Religion.

[Phoenix]

Well that was awefully fast... Anyway, I'll see how reasonable your responses are from now on. I'll keep a very close eye out for them

Me first? I don't have any particular religious things I wanna bring up right now. Why doesn't someone just bring up something they'd defend to the death and see how long it lasts before me, Esau, or some diligent religious nut tears it to pieces.

[Judge Judy]

Well that was awefully fast... Anyway, I'll see how reasonable your responses are from now on. I'll keep a very close eye out for them

Me first? I don't have any particular religious things I wanna bring up right now. Why doesn't someone just bring up something they'd defend to the death and see how long it lasts before me, Esau, or some diligent religious nut tears it to pieces.

Ah I don't care about defending anything =/ questions like this doesn't bother me that much..especially when it comes to religion. Simple follow the religion or you don't. Don't force it on other people.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Mad Sage

[Phoenix]

Yeah why force anything? Even sanity, logic, or old teachings.

I'm bored, I'll just come back when I see something I want to quote. I'm just praying it's nothing I've already quoted :(

[Der Kommissar]

Okay firslty there is no evidence. So religion its about faith something you will never understand. Those who follow religion follow it purely on faith. So no evidence lol

If you have no evidence or reasoning for your assertion, then you don't have argument. You can't have a discussion about "faith," because faith is outside the realm of reason.

Not to say you're not entitled to it, but you can't put forth arguments in favor of religion that have no backing. Well, you can, but it's meaningless.

UGH, Adam and Eve didn't have free will until Satan came along, correct? They KNEW God existed, so they didn't have a choice to believe or not. Free will has both evil and good in it. Satan completed the puzzle, which we didn't want to happen.

...you are aware that free will plays into things besides whether or not you believe in a god, correct? Of course they didn't have a choice to "believe," since in the story, god regularly poked his head in to check up on them. They still had free will though, pertaining to the choice of whether or not to obey god. They had this ability before the snake came along and said, "HEY, DO YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD BE REALLY COOL?"

In the billions upon billions of years we have lived (not as people, as organisms) we could have adapted to an environment that has no water, correct? What is the science behind water being the basis of life?

Don't be silly. The reason we need water is because it plays an integral role in our cells' metabolic processes, without which they cease to function as living things. Water, as we understand, is vital for the processes that drive life as we know it. This is chemistry, not magic.

Thus, my argument. God IS needed for people to live. Otherwise, we have no purpose. No purpose to do what is right, no purpose to do ANYTHING. How did we adapt to be so different from any other animal? A force powerful enough to start and end it is the meaning behind life.

Easily definable as false. Evidence: myself, Esau. Both of us are atheists. Both of us are able to live. You want a historical example? Thomas Jefferson. Obviously not a man without purpose. ;)

How did we adapt to be so different? Don't be silly. All life is different from all other life in ways that vary from the mundane to the magnificent.

Might I add that not all free will [choices] are the right choices.

Besides, were there Atheists back then? I have no knowledge of that either. I think it's fair to say I have NO IDEA what will happen to you, I have NO idea what will happen to me either. It isn't fair of me to judge you or anyone else because it is wrong of ME to do so, not Him. He states WE SHOULD NEVER JUDGE, yet we do anyway. It creates prejudice. Sad really.

A choice between obedience and being murdered is not a choice, it's slavery.

I'm not sure how your comments on past atheists are relevant, and I'm not judging anyone, nor do I care if you judge me.

Thus, we have no choice to do right or wrong. Only right. WHERE DOES FREE WILL COME IN? Maybe God WANTED them to eat the fruit...

In Eden, you'd still have the choice to do as you will, to obey god or not. If god wanted Eve and Adam to eat the fruit, then that makes him the worst sort of sadist: it would mean he intentionally put them in an impossible situation to inflict pain and misery on them. It'd be like holding out a scrap for a dog and then beating him for taking it.

Lol, I believe there is an actual garden named the Garden of Eden. Just to be clear for you, I was not talking about THE Garden of Eden.

I see. My mistake.

But then Adam and Eve DID NOT HAVE FREE WILL. Right? The Garden of Eden doesn't grant us free will, because we are away from evil. So God gave them an order they did not follow. God told them they would gain the understanding of evil.

Notice in my arguments I'm not saying free will is a good thing, nor I am I saying it is a bad thing.

No, they had free will. They could choose whether to eat or sleep. Whether to walk or run. Whether to obey god or not. They didn't know that those actions were good or evil, but they had all of the faculties able to decide. To their eventual ill end.

