Perfection cannot exist. This is one of my essential truths.

Therefore an omnipotent God cannot exist.

Also, I can never be perfect.

I don't have time to add any more, I will later today. Comment, add or argue please.

How do you know that life isn't exactly how god wanted it?

If life has imperfections then perhaps

God wanted those imperfections for a reason, and so his master plan is still perfect.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

How do you know that life isn't exactly how god wanted it?

If life has imperfections then perhaps

God wanted those imperfections for a reason, and so his master plan is still perfect.

My idea requires an Atheist view, just as Descartes' requires a belief in God. If you believe the opposite, the idea doesn't work, just like any other idea of the sort.

What is the basis for your belief that perfection is impossible?

Also, what is your definition of perfection?

Isnt 'perfection' a definition in and of its self?

*grumbles about flood control*

quote:Isnt 'perfection' a definition in and of its self?Indeed it is. quote:What is the basis for your belief that perfection is impossible?Whatever it is that you may call perfect will almost always have flaws, and can always be improved upon, whether it has any definite flaws or not. My ideas are derived from either physical proof or deduction, based on proof. Since perfection, as far as we know, has never existed, that backs up my theory that it cannot.

[This message has been edited by I am Weasel (edited 08-14-2003).]

1. Descartes' rationalism is not the only Christian philosophy. And it does not hold a belief in God as a prerequisite. Descartes' rationalism seeks to prove God.

2. Perfection does not define itself. Though you may believe it is an obvious term, this does not mean it is self-definable. It isn't. You still need to provide a definition before you harbor my agreement.

3. To use an obvious, overused example, can you prove to me that a perfect circle can be improved upon? Because if you can't, this proves your theory wrong that "everything can be improved upon." This would suggest the idea that perfection is, in fact, possible.

Cause and effect... action/reaction, paves the way for fate to be possible. If everything in nature reacted to actions the way it were supposed to, then everything would already literally be perfect, as insane as it sounds.

From human perspective, we could never define it because we do not even fully understand the workings of what we see around us, and ourselves... Perfect to the majority of us is not the same as perfect would be to nature.

quote:Originally posted by Direckshun:

1. Descartes' rationalism is not the only Christian philosophy. And it does not hold a belief in God as a prerequisite. Descartes' rationalism seeks to prove God.

2. Perfection does not define itself. Though you may believe it is an obvious term, this does not mean it is self-definable. It isn't. You still need to provide a definition before you harbor my agreement.

3. To use an obvious, overused example, can you prove to me that a perfect circle can be improved upon? Because if you can't, this proves your theory wrong that "everything can be improved upon." This would suggest the idea that perfection is, in fact, possible.

1. I understand that there are many other theist philosophies, and Descartes sought to prove the existence of God, but such a thing cannot be done to a stalwart Atheist. The belief in God is not a prerequisite, but willingness to accept that there is a God without definitive proof is.

2. Perfection cannot be improved upon, it is flawless and not deficient in any way. That is my definition.

3. Show me a perfect circle, then I'll get back to you on that one.

quote:Originally posted by Fuck:

Cause and effect... action/reaction, paves the way for fate to be possible. If everything in nature reacted to actions the way it were supposed to, then everything would already literally be perfect, as insane as it sounds.

From human perspective, we could never define it because we do not even fully understand the workings of what we see around us, and ourselves... Perfect to the majority of us is not the same as perfect would be to nature.

At last, someone backs me up.

quote:Originally posted by I am Weasel:

1. I understand that there are many other theist philosophies,

Good.

quote:Originally posted by I am Weasel:

Descartes sought to prove the existence of God, but such a thing cannot be done to a stalwart Atheist.

Actually, it can't be done to a stalwart Christian, either.

And like I said, his Cogito has been refuted for centuries, anyway.

quote:Originally posted by I am Weasel:

The belief in God is not a prerequisite, but willingness to accept that there is a God without definitive proof is.

Have you read over Decartes' Cogito? Because that is what I was referring to.

There are no prerequisite beliefs in the Cogito.

quote:Originally posted by I am Weasel:

2. Perfection cannot be improved upon, it is flawless and not deficient in any way. That is my definition.

Thank you.

quote:Originally posted by I am Weasel:

3. Show me a perfect circle, then I'll get back to you on that one.

*rubs eyes*

Excuse me? Are you denying the existence of the perfect circle?

