, I am wondering how the rest of this discussion "misses the point" as well.” What can of answer is that? And what does that mean? Some people sometimes, when they don’t really know the answer to a question and especially when they should know it, have a bad tendency to try to do what this old ex-sales manager described as: “if you can’t bedazzle them with your brilliance, then befuddle them with B.S.” I don’t know that you were trying to do that (I will await a straight answer to how I personally attacked you to decide that) but it certainly seems to apply to some of the things I read on this site. I am not attacking you here and now for even if you are guilty of the above it is no great fault, it is a very common and normal tendency. However, your answer seems nonsensical to me and therefore is actually worse than no answer. You say: “I meant, do not think that I am the only one with this idea of perfection. Attack the other great logicians who think the same way.” I say: obviously you still think I am personally attacking you. If I attacked anything it is the ‘idea’ the ‘concept,’ not you. And now I see that you are a “great logician.” WOW! I am impressed. (LOL) No, this time I am ‘pushing your leg.’ You say: “Any other idea of perfection is imperfect.” I say: let me think a minute, what did Mr_Spinkles criticize me for, oh yeah: “8) That your conception of God is God "as he IS" and all others are "man-made" and "incorrect" [and imperfect].” If that criticism applies to me then it also applies to you. Again, my definition of ‘perfect’ is the one generally used in the real world. Also, my definition agrees with the dictionary definition. The dictionary even rejects your idea and definition as “philosophically dubious” therefore your “logic” is fatally flawed before you even start. To accept your ‘logic’ calls for me to reject a definition that is generally known, used and accepted, thus in the dictionary, and arbitrarily replace it with your still, other than for you protestations, unsupported definition, why should I do that? I trust the dictionary more than I trust you. I trust the Bible more than I trust the dictionary. Man, you are dropping fast on my list. That is not a personal attack, but hopefully it helps you see that you are not really answering my questions. I know that you will not like this, but the only problem I see with the Bible in all this is above your shoulders and between your ears. You are the one with the unsupported definition that leads to unsupported and unsupportable ideas that you then try to force upon it and then you rant and rave that the Bible is the problem. Can you understand why I see it that way? .
|
|
#66
11-14-2004, 07:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr_Spinkles,
You say: "It would be difficult for me to accept that the world was "perfect" during the Stone or Bronze Ages, and with a relative definition it will be impossible to reconcile our differing opinions." You say: "No, that is not correct. It would be correct to say that, a creature perfectly designed to never sin or be tempted should not sin or be tempted." Please explain and expound. I am not sure of your meaning.
|
|
#67
11-14-2004, 08:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This world will never be perfect. We all know that. Sin and poverty has stricken our world for thousands of years. it isn't going to change tomorrow.
|
|
#68
11-14-2004, 08:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
First off, I don't believe you were attacking me. I know you were trying to attack the idea and concept. But you gave no refutation against it, only against MY reasoning. I never claimed to be a great logician, I passed that title on to the real great logicians. And by so doing, gave you the chance to refute their claims. Which you have not done. As you try to disprove the idea of perfection, you use a definition that is in itself ambiguous. It is like the idea of black. What is black, black is the complete absence of color. Not dark brown, or dark blue, black. Your idea of perfection is like me saying that something is more black than another. But even though there are other things more black than it, it is still black. No! No two things can be black, and another color at the same time. They will both be black. Same as perfection. Even though with our finite and imperfect words, we can say that something is more perfect than another, it is still not perfect at all. For perfection is infinite, eternal, GOD!!!!
My definition is not the dubious one, it is yours that is dubious. For you are trying to prove that things in nature are perfect, I am saying the opposite. I am saying nothing is perfect in nature and the only thing perfect is god. Thank you for helping me successfully prove my point. I am guessing you can't figure out a good syllogism for me then? Oh well. Perhaps in due time. "I know that you will not like this, but the only problem I see with the Bible in all this is above your shoulders and between your ears." Now you are attacking me personally. So I will answer this very humbly. Read my signature.
__________________
I go forth with bare feet, and a simple spirit. Lord have mercy on me. beati pauperes spiritu †
|
|
#69
11-14-2004, 10:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr_Spinkles,
There are implications of your question that are not settled; therefore answering your question at this point is probably a waste of time and effort. We most likely will do a lot of backing up and starting over as we run up against the things that we have not yet settled. That is why I had not yet answered your question. But to keep things moving, here goes. (Genesis 1:12-13) . . .And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind. Then God saw that [it was] good. 13 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a third day. (Genesis 1:18-19) . . .and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that [it was] good. 19 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fourth day. (Genesis 1:21-23) . . .And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters in the sea basins, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fifth day. (Genesis 1:25) . . .And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. (Genesis 1:31) 31 After that God saw everything he had made and, look! [it was] very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day. At each of those steps God expresses his satisfaction with the result of the creative activity. In other words, the earth was up to his standard and met with his approval at each of the above points. By the Bible and the dictionary definition it was “Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type,” perfect. As you know, from a previous thread, I believe that there were many billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:31, the end of the sixth ‘day.’ Where exactly the periods that you mentioned fall I cannot say for the Bible's account allows for the overlap of those activities. It is correct and safe to say that all creative activities ceased at the end of the sixth day. The world continued to meet with God's approval and standards up till Eve plucked the fruit. Also, just a little side thought for you: a possible reason God chose not to create the physical universe instantaneously into its present form is so that this creative activity could be shared in by the angelic creatures that he had created before the creation of the physical universe. Who knows what wonderful thing God might have in mind for humans in the future. .