I agree completely. Thanks for proving my point.

I do believe you're mistaken.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Der Kommissar

[Judge Judy]

If you have no evidence or reasoning for your assertion, then you don't have argument. You can't have a discussion about "faith," because faith is outside the realm of reason.

Not to say you're not entitled to it, but you can't put forth arguments in favor of religion that have no backing. Well, you can, but it's meaningless.

who said I was having an discussion. I was just telling my point of view based on faith really. Don't care whether you agree with or not. End of the day I am following my own religion. All religion are based on faith and not facts, therefore I can't bring forth any evidence.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Mad Sage

[Phoenix]

Actually people who follow religion tend to have mountains of evidence. You could call it personal proof if you want to be realistic but starting and assuming the Bible is true, you can make plenty of doctrines with evidence to support them. I guess the real problem here is interpretation. It's not like the Bible was written in the best language for english translation, there's a mountain of things in there that can be read too much into. Sad...

[Judge Judy]

Alot of holy books text can be very confusing to define its meaning and purpose. They are not consice enough and are not reliable in my opinion. I just rely on common sense and see which interpretation sounds right.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Every element appears in three forms. <_<

-----

I'm not a good arguer, if I knew better words, I could argue well. But I don't, so whatever.

Don't respond to my posts, it won't do you any good. I'm officially leaving this argument, for it is pointless.

Also, Don't ever think you won. You didn't.

Except it does mean that we won. You failed to continue our argument and address the point presented.

Holy Fire nests! I'm getting sick and tired of hearing such an overwhelming amount of illogical bs, and from those claiming to use it no less! I have a feeling Believers are dealing with more than just some supposedly logical standpoint. Some of what I'm reading is insane! Pretty much responses that ignore at least half of what's replied to! I'll get specific later, I'm too tired right now as I am recovering from a Persona 3 game clear. Whew. Anyway, I'm starting to wonder if trying to debate any of this is going to benefit us anymore seeing as how noone is listening to what is really being said(Myself excluded otherwise I wouldn't notice this repeated crap).

Also, this does God exist argument is boring, let's start smashing doctrines and throwing real common sense at each other. :P

If this was FFtF I would tell you to die in a Tornado Fire.

Seriously Phoenix, mind learning to read before you come after us? Sorry if I sound a little harsh, but all you do is say this stuff. You haven't addressed any real points.

Firstly, if you had a better posting format and had more consistent grammar your arguments would be far easier to understand. You complain about people misunderstanding you, but that's because your posts are vague as fuck.

Secondly, playing around with semantics and jumping around with word games doesn't make an argument. You can't beat us scientifically, or with any real reasoning, so you're just trying to confuse the issue. Stop.

[Paradox]

Actually people who follow religion tend to have mountains of evidence.

We have lots of evidence to the contrary in this thread.

You could call it personal proof if you want to be realistic but starting and assuming the Bible is true

Which is a complete and total logical fallacy; appeal to authority or 'look, it's written here' doesn't make things logically sound. You need to provide the actual evidnce.

you can make plenty of doctrines with evidence to support them. I guess the real problem here is interpretation.

Well, so, assuming the document which asserts that everything is true, you can assume everything it says it's true? Why, yes, that's true!

It's not like the Bible was written in the best language for english translation, there's a mountain of things in there that can be read too much into. Sad...

Hmm, I agree, there's a lot of things in there that can be over-analyzed. Not much in the way of good evidence however.

[Der Kommissar]

I'm still editing my last post (I missed replies to my comments), so refer to that, anyone speaking with me.

EDIT:

My earlier post is completed. Sorry for any confusion.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Der Kommissar

[Judge Judy]

Actually people who follow religion tend to have mountains of evidence.

I highly doubt it. Name one fact that is brought up within your religion and support with evidence. Evidence that cannot be questioned or challegened.

[Phoenix]

If this was FFtF I would tell you to die in a Tornado Fire.

Seriously Phoenix, mind learning to read before you come after us? Sorry if I sound a little harsh, but all you do is say this stuff. You haven't addressed any real points.

Firstly, if you had a better posting format and had more consistent grammar your arguments would be far easier to understand. You complain about people misunderstanding you, but that's because your posts are vague as fuck.

Secondly, playing around with semantics and jumping around with word games doesn't make an argument. You can't beat us scientifically, or with any real reasoning, so you're just trying to confuse the issue. Stop.

You know what I'm trying to do? I'm trying to confuse? Well that's a typical assumption but okay whatev.