You do realize it's in any math textbook you can pick up, right?

I mean, I can find you one if you need to see it in this thread. Is that what you need? Do you really believe a perfect circle cannot exist?

quote:I mean, I can find you one if you need to see it in this thread. Is that what you need? Do you really believe a perfect circle cannot exist?Go on then.

quote:it is flawless and not deficient in any way.

A flaw, is an opinion.

What is without flaw is based on opinion.

A man could think his wife, his lover, is perfect in everyway.

Hence, your 'theory' is not a truth and is bound by the realm of opinions.

quote:Originally posted by Direckshun:

Do you really believe a perfect circle cannot exist?

Hmmm, This is where you go crazy by trying to comprehend infinity.

quote:A flaw, is an opinion.

What is without flaw is based on opinion.

A man could think his wife, his lover, is perfect in everyway.

Hence, your 'theory' is not a truth and is bound by the realm of opinions.

What is perfect cannot be considered flawed.

Therefore everything is flawed.

(Almost) everything in the world can be improved upon.

With the last two points in mind, it can be deduced that there are some flaws that can be corrected and some that cannot.

Since perfection is impossible, one correctible flaw in humans is the Strive for (ultimate) Perfection.

However, self improvement is necessary to truly acknowledge this, among countless other things.

~Sorry if some of this is a little hard to understand, I'm just adding things as they come to me, so a lot of refinement will be needed to form a coherent presentation of my ideas.

quote:What is perfect cannot be considered flawed.

And who would be the judge of what is flawed?

Who would consider something flawed, or perfect? People. Based on what? Opinion.

Again, a lover would think of his or her partner as perfect. It's irrelevant what other people think.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-16-2003).]

What is perfect cannot be considered flawed. By anyone. Ever.

Nice try, but it's an opinion...

What if everyone in the world thinks a piece of art is perfect? They could, but they wont. A testament to their very different opinions, not of the flaws in the art.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-17-2003).]

Hmm, What is 2x2?

The answer is 4

I'd say that answer was perfect. It cannot be improved upon.

That also makes me think that if maths is flawless, and everything can be explained through maths, then isn't everything flawless?

Everything apart from an individuals perspective.

I am Weasel,

Unfortunately, you've buckled on your own point, and broke the backbone of your so-called philosophy:

quote:Originally posted by I am Weasel:

(Almost) everything in the world can be improved upon.

It's your usage of "(Almost)" that destroys your point. If something can be beyond improvement, and you just said that there are things fitting this description, then perfection can exist.

I refuse to indulge your request to provide a drawing of a perfect circle. You will merely point out that pixels on a computer screen are square, thus the curves are not smooth enough to be considered perfect.

But perfect circles, are defined by angles and symmetry. Not by the nature of its lines - because to echo Rust's point, that would be up to opinion. Don't believe me? Look up the definition.

Perhaps, instead of giving me masturbatory orders like posting pictures, you can present your argument as to why you disbelieve in perfect circles. This is your thread.

Q

I bet I can recreate a perfect replica of the above letter and place it in a different location.

I will create the replica by the same means as I created the original, by pressing the "q" key while simultaneously holding the shift key on my keyboard.

It is your job, I am Weasel, to convince me that this replica that I will create is not a perfect replica of the letter at the top of my post.

And now for my perfect replica.

Everyone prepare yourselves for I am Weasel's refutation:

Q

It's not in the same location... http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Well, I mentioned that I would place my perfect replica in a different location.

It still looks perfectly identical.

*shoots self*

*misses again*

OK, perfection is possible. You have proved me wrong Direckshun, thanks. I will, however, always argue against Beany's idea that everythin is prfect.

My last post was not perfect, I inadvertently misspelled two words. There you go Beany.

I'm not attached to my beliefs, so I might be swayed.

Anyway, I agree that not everythings perfect from our perspective, but I still think that everything is perfect within gods eyes (not the xian god but spiritual god), in the way that nothing is ever supposed to be anything apart from what it always is.

Your message was a perfect expression of your thoughts and your overall being at that particular time. You made 2 mistakes, but they perfectly expressed your lack of 'attention to detail', or your 'lack of care'.