|
|
#70
11-15-2004, 12:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Master Vigil,
I am sorry you feel that I am attacking you personally when I make it clear that what I was referring to is: “You are the one with the unsupported definition that leads to unsupported and unsupportable ideas that you then try to force upon it [the Bible] and then you rant and rave that the Bible is the problem. Can you understand why I see it that way? Let me try using an illustration: What if SETI was to start releasing transcripts of radio communications they had monitored. How would we go about coming to an understanding of them? Wouldn’t we have to allow those transcripts to define themselves? Wouldn’t we have to ‘listen’ long enough to determine what kind of conversation was being carried on and how that might affect our understanding of what was being said? Would we want to arbitrarily start assigning definitions based on our own point of view or wouldn’t we instead try to determine what was being said based on the definitions we found in the transmissions themselves? Based on what you have said, your predisposition against the Bible is very evident. To me you appear to be doing what I just described. And that is what I was trying to point out in my earlier comments. That is why I asked: “Can you understand why I see it that way?” You say: “First off, I don't believe you were attacking me. I know you were trying to attack the idea and concept.” I say: Then why did you say that I was “personally” attacking you? Was it possibly a debate tactic? Rightly or wrongly, that is how I took it. You say: “But you gave no refutation against it, only against MY reasoning.” I say: What was supposed to be refuting, your concept of perfection? Rut row, I just now discovered that I completely missed your post that is on page two of this thread, your first post. But after that I replied to each of your posts. If I was only refuting your reasoning it is because I took most of what you were saying to be affirmations and statements of opinion with out explanation or support which is not what I call reasoning on a subject. I don’t normally refute someone’s opinion, I just say, “You are entitled to your opinion and here is mine.” How many times did I ask you for your support or explanations? Several times! Didn't that give you a hint? You made many affirmations, for example “perfection cannot be relative,” but you did not start making real explanations and trying to ‘reason’ with me till your last two posts. I will go back and look at and answer your first post ASAP. You say: “gave you the chance to refute their claims.” I say: my conversation is with you! If you have something to say, believe it or not, I want to hear it. I want to hear you prove your points. Let me repeat some things said earlier: You say: “If you allow the bibles definition of perfection to be ambiguous” I say: where, specifically, have I done what you accuse me of doing? You say: “anyone who takes a basic logic course knows that one of the formal fallacious arguments is one of ambiguity.” I say: you know, I was just thinking the exact same thing about you. Sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black. Here is what I have said: Perfection of any other [than God] person or thing, then, is relative, not absolute. (Compare Psalm 119:96) That is, a thing is “perfect” according to, or in relation to, the purpose or end for which it is appointed by its designer or producer, or the use to which it is to be put by its receiver or user. The very meaning of perfection requires that there be someone who decides when “completion” has been reached, what the standards of excellence are, what requirements are to be satisfied, and what details are essential. Ultimately, God the Creator is the final Arbiter of perfection, the Standard-Setter, in accord with his own righteous purposes and interests. (Romans 12:2) As an illustration, the planet Earth was one of God’s creations, and at the end of six creative ‘days’ of work toward it, God pronounced the results “very good.” (Genesis 1:31) It met his supreme standards of excellence hence it was perfect. Yet he thereafter assigned man to “subdue it,” evidently in the sense of cultivating the earth and making the whole planet, and not just Eden, a garden of God. (Genesis 1:28; 2:8) In other words, what was already “very good” or perfectly suited to perform what was required and purposed for it was to be made more so. Apparently your claim is that the above definition is ambiguous to you. If that is so, I have my doubts that I can ever ‘reason’ with you. To me the above is about as definite as can be. Please explain to me the ambiguities in the above. You say: “My statements of opinion are based on logic and factual data.” I say: please show me the “factual data,” in your statements I seem to have missed it somehow. BTW I do not count your opinion or the opinion of some other man as “factual data.” FYI, just about every other line in your syllogism is not correct. Therefore it proves nothing. If it proves nothing, why waste my time disproving it? We do not yet have enough established common ground or shared frame of reference to be able to prove anything to each other by the use of a syllogism. I have no idea of your concept of God. So let me ask: First, do you worship? If so, what or who? Can you give me a paragraph or two description of your God? That's enough for starters. .
|