My posting format has nothing to do with being misread, Sol is proof of this. I write the way I do because it's not like I have to make a big presentation which is going to discounted on the spot. Not vague, just coming from somewhere you're not use to dealing with. There's also a huge difference between word games and correcting certain statements with a loose tone.

First off Science isn't against me, so proving you wrong has nothing to do with science. Second, reasoning is something I only see bits and pieces of here and there and it's not always in some of these anti God responses. With that, why bring up me being unreasonable? I'm reasonable enough to get by. And lastly, trust me, I hate confusion, there's nothing that kills more people in life than this. If you can't understand what I'm saying, I'll just write a little booklet especially for you, and you can referrence it whenever something I type confuses or makes you assume something you know I'd flat out go "Not-uh!" to.

This is one of many replies to my posts that just flat out sucks. If I confuse you in what I say then try reading it again a few times or just ask me what I mean, don't type this out. I'm not that big a deal.

[Phoenix]

I highly doubt it. Name one fact that is brought up within your religion and support with evidence. Evidence that cannot be questioned or challegened.

I said evidence! Not facts. What the hell is going on around here?!

[Der Kommissar]

Evidence implies non-subjective, observable, repeatable phenomena. Also known as "facts."

[Judge Judy]

I said evidence! Not facts. What the hell is going on around here?!

Ah my bad Sorry about that. I should have read alot more carefully. XD

Again I apologise.

[Phoenix]

Tell ya what.

I promise to carefully read everybody's posts from now on, to increase the odds of proper interpretation.

Don't really care if they do the same for me, but this is a good start.

[Paradox]

This is one of many replies to my posts that just flat out sucks. If I confuse you in what I say then try reading it again a few times or just ask me what I mean, don't type this out. I'm not that big a deal.

Well, if you conclude that this reply sucks, then why not instead reply to another reply to your previous post which doesn't? I think I tried to go through your previous post fairly, but you'd rather reply defensively to this post it seems...

[Phoenix]

Well, if you conclude that this reply sucks, then why not instead reply to another reply to your previous post which doesn't? I think I tried to go through your previous post fairly, but you'd rather reply defensively to this post it seems...

Okay it's your turn

When I said that they have "evidence" I was saying personal proof. SOmething that applies to them and their followers. It is evidence, just not evidence that come from observation of accepted facts.

Also it's not like I'm defending my beliefs because noone knows what they are yet. Believing in the Bible narrows it down a few thousand religions but that's about it. Not everybody accepts the doctrines of the Nicean Creed. Thank God.

[Defeatist Elitist]

You know what I'm trying to do? I'm trying to confuse? Well that's a typical assumption but okay whatev.

My posting format has nothing to do with being misread, Sol is proof of this. I write the way I do because it's not like I have to make a big presentation which is going to discounted on the spot. Not vague, just coming from somewhere you're not use to dealing with. There's also a huge difference between word games and correcting certain statements with a loose tone.

First off Science isn't against me, so proving you wrong has nothing to do with science. Second, reasoning is something I only see bits and pieces of here and there and it's not always in some of these anti God responses. With that, why bring up me being unreasonable? I'm reasonable enough to get by. And lastly, trust me, I hate confusion, there's nothing that kills more people in life than this. If you can't understand what I'm saying, I'll just write a little booklet especially for you, and you can referrence it whenever something I type confuses or makes you assume something you know I'd flat out go "Not-uh!" to.

This is one of many replies to my posts that just flat out sucks. If I confuse you in what I say then try reading it again a few times or just ask me what I mean, don't type this out. I'm not that big a deal.

Congratulations on posting 4 paragraphs and saying nothing.

Every time someone refutes one of your points you just say they misunderstood you. But anyway, I'll get you line by line...

"My posting format has nothing to do with being misread, Sol is proof of this. I write the way I do because it's not like I have to make a big presentation which is going to discounted on the spot. Not vague, just coming from somewhere you're not use to dealing with. There's also a huge difference between word games and correcting certain statements with a loose tone. "

Someone says something about how God can't be perfect for X reason. You say "FUCK LOGIC, GOD STILL CAN HE'S PERFECT."

That's you playing word games. Not correcting the person.

