A world with a loving God.

[Halc]

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.

Can do.

P1 God exists
P2 God is perfect
P3 People are designed by God
C1 The design of people must be perfect (from P2 and P3)

You've asserted all of these premises. There is a nice initial list of obvious design defects listed by billvon in post 353. They're not labeled as design defects, but they are all indeed faults in the design, not defects in any particular person like a missing arm would be.
Therefore C1 is empirically false, and if follow that either P2 or P3 must be false. If P1 is false, all of them are false.

What does any of this have to do with a loving god (the thread topic, remember?)?

Perhaps the OP should be quoted:

I look at our world and as wonderful as it is I do wonder what it may be like if there was really a loving god at the wheel.

What could we expect to be different...anything????

And what could be designed better if it were just not only left up to evolution?

This line of discussion is completely in line with the OP. No need to move on.

Let’s move on.

You want to move on because of the evidence against your position is overwhelming. To hold to your premises you have to assert that each of the design defects listed (and others) is actually better than the improvements suggested. It's good that I would have died 3 times as a child without the aid of modern medical intervention. My wife would have died in childbirth with any of our 3 children. 3 of these 4 deaths were due to design problems, not 's**t happens'. The one exception was a fatal disease, and even that can be spun as a design defect since a perfectly designed person would have been immune to that disease.

 

[(Q)]

What do you mean by "perfect" in that context? What do you mean by "design"? What do you mean by "complete"?

Perfection includes defects?

I would have thought that perfection generally meant defect-free.

In fact, my dictionary defines "perfect" as "the state of being without a flaw or defect."

I've had numerous posts with Jan on that very topic and still have no idea what he's talking about, hope you have better luck.

 

[Jan Ardena]

P1 God exists
P2 God is perfect
P3 People are designed by God
C1 The design of people must be perfect (from P2 and P3)

You've asserted all of these premises.

This exercise is kind of pointless, because it assumes I’m the only one who makes assertions. Let’s have a look at your assertions, just from that post I responded to.

This from the OP, and nobody comments on this.
“but due to our recent and rapid evolution,...”
You assert 2 things here: we evolved.”, as opposed to being created, and it was rapid, indicating that you are aware of how long it took to do so.

“we're actually a train wreck caught in the middle of transitioning from one environment to a new one.”

Here you qualify your assertion with “actually” indicating that your assertion is the truth, or at the very least a fact. You assert that we collided,
Or that we were the result of some kind of accident, while actually transitioning between two actual different types of environment.

I don’t have the time, let alone the interest, to break that down with you. I’m just gonna assume that you accept it as real events.

In the same way, we would go a lot further if you simply accept that I’m a theist, and not going to qualify my assertions with “I think”, or “maybe”, or anything like that. Accept that I am a theist, and let’s keep this thing rolling, instead of this long winded approach.

I have to go now.
I will continue responding to the rest of your post, later on,

 

[Halc]

This exercise is kind of pointless, because it assumes I’m the only one who makes assertions.

My argument at no point posits by whom the assertions are made, nor does it depend on such assertions.

Let’s have a look at your assertions, just from that post I responded to

I listed the three premises P1-3, none of which are statements asserting for instance that we've evolved. I notice the rest of your post doesn't reply to my note at all, but seeks to divert attention to other posts. If you want to demonstrate the lack of validity of the consensus view, you're welcome to take it apart as I have done yours, but I notice you seem incapable of defending your stance, requesting instead to just accept that you're a theist that happens to hold self-inconsistent beliefs. That's fine, but you've chosen to post on this site that invites others to point out said inconsistency.

 

[Jan Ardena]

There is a nice initial list of obvious design defects listed by billvon in post 353.

I don’t see them as human defects. There are no such things as human defects. The body is but a part of what makes the human a human being. There is nothing that is known, that makes a human being any less of a human being. As such the human being can neither be any better, or worse. Neither can the human being change into anything outside of itself.
If a human being somehow developed wings, and hooves, it would still be a human being.
If a human being was reduced to a brain in a vat, it would still be a human being.
That’s why the human design is perfectly complete.

You want to move on because of the evidence against your position is overwhelming.

Lol!!! There is absolutely zero evidence that contradicts the the perfectly complete design of the human being.

To hold to your premises you have to assert that each of the design defects listed (and others) is actually better than the improvements suggested.