A peice of art work may have flaws as far as we are concerned, but we are not yet godly enough to see the perfection. We try to judge the artwork as if it was our own expression instead of an expression from the creator. But this is where the message 'thou shall not judge' comes into effect, because we can only see the perfection if we have a godly mind (enlightened mind). Without an enlightened mind we foolishly make presumtions into what something is supposed to be, or what would make something better.

Even if you say that our perspectives are imperfect, you could still be wrong because it perfectly expresses us, or where we are on our spiritual journey.

power outage had me down, but i'm back.

a thought...

Things like a perfect circle are all simple concepts where humans have created a definition of perfect. A perfect circle though, is just that, a concept. A perfect circle cannot be drawn, for the thickness of the line, or adjacent dots (a line is defined as a series of "dots" or points) could never be exactly replicated entirely around the drawing of the circle, the fibre of the paper and ink amount would always vary.

The "Q" you've place twice on your screen, it is light energy beaming off a screen. Every millisecond that Q is different energy, and coming from a different place on the screen it is far from the same; this would affect the coded storage of the Q on any computer, it's location in memory is different.

Perfection is just a definition, a matter of opinion in how it is defined. Everything has it's restrictions and limitations, but if the definition of perfection is within those limitations, then said thing would be considered perfect. People's definitions of perfect will vary causing conflict, and being that we all live in our own heads there is no standard definition of perfect for anything, although sometimes similar viewpoints allow for a similar definition of perfection.

"Maybe the earth is the way god wanted it to be." If you use an easy god answer, you can justify anything; thats why it stood up for so long. If philosophy is to be discussed, try to refrain from using unprovable simple answers - nothing in life is as simple as the god answer makes it out to be.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

A perfect circle cannot be drawn, for the thickness of the line, or adjacent dots (a line is defined as a series of "dots" or points) could never be exactly replicated entirely around the drawing of the circle, the fibre of the paper and ink amount would always vary.

No, it couldn't.

It is possible to construct a perfect circle without all those setbacks you've listed.

Even though I couldn't create it by hand, it could still be created.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

The "Q" you've place twice on your screen, it is light energy beaming off a screen. Every millisecond that Q is different energy, and coming from a different place on the screen it is far from the same; this would affect the coded storage of the Q on any computer, it's location in memory is different.

What?

I don't care about the properties of the Q. What it's made of, where it is on the screen...

Thing is, if I were to place them right beside one another, they would be identical in shape, right down the very pixel.

Perfection is possible. But a creative try.

And Beany, I could turn your argument around on you.

What if, in the eyes of God, everything was imperfect?

Even then things we see as perfect?

I conclude that your belief system is, at best, imperfect.

direk, as i already said, the Q wouldn't be identical in all aspects, only the visual aspect. This is why i said that perfection depends on your definition, it is subject to individual opinion; or did you miss all that the first time? everyone's idea of perfect in a specific instance is different, there is no view of "perfect" which we all share, it depends on the parameters set for perfection.

But in the visual aspect, it would be perfectly identical.

So perfection can exist.

are you fucking stupid? i already said perfection is based on the definition set by the individual, which may or may no correspond with the definition of perfection of the person beside them. If an object falls within all the defined requirements for said person's idea of perfection, something will be perfect. But you can take anything that is defined perfect, redefine perfection, and that object will no longer be perfect. Long short, if you define anything that's red as perfect, everything that is the color red is perfect.

so yes, perfection can exist; but perfection is again an opinion, there's no defined perfect, only what you think it is, so something that you deem perfect won't necessarily be deemed so by those around you.

everything is relative to everything else, but you, being another self centered individual incapable of empathizing with others (yes you direck) cannot see that just because you've defined something as perfect, thats not the way it is, it's only the way you think it is. Your opinions aren't fact.

[This message has been edited by d4v3 (edited 08-19-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

How do you know that life isn't exactly how god wanted it?

If life has imperfections then perhaps

God wanted those imperfections for a reason, and so his master plan is still perfect.

Amen!

quote:Originally posted by I am Weasel:

2. Perfection cannot be improved upon, it is flawless and not deficient in any way. That is my definition.

Good definition! Beaney's observation fits this definition.

quote:3. Show me a perfect circle, then I'll get back to you on that one.