"First off Science isn't against me, so proving you wrong has nothing to do with science. Second, reasoning is something I only see bits and pieces of here and there and it's not always in some of these anti God responses. With that, why bring up me being unreasonable? I'm reasonable enough to get by. And lastly, trust me, I hate confusion, there's nothing that kills more people in life than this. If you can't understand what I'm saying, I'll just write a little booklet especially for you, and you can referrence it whenever something I type confuses or makes you assume something you know I'd flat out go "Not-uh!" to. "

I'd like the booklet please. Perhaps you should mass produce it and hand it out, given the number of different people who misunderstand you. Christ, you sound like a serial killer. "NO-ONE UNDERSTANDS ME!!!!!"

Science isn't against you. But your argument is wrong. Scientifically. I see a lot of reasoning, and your not doing any of it. What do you even mean by "I'm reasonable enough to get by"?

"This is one of many replies to my posts that just flat out sucks. If I confuse you in what I say then try reading it again a few times or just ask me what I mean, don't type this out. I'm not that big a deal."

Yes it is an issue. I know how these arguments work, I've gone through them many times. Religious people can never win in a Scientific Debate, so they try to drag everything through the shitter and confuse the issue. I've read your posts several times. I didn't think I was confused. But then you start saying how we misunderstood you... You yourself are admitting to being confusing.

[Paradox]

Okay it's your turn

When I said that they have "evidence" I was saying personal proof. Something that applies to them and their followers. It is evidence, just not evidence that come from observation of accepted facts.

tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es

1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.

2. To support by testimony; attest.

Assertions and propositions are different from evidence in that validity is different from soundness.

[Phoenix]

Congratulations on posting 4 paragraphs and saying nothing.

Every time someone refutes one of your points you just say they misunderstood you. But anyway, I'll get you line by line...

"My posting format has nothing to do with being misread, Sol is proof of this. I write the way I do because it's not like I have to make a big presentation which is going to discounted on the spot. Not vague, just coming from somewhere you're not use to dealing with. There's also a huge difference between word games and correcting certain statements with a loose tone. "

Someone says something about how God can't be perfect for X reason. You say "FUCK LOGIC, GOD STILL CAN HE'S PERFECT."

That's you playing word games. Not correcting the person.

"First off Science isn't against me, so proving you wrong has nothing to do with science. Second, reasoning is something I only see bits and pieces of here and there and it's not always in some of these anti God responses. With that, why bring up me being unreasonable? I'm reasonable enough to get by. And lastly, trust me, I hate confusion, there's nothing that kills more people in life than this. If you can't understand what I'm saying, I'll just write a little booklet especially for you, and you can referrence it whenever something I type confuses or makes you assume something you know I'd flat out go "Not-uh!" to. "

I'd like the booklet please. Perhaps you should mass produce it and hand it out, given the number of different people who misunderstand you. Christ, you sound like a serial killer. "NO-ONE UNDERSTANDS ME!!!!!"

Science isn't against you. But your argument is wrong. Scientifically. I see a lot of reasoning, and your not doing any of it. What do you even mean by "I'm reasonable enough to get by"?

"This is one of many replies to my posts that just flat out sucks. If I confuse you in what I say then try reading it again a few times or just ask me what I mean, don't type this out. I'm not that big a deal."

Yes it is an issue. I know how these arguments work, I've gone through them many times. Religious people can never win in a Scientific Debate, so they try to drag everything through the shitter and confuse the issue. I've read your posts several times. I didn't think I was confused. But then you start saying how we misunderstood you... You yourself are admitting to being confusing.

tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es

1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.

2. To support by testimony; attest.

Assertions and propositions are different from evidence in that validity is different from soundness.

Man... this is going to be one long ass reply, so tired...

Um.. Quote #1

Someone said that assuming God is perfect, he cannot create imperfection. My response was not F*CK LOGIC. I wonder if you even read it. Let me say it again. Creation is not having a finished product on the spot, if it was then the universe would work the same way! Look around you, guys! What have you seen that hasn't gone through the process of coming to be?! What?! Everything goes through a process to be completed, everything. For a Perfect being to create imperfection is possible. Why? Because said being is going through the creation process, which includes planning, production, and completion. Nothing in the production phase is perfect or you'd have a finished product before you even started. This isn't F*CK logic, genius, it's something you see every day of your life if you don't live in a cave!

*sigh* Quote #2

While I'm actually considering writing the booklet, I'll wait til I'm certain there's no other way I can put this that won't go in one ear and out the other. I'm not un-understandable, I'd just appretiate a reply that comes after careful observation of my post. Just look at destiny hero. I say that animals don't think and reason the way we do and he claims I'm treating animals badly. We need to be careful, you know. My argument that God exists is not wrong. It hasn't even been completely made yet. You say it's wrong based on... this perfection=perfection thing? Face it, you're just in love with the idea of not having a dangerous almighty and all knowing being controlling your life. Perfection=Perfection. I don't refut this.