No I don’t. You just want to draw it out, until it fades. I don’t have time for that. You lose.

It's good that I would have died 3 times as a child without the aid of modern medical intervention.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with dying, whether you are 3 seconds old, or 130 years old.
Try again.

My wife would have died in childbirth with any of our 3 children. 3 of these 4 deaths were due to design problems, not 's**t happens'.

I don’t mean to sound insensitive, but so what.
Everybody dies. That’s life. It is harsh, but it is entirely true.

The one exception was a fatal disease, and even that can be spun as a design defect since a perfectly designed person would have been immune to that disease.

No it’s not a design defect.
That’s life my friend.

 

[Jan Ardena]

My argument at no point posits by whom the assertions are made, nor does it depend on such assertions.

Your argument is pointless, and as such it would be a complete waste of time to engage.
I suggest you start a “Does God exist thread” if you want to go down that road.

I listed the three premises P1-3, none of which are statements asserting for instance that we've evolved. I notice the rest of your post doesn't reply to my note at all, but seeks to divert attention to other posts.

My point was that you made assertions as well, so I could just as easily waste time creating arguments. It’s funny, because you accuse me of doing what everybody does, all the time on this platform. Yet you single out mine as though I’m the only one that does.
Get outa here!

If you want to demonstrate the lack of validity of the consensus view, you're welcome to take it apart as I have done yours, but I notice you seem incapable of defending your stance,

For you to take my point of view down, you have to show a defect that diminishes the whole of the human being, not just a bodily defect. Because it is human to have bodily defects.

That's fine, but you've chosen to post on this site that invites others to point out said inconsistency.

You only point out bodily defects. There’s nothing about bodily defects that diminishes the human beings status to non human, or even ever-so slightly non human.

 

[Halc]

I don’t see them as human defects. There are no such things as human defects.

Such is the absurd position you're forced to take, despite the partial list of blatant design defects listed.

The body is but a part of what makes the human a human being. There is nothing that is known, that makes a human being any less of a human being.

I didn't say anything to suggest otherwise.

If a human being somehow developed wings, and hooves, it would still be a human being.

Perhaps, but the design would then be different, and if the change was an improvement, then the prior design was worse (not perfect). Hooves would actually be a benefit for the sort of land creature we seem to be. Every try walking barefoot through rocks or snow? Our feet appear to be designed for an semi-aquatic existence, which we're not if we're going with the creation bit. Wings would be an improvement only if flying helped us serve our purpose, and it seems not.

If a human being was reduced to a brain in a vat, it would still be a human being.

Actually, no. You're not a human if you don't have the basic design to make another one.

[/QUOTE]There is absolutely zero evidence that contradicts the the perfectly complete design of the human being.[/QUOTE]I mentioned nothing about completeness of the design. I asserted it was sub-optimal, defective. A complete design can still be defective, and a good design can still be incomplete.

No I don’t. You just want to draw it out, until it fades. I don’t have time for that. You lose.

Your only counter to my argument has been flat out denial of the listed items. You don't seem to deny the items in the list, only that any of them could use improvement. Hence my first statement that you've been reduced to that absurd assertion.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with dying, whether you are 3 seconds old, or 130 years old.

So a design that makes one able to serve one's purpose is no better than one where one has no chance on his own. Well, that's consistent with your initial statement I guess.

 

[billvon]

That’s not my terminology dude.

Jan Ardena: "These body suits are perfectly complete in their design."
You have to remember that not everyone is as forgetful/willfully ignorant as you are.

Those aren’t design faults.

Arthritic knees and pelvic floor damage - both are DUE to a design fault. Same way you might claim that your Iphone bursting into flame is the result of a design flaw.

Either the designer is an incompetent idiot, or we evolved and got a design that was just good _enough._

 

[kx000]

I believe earth is a battle field between omnipotence and invincibility, and this is a world with a loving God. He just needs to restore peace between heaven and hell and go on to everafter.

 

[davewhite04]

I believe earth is a battle field between omnipotence and invincibility, and this is a world with a loving God. He just needs to restore peace between heaven and hell and go on to everafter.

I think it's all about self control. He's just the same as you except when he farts a volcano in Egypt might erupt, depending what he's thinking. Do you think he has a plan? Some vast eternal plan?