You can define a perfect circle, but there are no perfect circles.

quote:Originally posted by I am Weasel:

I will, however, always argue against Beany's idea that everythin is prfect.

Beany says, "Everything is perfect in its own way, even with its own imperfections. This is God for you."

quote:Originally posted by Direckshun:

What if, in the eyes of God, everything was imperfect?

Even then things we see as perfect?

This is true also.

d4v3...

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

are you fucking stupid?

Yes. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

i already said perfection is based on the definition set by the individual, which may or may no correspond with the definition of perfection of the person beside them.

I can agree with that.

But I would like to hear you explain to me how my first Q wasn't perfectly shaped like the second Q. Because, really, it was. Down to the last pixel.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

If an object falls within all the defined requirements for said person's idea of perfection, something will be perfect. But you can take anything that is defined perfect, redefine perfection, and that object will no longer be perfect.

I can agree with that, too.

But I did not redefine perfection at any time during this discussion, however. Which is something I think you may be accusing me of.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

Long short, if you define anything that's red as perfect, everything that is the color red is perfect.

I did not call a certain property perfect, however.

I called one object identical in shape to another object. They were identical in shape without blemish, which I believe is the very definition of perfect.

www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)

Please explain to me how those Q's weren't perfectly identical in shape. You still have yet to.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

so yes, perfection can exist; but perfection is again an opinion

Not always.

When there is a black-and-white terms like "identical" or "nonidentical."

No one can seriously debate that a square or a circle are identical in shape.

When we take the time to find two objects that can be identical right down to the very minutest measurement, we have found two objects that are completely, perfectly identical.

I do see your point - but it is not always as open-ended as opinions.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

Your opinions aren't fact.

No, they aren't.

But they are debatable.

So again, prove to me that the first Q isn't perfectly shaped like the second Q.

Then we'll talk about opinion and my self-centered mindset.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

I'm not attached to my beliefs, so I might be swayed.

Anyway, I agree that not everythings perfect from our perspective, but I still think that everything is perfect within gods eyes (not the xian god but spiritual god), in the way that nothing is ever supposed to be anything apart from what it always is.

Your message was a perfect expression of your thoughts and your overall being at that particular time. You made 2 mistakes, but they perfectly expressed your lack of 'attention to detail', or your 'lack of care'.

A peice of art work may have flaws as far as we are concerned, but we are not yet godly enough to see the perfection. We try to judge the artwork as if it was our own expression instead of an expression from the creator. But this is where the message 'thou shall not judge' comes into effect, because we can only see the perfection if we have a godly mind (enlightened mind). Without an enlightened mind we foolishly make presumtions into what something is supposed to be, or what would make something better.

Even if you say that our perspectives are imperfect, you could still be wrong because it perfectly expresses us, or where we are on our spiritual journey.

Every time I read this it makes more sense to me, as I have always beem something of a believer in Fate.

ok, here's how to define the Q's so they aren't identical in a visual way:

Everything you see is the product of light energy hitting the back of your eye. Being that the Q's were on different places in the screen, the light energy would be different and would hit your eye differently (different location on the screen, and the light energy given off by the monitor isn't exactly the same, it's always slightly varying in contrast brightness and tint, because energy can't be replicated exactly) So the light energy from each Q is different, and comes from a different place. They are not identical visually.

But at the same time, by your definition of perfect, they are the same. It's like looking at a bumpy white wall and a smooth white wall that are side by side. From far away they both appear identical, but upon closer inspection (change of perspective/definition) you see that they aren't the same. It's all about how you define it.

Do i need to further explain how anything you define as perfect is perfect, but may not be perfect to someone else, or do you get it yet.

also, regarding your comment on things that are "black and white". When something is deemed to be black and white, or a fact, it just means that it is a piece of information that is generally accepted by humanity, it doesn't mean that it is correct. e.g. the earth being flat. It's all just opinion, and facts are simply opinions accepted by the majority.

quote:Originally posted by I am Weasel:

Every time I read this it makes more sense to me, as I have always beem something of a believer in Fate.