When Perfection creates more perfection, it is already creating imperfection first. You can't create anything that is whole and complete without the parts. The parts are purposed to be parts and therefore logically are imperfect of and by themselves. Using these parts, a perfect product is made in the end. Time required is irrelevant, the end result is what matters. Discount it if you want, but it just makes my earlier points more clear to see.

Quote#3

So will you ask me next time? Or should I just start writing the booklet? :(

Quote#4

Nice text book definition. It'll come in handy later on I'm sure. But like I said before. Religions have their evidence or they probably wouldn't exist. The evidence is a combination of faith, personal proof, and logic. All of that thrown together can spawn any religious group or cult you see out here today.

[Esau of Isaac]

Um.. Quote #1

Someone said that assuming God is perfect, he cannot create imperfection. My response was not F*CK LOGIC. I wonder if you even read it. Let me say it again. Creation is not having a finished product on the spot, if it was then the universe would work the same way! Look around you, guys! What have you seen that hasn't gone through the process of coming to be?! What?! Everything goes through a process to be completed, everything. For a Perfect being to create imperfection is possible. Why? Because said being is going through the creation process, which includes planning, production, and completion. Nothing in the production phase is perfect or you'd have a finished product before you even started. This isn't F*CK logic, genius, it's something you see every day of your life if you don't live in a cave!

Phoenix, I am going to say this one more time, okay? God is defined as perfect. If God is perfect, it is free of flaws; this means that it cannot possibly have any imperfections in its being or anything related to it. If it has one single imperfection in any way, shape, or form, it's not perfect. This means that everything about God, from its thought processes, to its desires, to its very actions, must be one hundred percent lacking in flaw. Thus, God would be physically incapable of creating something imperfect, because it would be employing a process that is less than perfect, of which the end result comes out to an imperfect being. If God is perfect, then everything in the creation process would have to be perfect. By stating that the creation process is imperfect, you're outright fucking saying that God isn't perfect, because were God lacking in flaws, it would be a perfect process.

My argument that God exists is not wrong. It hasn't even been completely made yet. You say it's wrong based on... this perfection=perfection thing?

If the qualities God is defined with are wrong, its existence is directly cast into doubt. This is an elementary observation, keep up.

Face it, you're just in love with the idea of not having a dangerous almighty and all knowing being controlling your life.

Indeed. I'm quite glad that there is not a God that determines everything and has the power to do whatever it wants. I'm just fortunate enough to also be able to prove my idea, since it's the one that carries the most logic and reasoning.

When Perfection creates more perfection, it is already creating imperfection first. You can't create anything that is whole and complete without the parts. The parts are purposed to be parts and therefore logically are imperfect of and by themselves.

That doesn't make sense. Parts can be whole in and of themselves.

And again, it then follows logic that God would not create in the first place if this were true. If it is perfect, it is physically incapable of doing anything less than imperfect. If it is a decision between remaining ultimately neutral rather than creating imperfection, the choice would be quite clear.

Using these parts, a perfect product is made in the end. Time required is irrelevant, the end result is what matters. Discount it if you want, but it just makes my earlier points more clear to see.

You seriously just got done saying that anything made up of parts is imperfect. By that logic, there is no possibility that anything made of parts can be perfect in the end.

God damn, Phoenix, at least keep from contradicting your own arguments in a single post.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Um.. Quote #1

Someone said that assuming God is perfect, he cannot create imperfection. My response was not F*CK LOGIC. I wonder if you even read it. Let me say it again. Creation is not having a finished product on the spot, if it was then the universe would work the same way! Look around you, guys! What have you seen that hasn't gone through the process of coming to be?! What?! Everything goes through a process to be completed, everything. For a Perfect being to create imperfection is possible. Why? Because said being is going through the creation process, which includes planning, production, and completion. Nothing in the production phase is perfect or you'd have a finished product before you even started. This isn't F*CK logic, genius, it's something you see every day of your life if you don't live in a cave!

WHICH MEANS HE ISN'T PERFECT! If you're perfect then you WOULDN'T HAVE TO MAKE THINGS IMPERFECT FIRST! They would be perfect as soon as you tried. Making something imperfect means that you (pay attention to this part) AREN'T perfect, since you aren't able to make something perfect to begin with. ie. You're doing something imperfect, which means you CAN'T BE PERFECT.

