davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Yeah, I'll go with that.
A world with a loving God.
- Thread starter Xelasnave.1947
- Start date
No I didn’t.
okay.
How is that asinine as an analogy?
An iPhone is complete, if it is an iPhone. A human being is complete if it is a human being.
You can’t be a human being, and not a human being at the same time.
A skilled forensic expert can detect if a human being used a cup. But he/she cannot tell if the human being was incomplete, because incomplete human beings don’t exist. If we deem one to be incomplete, it is only based on another human beings opinion.
I bet the wife of the the late Stephen Hawkins did, or does not view her late husband as an incomplete human being.
Yet there are human beings who may think he was incomplete. Do you think he was an incomplete human being?
Being physically incomplete does not make you any less of a human being, anymore than a car without air conditioning, makes it less of a car.
What else were we talking about?
You made the mistake of thinking I said the human design is perfect. I didn’t.
I said the human design is “perfectly complete”.
Now you’re flip- flopping because you know you messed up.
You’re the one that is acting out of ignorance. I say “acting” because you know you messed up.
Then you have a problem with every single human including yourself. Because all humans are ignorant of something.
Go on! Tell me you’re not.
If you think that, then you’re a fool.
Last edited:
Are you saying the 2nd law of TD doesn’t work efficiently? If it it works efficiently, and every human being is subject to it, then it is complete. It is exactly how it is supposed to work.
I'm afraid that I can no more correct you than I can agree with you, because like most others here, I don't know to what you refer when you say human beings are complete or incomplete. Sure, I know what a human being is, but I have no idea what a "complete" or "incomplete" human being is, which is the question that's been put before you considering you're the one using those terms. I provided the definition of complete for context, but still, there is no explanation forthcoming. I, as I'm sure others here, as well, are very interested in hearing that explanation.
A culture-bearing primate classified in the genus Homo, especially the species Homo Sapiens. Human beings are anatomically similar and related to the great apes but are distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning.
What is a complete human being? What is an incomplete human being?
Wonderful! We've now established that the terms complete/incomplete are not only meaningless in this context, but also redundant and are doing nothing more than causing confusion. A complete human being is just a human being and an incomplete human being is an unknown. Therefore, the term to use is simply, human being. Well done.
I'm sure the Ignored in Show Ignored Content is winding up the Merry-Go-Round again
If you want some fun ask about the African swallows
If you want some fun ask about the African swallows
Lol!!!
My original statement was that the human design was perfectly complete. It was you and bilvon who, trying to belittle that statement, came with the notion that human beings were incomplete. You came with the derogatory notions that somehow, humans were incomplete because the eyes , and the backbone weren’t how you’d like them to be. How disabled people were not complete humans, and other similar discriminatory nonsense.
You shot yourselves in the foot, on account of your religious belief, because of your pride and stubbornness, looking like social darwinistic bigots.
If human beings are perfectly complete in their design, then that obviously includes any defects a human being may incur. That being said, a complete human being (your term) is synonymous with a human being.
Once again bilvon...
Is Stephen Hawkins a complete, or incomplete human being?
I'm going to go with a circular bridge which he lives under (and can never cross) with a Merry-Go-Round he keeps winding up
Currently at 22 pages and ??? going for a record?
Jan, why are you directing that at me, I did no such thing, That seems rather unfair considering I treated your responses fairly and without malice. The entire time I was merely trying to clarify your statements.
Again, the terms complete/incomplete seem redundant here. Hawking was simply a human being, as we all are, by definition. Any defects wouldn't take away from that definition.
He was a human being. He had motor control deficits - and of course the same other deficits we all have.
Tammy Duckworth is a human being. She is missing some limbs, and is thus physically incomplete. And, of course, she has the same sort of deficits that all of us have (explained above.)
Really pretty simple. Now, 1 2 3 - start twisting!
Halc
Registered Senior Member
I seem to have started quite a storm with my comment. This is the first reply:
A complete design doesn't make the design good. A better engineer would not have designed a car with a wheel like that.
I'm talking about the universal design of a human, not a particular which might be say damaged and not conform to the design, perfect or otherwise. Thus if I was designed by God, God is not perfect. If God is asserted to be perfect, then God doesn't exist. Hence you need to assert the perfection of the design despite the blatant evidence to the contrary. The argument seems to have proceeded along these lines.
A completed design for a car with the left rear wheel perpendicular to the others would be a complete design if nothing else was left unspecified.
A complete design doesn't make the design good. A better engineer would not have designed a car with a wheel like that.
As evidenced by the sub-standard engineering, my designer is not perfect, nor even close.
I'm talking about the universal design of a human, not a particular which might be say damaged and not conform to the design, perfect or otherwise. Thus if I was designed by God, God is not perfect. If God is asserted to be perfect, then God doesn't exist. Hence you need to assert the perfection of the design despite the blatant evidence to the contrary. The argument seems to have proceeded along these lines.
Sure, we can move on, but I still wonder why you keep using a term that we've established has no meaning and then also adding the adjective "perfectly" to it?
"Perfectly complete"
Sorry, no idea what that means.
Somehow I don’t think the storm would have been quite as severe, if I hadn’t responded.
These guys seem to have it in for me.
But I could be wrong.
Sorry mate. My intellectual capacity does not allow me to picture the car you describe. You’ll need to simplify it.
Nobody said it did.
It only needs to be complete.
Probably not. Some folks like only need it to function correctly.
Is this related to the first portion of the response?
I’m not sure how you could know that.
Maybe you can give a simple explanation.
I’m fairly certain you make a good point, but unfortunately you need to dumb it down for me, so I can really picture what you’re saying.
You need to break down why asserting God to be perfect equates to God does not exist.