 

[James R]

It's important to remember that a close watch must be kept on Jan Ardena at all times, or else he conveniently "forgets" what he posted just a post or two earlier in the conversation, or he conveniently "forgets" to respond to important objections or questions put to him, or he just generally "forgets" to post in good faith. The more time he spends here, the more his posts look like trolling.

Here are some actual statements from Jan Ardena:

Our design is perfectly complete.
I said the human design is “perfectly complete”.
If human beings are perfectly complete in their design, then that obviously includes any defects a human being may incur.
​

Then I said to Jan:

I would have thought that perfection generally meant defect-free.​

And he replied:

Then we’re on the same page.​

Now, quite obviously, the "human design" is not perfect. Perfect means defect-free, no room for improvement, as Jan has agreed. But clear examples have been given as to how the human body "design" has lots of room for potential improvements. It is not defect-free, and therefore, according to the definition of "perfect" that Jan agreed to, it is not perfect.

When asked what he means by "perfect" in the first place, Jan's only answer has been one word: "God". This, even though he has agreed that "perfect" in fact means "defect-free". It is nonsensical for Jan to say "The human design is God complete". That doesn't scan. Nor does "If human beings are God complete in their design, then that obviously includes any defects a human being may incur."

Or does it make sense in some bizarrely religious way? Maybe "God complete" is a sort of twisted version of "perfect", different from the way that regular people use the word "perfect" (to mean "defect-free"). Maybe Jan's God's idea of perfection includes "any defects a human being may incur". What I think is that Jan's God can be whatever Jan needs it to be at the time, depending on what he is arguing. This whole line of discussion is just another example of how Jan uses the malleable definition of his God to excuse Jan's own many errors of fact.

There's really not much point wasting time rising to this kind of blatant trolling.

 

[James R]

Recent posts from Jan...

You only point out bodily defects. There’s nothing about bodily defects that diminishes the human beings status to non human, or even ever-so slightly non human.

Bodily defects mean the body is not perfect, according to the definition of "perfect" that Jan explicitly agreed.

Nobody has argued that imperfections in the human body make people non-human. This is just trolling distraction by Jan.

I don’t see them as human defects. There are no such things as human defects. The body is but a part of what makes the human a human being. There is nothing that is known, that makes a human being any less of a human being. As such the human being can neither be any better, or worse. Neither can the human being change into anything outside of itself.
If a human being somehow developed wings, and hooves, it would still be a human being.
If a human being was reduced to a brain in a vat, it would still be a human being.
That’s why the human design is perfectly complete.

As usual, Jan tries to wriggle out of a silly statement he made by attempting to change the ordinary definitions of words to suit himself.

A "defect", by definition, is a failing or a deficiency in something - that is, an imperfection. It's ridiculous to assert that there are no such things as human defects. I'm long sighted. That is a defect. I have less than perfect vision, compared to other human beings. Human beings as a whole have less than perfect vision. There are many other animals that have far better vision than human beings, so to claim that the "design" of human vision is perfect (free from defects) is blatant nonsense. Jan knows all this, so the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that Jan is trolling again.

There's no need for us to take Jan's bait here and to start arguing about what a human being is, or what defines a human being. Jan has put that bait in front of us in the hopes of leading us down another garden path of his nonsense. Nobody here has argued that imperfection (defects) makes human beings less than human, or non-human. Jan is trying to set up a straw-man, time-wasting distraction there.

Human beings are not defect-free. Ergo they are not perfect. Jan's belief is that his loving God purposefully designed this imperfection. The only relevant question, in the context of the thread, is: why would a loving God do that?

 

[Vociferous]

I thought you said your God is omniscient? Omniscient, but he can't predict the logical consequences of skepticism, viewed against the background of the universe he chose to set up?

Prescience requires predeterminism, which is contrary to genuine free will. Considering that QM tells us the future is fundamentally indeterministic, that would make prescience a logical impossibility. Yes, it's easy to see that some people would find a myriad of ways to separate themselves from God. You seem to be implying that it would have been better to either have zero free will or not live at all. I think the greater good is existence and freedom.

If skepticism is what keeps a person separate from God, then it does share the definition of sin.

Yes. Rather telling, that.

Only insofar as it tells us that any separation from God is always the individual's choice.

If there is '' absolutely nothing'', there is no field to have quantum fluctuations in.