[Phoenix]

You've obviously not been paying attention to the world lately. I'm not contradicting myself at all. You're just not looking at the creation process. Listen closely, or don't. I guess it doesn't matter in the end.

Building:Parts that are created to become a part of something perfect ARE IMPERFECT OF AND BY THEMSELVES. The reason is because they're purpose is to become complete. Not remain as they are. To remain makes them imperfect. Now what you're obviously getting at is that something like a bolt or screw is perfect of and by itself. even though it is meant to eventually become apart of something greater, like an XBOX 360 controller or something. Still the creation process isn't complete. If you are going to make/create/build something, the things you use, are to you, imperfect, or you'd leave them alone altogether, as adding them to something else could very well take away from that.

Perfect Process: The perfect process can be anything that comes out exactly as planned. Flaws don't make the process imperfect if they are intended from the get-go. And don't take that as a "imperfection is perfection" switch. It's not. I'm saying that flaws can be intended for the purpose of creating perfection. Not only that but it is required since throwing together a bunch of complete things just makes a clump of perfect things that weren't intended to be together as they were already perfect of and by themselves, and not being intended implies a flawed result. If the result is flawed then imperfection is the result. The Perfect Process is a process that goes exactly as intended by the being who initiates it. Therefore, no matter what comes into the design/process/project, as long as the end result is what was intended, it is perfect. ANYTHING BY THAT HAPPENS BY DESIGN IS PERFECT. Also not speaking of Good and evil designs but of a neutral kind of perfection that can only be determined by the creator of said design. (Can't wait til your so called logic discounts this with the same bias view point as before. Yipee...)

God's capability: I honestly have no friggin idea what kind of overall potential a real God would have. What I'm saying is that when you create some thing, you END UP with it, it's not just there. You create by putting it together. That is how creation works, at least in this universe. Logically applying this to God means that he would work the same way assuming he created us. Since humans are supposedly imperfect, that means the creation process is either flawed, or unfinished. If the process of creating something that is perfect is not yet finished then that means the process can be perfect. It is, or it isn't depending on human destiny. Listen carefully... THE END RESULT IS WHAT MATTERS. If the process of creating something perfect required nothing but other perfect things then the whole process would be impossible. (I sense a micro perfection argument approaching quickly... best nip this in the bud...)

Micro Perfection: So the screw is perfect is it? Only if it's not meant to be apart of the controller and is simply meant to be... a screw(not screwdriver sry). That's where the maker's intent comes into the picture. The perfection of something to be or that already is created can only be determined by the Creator. That's FACT. So can a screwdriver be perfect of and by itself? Only if intended to be by the person who created it. If it was intended to become a part of something greater then it is not perfect alone. So micro perfection can only apply to things that become part of multiple things. I guess a screw could fall into this catagory because you can take it out of one hole and put it into another. But this is about the overall project. You're saying that God can't work with imperfection. That means he can only exist completely alone and by himself with nothing else in existence. There is a purpose in this universe. If there was no reason for it, it would not be here. The purpose is perfection. So the end result of creation will be perfection. That's the only possible outcome of it all. everything in this universe by itself is flawed in someway, partly because it has not fulfilled it's purpose in why it was created.

ARGH!!!: Why do you say God damn so much? That's like me saying No-God damn. It's funny as hell. Also I'm glad that people have the mental capacity to ignore the plain truth and run off and do their thing, especially religious scholars and the like, but maybe we should all just take a step back and just try to look at things alittle more unbiasly, and if not with an open mind, then at least a humble heart. This day and age is pretty much a "I'm right because you can't possibly be right." world. It's disgusting to look at how quickly this get's into people's heads. People need to learn to be right, for the right reasons. You facts don't prove you right or me wrong, and even if they did prove me wrong, it doesn't mean you and the rest of the "logical" world have the truth and the answers. If you did, then surely noone would contest you right? Well of course those with the same stubborness would but they'd die off in a couple hundred years.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Phoenix

[Florete]

WHICH MEANS HE ISN'T PERFECT! If you're perfect then you WOULDN'T HAVE TO MAKE THINGS IMPERFECT FIRST! They would be perfect as soon as you tried. Making something imperfect means that you (pay attention to this part) AREN'T perfect, since you aren't able to make something perfect to begin with. ie. You're doing something imperfect, which means you CAN'T BE PERFECT.

If perfection is what it's defined as, it can do imperfect things because it's perfect and can do anything, right? Anyone can intentionally do worse than their full ability. If perfect wants to create imperfect, how does that make it imperfect?