Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:
Interesting differences of point of view! To me, if there were a God who made us in His image, then we should not be so flawed. ( I do not at all accept the idea that disease, war, etc are the result of original sin)

You're getting off track. Keep on point. How do you judge that humans have flaws? What perfect example are you using to judge by?

I wonder why you call it "Godless evolution"? Evolution is the same whether there is a god or not. Its like the gas laws that way. Of course, the various creation stories of various religions are not in technical keeping with the way that life seems to have actually developed, but that does not address the reality / non reality of any god.
Its just about the literal or technical accuracy of the stories people tell eachother about those gods.

I said Godless evolution to differentiate between evolution with God as its beginner, and well, Godless evolution.
You wrote:

Whether human behaviour came from evolution or a god, we are a flawed species, too smart for our own good, and behave very badly at times. What about human behaviour indicates that there is a god who showed the way?

Some believe behavior came from evolution AND God. Others believe in evolution without God.

I see where you are coming from with the philosophical thing about the Platonic ideal, iI guess it is. But its a lot simpler than that.

Huh? Was that me?

We have no examples of perfect cars, but we can spot flaws in them.

You still have to have something unflawed, to know something is flawed.

Squible wrote:RickD,

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to know something is flawed or imperfect, there has to be something perfect to compare it to.

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I wanted to offer a perspective. Seems to me, in order to know something is flawed or imperfect, all you need is to be able to recognize flaws.

Ken

Of course Kenny. But you're still seeing the smoke, while missing the fire. In order to recognize flaws, or to see something is imperfect, one has to have something perfect, to know the other something is imperfect/flawed.

For example, a counterfeit dollar bill is only recognized as counterfeit, because it differs from a genuine dollar bill. If there were no genuine bill, there would be no way to tell a counterfeit is fake. Understand?

I gotta disagree with you again my friend! The only way you would not be able to notice a counterfeit is if it were nearly perfect. If the flaws in the counterfeit were obvious, you would not need a genuine dollar bill to compare, you would notice the flaws by looking at it.

Ken

I wonder now, what if the flaws were actually not flaws?

Cheers.

That is similar to the question I've been asking several people and have yet to get a response. which is;

unless you are perfect, (I am assuming you are not) how would you recognize perfection when you see it? In other words; how does a flawed person verify another person is perfect? (assuming you are not using blind faith)

You made an excellent point! What a flawed person perceives as flaws may not be flaws after all; how do you know? Seems to me, you gotta be perfect to recognize perfection. What do you think?

Ken

Kenny,

Correct me if I am wrong but your argument is that since we are flawed it is not possible for us to know when something is absolutely perfect?

Cheers

Squible wrote:Kenny,

Correct me if I am wrong but your argument is that since we are flawed it is not possible for us to know when something is absolutely perfect?

Cheers

Yes!

K

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:Kenny,

Correct me if I am wrong but your argument is that since we are flawed it is not possible for us to know when something is absolutely perfect?

Cheers

Yes!

K

2+2=??

What Kenny?

Seriously? This is not rocket surgery. It's simple logic.

Ken wrote: You made an excellent point! What a flawed person perceives as flaws may not be flaws after all; how do you know? Seems to me, you gotta be perfect to recognize perfection. What do you think?

By that same logic since we can't measure a perfect foot we ought not use a ruler to do so.

That's a silly argument you're proposing kenny, just because we're not perfect does not necessarily follow that we can't recognize gradation. But the very fact that we can, implies not only gradation exits but also that there is such a thing as the ultimate standard by which all gradations are measured. It's common sense.

RickD wrote:Seriously? This is not rocket surgery. It's simple logic.

http://www.serkworks.com/wp-content/upl ... urgery.jpg

Byblos wrote:

Ken wrote: You made an excellent point! What a flawed person perceives as flaws may not be flaws after all; how do you know? Seems to me, you gotta be perfect to recognize perfection. What do you think?

By that same logic since we can't measure a perfect foot we ought not use a ruler to do so.

That's a silly argument you're proposing kenny, just because we're not perfect does not necessarily follow that we can't recognize gradation. But the very fact that we can, implies not only gradation exits but also that there is such a thing as the ultimate standard by which all gradations are measured. It's common sense.

I said it would be impossible to recognize a perfect person. I did not say it would be impossible to recognize gradual improvement, correct numbers, measurements, or perfect dollar bills. I was speaking only of a perfect person.

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:Kenny,

Correct me if I am wrong but your argument is that since we are flawed it is not possible for us to know when something is absolutely perfect?

Cheers

Yes!

K

2+2=??

What Kenny?

I said it would be impossible to recognize a perfect person. I did not say it would be impossible to recognize gradual improvement, correct numbers, measurements, or perfect dollar bills. I was speaking only of a perfect person.

K

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Ken wrote: You made an excellent point! What a flawed person perceives as flaws may not be flaws after all; how do you know? Seems to me, you gotta be perfect to recognize perfection. What do you think?