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation​

And as already explained to you, a point has no extent, takes up zero space, and thus does not require space. Quantum fluctuations occur because at a small enough space, especially no space at all, the momentum (kinetic energy without the space for vector direction) is maximally uncertain, and at a small enough duration, especially no time at all, the energy is maximally uncertain.

 

[foghorn]

And as already explained to you, a point has no extent, takes up zero space, and thus does not require space. Quantum fluctuations occur because at a small enough space, especially no space at all, the momentum (kinetic energy without the space for vector direction) is maximally uncertain, and at a small enough duration, especially no time at all, the energy is maximally uncertain.

All you seem to be saying there is, time and energy don't exist only because of the uncertainty in period/time and energy content. That's not starting from your ''absolutely nothing''.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Now, quite obviously, the "human design" is not perfect. Perfect means defect-free, no room for improvement, as Jan has agreed.

I never said the human design is perfect. You actually quoted me saying that the human design is “perfectly complete”. Argue against that instead of bringing up straw men.

When asked what he means by "perfect" in the first place, Jan's only answer has been one word: "God". This, even though he has agreed that "perfect" in fact means "defect-free".

I’m allowed to talk from my perspective aren’t I? You don’t seem to have any problem at all, speaking from your, anybody from theirs. Defect-free applies to God, whether you believe in God or not.

Or does it make sense in some bizarrely religious way? Maybe "God complete" is a sort of twisted version of "perfect", different from the way that regular people use the word "perfect" (to mean "defect-free"). Maybe Jan's God's idea of perfection includes "any defects a human being may incur". What I think is that Jan's God can be whatever Jan needs it to be at the time, depending on what he is arguing. This whole line of discussion is just another example of how Jan uses the malleable definition of his God to excuse Jan's own many errors of fact.

You are being disingenuous.
Argue against what you quoted.
Don’t twist it to suit yourself.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bodily defects mean the body is not perfect, according to the definition of "perfect" that Jan explicitly agreed.

The possibility of bodily defects is part of the design.
The idea of a indestructible body is inconsistent in any are of science. So it stands to reason that it is part of the design of human beings.
That being said there is no defect in the design of the human being. It is only a wish some may have, to become indestructible.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

The possibility of bodily defects is part of the design.
The idea of a indestructible body is inconsistent in any are of science. So it stands to reason that it is part of the design of human beings.
That being said there is no defect in the design of the human being. It is only a wish some may have, to become indestructible.

Are you going to make fun of kids dying from cancer?

Seriously, go fuck yourself.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Are you going to make fun of kids dying from cancer?

Seriously, go fuck yourself.

What are you banging on about?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan Ardena: "These body suits are perfectly complete in their design."
You have to remember that not everyone is as forgetful/willfully ignorant as you are.

That is not the same as “Absolutely. He is still 100% human. To use Jan's terminology, his "body suit" is incomplete, but his mind (what wears the suit) is not.”

Arthritic knees and pelvic floor damage - both are DUE to a design fault. Same way you might claim that your Iphone bursting into flame is the result of a design flaw.

No they’re not. They are due to other factors, that is perfectly accepted as part and parcel of the human condition.

With read regard to the poor iPhone analogy. That would be a design flaw, because they are not designed to spontaneously combust.

Either the designer is an incompetent idiot, or we evolved and got a design that was just good _enough._

If we evolved, there could be a possibility of a perfect body, just as much as there could possibly be an imperfect one. This would mean there is the possibility of someone living forever. But we find bodily defects are inevitable, especially when we start to grow old.
It is what it is dude.
Get over it and move on.

 

[James R]

I never said the human design is perfect. You actually quoted me saying that the human design is “perfectly complete”. Argue against that instead of bringing up straw men.

Doesn't "perfectly complete" mean "completely free of defects"?

If not, then I'm not sure exactly what it is you're saying about the "human design". Are you merely saying that it works well enough to allow humans to operate as such? If that's all you're saying, then I have no argument with you.

The possibility of bodily defects is part of the design.

Some defects are built in to every human being. A list was given earlier. So it's hardly just a "possibility".

Are you saying you believe your God deliberately created defect human bodies? Why did he choose to do that?

That being said there is no defect in the design of the human being.

You were given a list of imperfections.

Any designer worth his salt can see immediate room for improvement in the "design" of the human being.

Of course, this isn't a surprise once you understand that human beings evolved rather than being designed by a Perfect Designer.