If you believe in fate, it contradicts the idea of heaven/hell. If you're fated to do everything that you do, it would be arbitrary to go to heaven or hell for eternity for doing what was fated to happen. I agree with "fate" in the sense that free will is an illusion stemming from the inability to understand the complex workings of our minds, and that every action is just another step in a series of chemical reactions which dictates our every action.

quote:If you believe in fate, it contradicts the idea of heaven/hell.I'm unsure about what happens after death, I tend to believe that that's it, and you're dead forever, but reincarnation is by no means as stupid an idea as a lot of people make it out to be.

Just out of interest, Beany, how religious are you, and are your beliefs about God anything like any organised religion?

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

Everything you see is the product of light energy hitting the back of your eye. Being that the Q's were on different places in the screen, the light energy would be different and would hit your eye differently (different location on the screen, and the light energy given off by the monitor isn't exactly the same, it's always slightly varying in contrast brightness and tint, because energy can't be replicated exactly) So the light energy from each Q is different, and comes from a different place. They are not identical visually.

They are completely identical, however, in shape.

Which I believe is what I was originally asking.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

But at the same time, by your definition of perfect, they are the same.

Well I was referring to their shape on the computer screen, not their visual nature.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

It's like looking at a bumpy white wall and a smooth white wall that are side by side. From far away they both appear identical, but upon closer inspection (change of perspective/definition) you see that they aren't the same. It's all about how you define it.

So let's try:

I am defining the two Q's as perfectly identical in shape.

Do you disagree?

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

Do i need to further explain how anything you define as perfect is perfect, but may not be perfect to someone else, or do you get it yet.

Nah - I think I'm getting the hang of it...

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

also, regarding your comment on things that are "black and white". When something is deemed to be black and white, or a fact, it just means that it is a piece of information that is generally accepted by humanity, it doesn't mean that it is correct. e.g. the earth being flat. It's all just opinion, and facts are simply opinions accepted by the majority.

I couldn't agree more.

This ties into the "the only thing we know is that we know nothing" philosophy, which I completely agree with.

However in this reality that we do exist in, we can still study every pixel of the Q's individually and discover that they are perfectly identical.

How the hell would we even know what perfection is without imperfection.

I mean if there is a place we go after death that is perfect, we wouldn't know what perfection was if life on earth was perfect. It's the same as understanding what goodness is. Goodness, we would not recognize it if evil did not exist. So maybe imperfection is perfection. Gods way of helping mere mortals define perfection.

quote:Originally posted by browncloud:

if there is a place we go after death that is perfect, we wouldn't know what perfection was if life on earth was perfect.

Your arguement makes it impossible to go to a perfect place after death being nothing can be perfect without inperfection. To that I offer to you that this is that perfect place, but only if you want it to be. If you sincerely believe it, do what makes you feel good, live life like life likes to be lived. Then this can be your heaven. If you just "put up" with this life in hopes that heaven will be great, then your not really "living" and then this is your hell.

enjoy every moment

Really though, it seems more like a 'test' than imperfection. You know like Edgar Cayce said (something like this)in his trances when someone asked what our purpose on earth was. "life on earth is like a classroom".

quote:Originally posted by Direckshun:

I couldn't agree more.

This ties into the "the only thing we know is that we know nothing" philosophy, which I completely agree with.

However in this reality that we do exist in, we can still study every pixel of the Q's individually and discover that they are perfectly identical.

incidentally you burned yourself here chum, each pixel is not exactly the same size as the one beside it, there's no way we have the technology to make each pixel contain the same number of atoms exactly, therefore visually they are slightly different, but unoticeable to the human eye, like the wall analogy.

edit: again though, it's how you define it, if you defined it as how our brain perceives the image of both Q's, it would be an exact replica. lets end this sillyness now.

[This message has been edited by d4v3 (edited 08-19-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by I am Weasel:

Just out of interest, Beany, how religious are you, and are your beliefs about God anything like any organised religion?

Well I don't belong to any religeon, but I do spend a hell of a lot of time with God on my mind.

My beliefs resulted from analysing what I believed about life, the human mind, and philosophy and comparing it to certain religeous concepts. Deciding what makes sense, what was probably misunderstood and why, what is metaphorical and how, and what is just plain garbage.

Also, I don't believe anyone needs a religeon, because Heaven is a natural destination that we all reach eventually anyway.

Be whoever you want to be, and do whatever you want to do, because it all contributes to your knowledge about who you are in relation to God.

All this life experience teaches you about who you are. You'll eventually see that you are God, as with everyone else, and it's being God that is heaven; you just have to know yourself.