By that same logic since we can't measure a perfect foot we ought not use a ruler to do so.

That's a silly argument you're proposing kenny, just because we're not perfect does not necessarily follow that we can't recognize gradation. But the very fact that we can, implies not only gradation exits but also that there is such a thing as the ultimate standard by which all gradations are measured. It's common sense.

I said it would be impossible to recognize a perfect person. I did not say it would be impossible to recognize gradual improvement, correct numbers, measurements, or perfect dollar bills. I was speaking only of a perfect person.

But by recognizing gradual improvement you are implicitly acknowledging that perfection exists (even though we may lack the ability to recognize it in an imperfect world). It is that ideal of perfection that makes us see that something is nearing that ideal (getting more and more perfected) or going away from that ideal (getting less and less perfected). For if there is no such thing as perfection (our inability to recognize such notwithstanding), then what would it mean to say that something is getting more (or less) perfect? Then we go back to the same tangled web we got into in the morality subject with the objectivity vs. subjectivity. Gradation without the implicit acknowledgement of perfection is juct as subjective as preference for chocolate instead of vanilla. It is in the eye of the beholder (i.e. meaningless).

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Ken wrote: You made an excellent point! What a flawed person perceives as flaws may not be flaws after all; how do you know? Seems to me, you gotta be perfect to recognize perfection. What do you think?

By that same logic since we can't measure a perfect foot we ought not use a ruler to do so.

That's a silly argument you're proposing kenny, just because we're not perfect does not necessarily follow that we can't recognize gradation. But the very fact that we can, implies not only gradation exits but also that there is such a thing as the ultimate standard by which all gradations are measured. It's common sense.

I said it would be impossible to recognize a perfect person. I did not say it would be impossible to recognize gradual improvement, correct numbers, measurements, or perfect dollar bills. I was speaking only of a perfect person.

But by recognizing gradual improvement you are implicitly acknowledging that perfection exists (even though we may lack the ability to recognize it in an imperfect world). It is that ideal of perfection that makes us see that something is nearing that ideal (getting more and more perfected) or going away from that ideal (getting less and less perfected). For if there is no such thing as perfection (our inability to recognize such notwithstanding), then what would it mean to say that something is getting more (or less) perfect? Then we go back to the same tangled web we got into in the morality subject with the objectivity vs. subjectivity. Gradation without the implicit acknowledgement of perfection is juct as subjective as preference for chocolate instead of vanilla. It is in the eye of the beholder (i.e. meaningless).

I believe in theory a perfect person could exist, I just don't think he does; and if he did exist I don't understand how an imperfect person like us could recognize it. Again; how would an imperfect person verify such a person is perfect? Speaking for myself, if I saw a perfect person, I wouldn't recognize it because when I erroneously assumed "X" was right, and this person said it was wrong; I would assume this person was in error rather than myself and I would assume it is just another imperfect person. Also, because I am aware of my imperfections, when we do agree; I would assume the possibility 0f both of us being wrong and because of my flawed incite, I would be unaware of it. It seems to me, when it comes to perfect people; the saying "it takes one to know one" comes to mind. Your thoughts?

Ken

Ken

Kenny wrote: I believe in theory a perfect person could exist, IYour thoughts?

Ken

Ken

In theory, yes; but also, in theory, no.

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:Kenny,

Correct me if I am wrong but your argument is that since we are flawed it is not possible for us to know when something is absolutely perfect?

Cheers

Yes!

K

2+2=??

What Kenny?

I said it would be impossible to recognize a perfect person. I did not say it would be impossible to recognize gradual improvement, correct numbers, measurements, or perfect dollar bills. I was speaking only of a perfect person.

K

Now you are shifting goal posts. You initially said being actually, and you have gone all over the place to perfection in general as your main thesis, this is confirmed by the fact that you agreed with what I said was your argument.

In any case, the point is even though we are flawed it doesn't necessarily follow we can't recognize perfection. Which is the heart of your argument!

For example despite no "perfect" triangle can be ever be actualized physically, we know abstractly what a perfect triangle would be. For example it would be a three sided polygon having its interior angles always add up to 180° and exterior angles always add up to 360°. In fact it exists perfectly as an abstraction in our minds, despite being flawed! There are plenty of examples like this, I could produce.

Also, you seem to think even though we are flawed we can still judge what flaws are but can't determine perfection since we are flawed.

This is nuts! Your thinking has the capability of reducing yourself into complete absurdity.

As a side joke... A being doesn't necessarily mean an embodied being, either Kenny. If you were in the presence of a perfect being you would know, I hardly doubt you would be questioning yourself, it's more likely you would be thinking I was wrong, God does exist. WTF do I do now!

Audie wrote:

Kenny wrote: I believe in theory a perfect person could exist, IYour thoughts?

Ken

Ken

In theory, yes; but also, in theory, no.

What does this mean?

K