[This message has been edited by ---Beany--- (edited 08-19-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

incidentally you burned yourself here chum

Ouch. Hot. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

each pixel is not exactly the same size as the one beside it, there's no way we have the technology to make each pixel contain the same number of atoms exactly

Who said that atoms are all the same size?

I don't care how many atoms are in an inch - if a length is measured to be an inch, it is an inch, regardless of how many atoms long it is.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

lets end this sillyness now.

You first. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

you continued friend, and as i said nothing is exactly the same size, you could measure 1 inch to the best of your abilities twice, and they would be different sizes. just like how every pixel isn't exactly the same size. <3 i don't wanna end it, i love you <3

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

you continued friend

http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif) And I still do.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

nothing is exactly the same size, you could measure 1 inch to the best of your abilities twice, and they would be different sizes. just like how every pixel isn't exactly the same size.

Hm, interesting. But I still disagree.

It's like a cookie cutter. The shapes it will create out of a sheet of dough will all be the same in shape. Such is the pixel, a unit that is not measured beforehand, but rather a unit of screen space that the computer creates to operate with. If a computer is programmed to divide the screen into miniature, equal-sized boxes, it will. A pixel may have a different number of atoms from another, but they are both identical in size and shape. Perfectly.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

<3 i don't wanna end it, i love you <3

Awww, right back atcha.

[This message has been edited by Direckshun (edited 08-20-2003).]

a cookie cutter also would not create identically sized portions. Every fraction of a degree in temperature change causes the metal to fluctuate slightly, the pressure put on the cookie cutter by your hand (which you could not replicate every time) would cause it to take a slightly different shape. Just like a pixel, it can only be made so accurate in size, but nothing is exact. The reason i said down to the atom is because i was trying to give you the relative size of the scale of innaccuracy. being 1 atom off, which is extremely tiny and virtually unmeasureable by any practical means, would mean that the pixel was not exactly the same size as the one beside it. The screen is made up of atoms of numerous elements, and there is no way even a computer could divide each pixel to the exact same size atom for atom, and even then the atoms might slightly differ in size (this is beyond virtually unmeasurable). Long short, no matter how accurately you measure something, if you do so twice you will not 2 identical lengths. If you measure them small enough (which could be reduced infinitely, like to 1/100000000000000000 of an inch, which would be an exceptionally tiny measure. or to 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000 of an inch, on and on to infinite) you will find that they are of slightly different sizes. Nothing can be recreated in EXACT shape and size, it is a physical impossibility, there are too many variables working against you.

I'ts Opinion I tell you ! Opinion! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

^^^ thank you for being a useless fuckwit and replying with inane stupidity, causing me to open this thread in hopes of an intelligent response. go spam some other totse board.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

^^^ thank you for being a useless fuckwit and replying with inane stupidity, causing me to open this thread in hopes of an intelligent response. go spam some other totse board.

That really wasn't necessary.

quote:Originally posted by I am Weasel:

That really wasn't necessary.

Don't worry, d4v3 has little use for civility. You get used to it.

sorry, i'd be more polite but i'm just a shithead teenager with a big mouth.

Descartes did not require a belief in God. He proved the existence of God through his revelation: "Cogito Ergo Sum"



quote:Originally posted by I am Weasel:

Originally posted by ---Beany---:

How do you know that life isn't exactly how god wanted it?

If life has imperfections then perhaps

God wanted those imperfections for a reason, and so his master plan is still perfect.

My idea requires an Atheist view, just as Descartes' requires a belief in God. If you believe the opposite, the idea doesn't work, just like any other idea of the sort.

Obviously you've never fired a Glock 24.



quote:Originally posted by I am Weasel:

Therefore everything is flawed.

(Almost) everything in the world can be improved upon.

With the last two points in mind, it can be deduced that there are some flaws that can be corrected and some that cannot.

Since perfection is impossible, one correctible flaw in humans is the Strive for (ultimate) Perfection.

quote:^^^ thank you for being a useless fuckwit and replying with inane stupidity, causing me to open this thread in hopes of an intelligent response. go spam some other totse board.

I only hope this reply makes you open this thread yet again.

But of course, you wont admit it did, or maybe you will, because I said you wouldn't...