does cosmic imperfection prove god doesnt exist?

[G.T.]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

I would lean toward this being one of the bad arguments against a deity, because it could be addressed in several ways...

1. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy - "we can't think of any other reason stars would die, if it weren't due to error or imperfection., therefore, they're designed imperfectly" = a.f.i. fallacy.
2. It's a categorical error - you're equivocating death with imperfection without knowledge of any intended goal of a star.
3. Their appeal to "god works in mysterious ways" is annoying, but works to address the claim of contradiction and exacerbates that it's an argument from ignorance Ala point 1.

That's a start.

Perfection isnt possible. Although i see where you are going with point 1.
If stars were perfect, why would they run out of fuel?
Is death itself imperfection?

Perfection is being in accord with a goal.

To say that something in the universe is either perfect, or imperfect, you'd have to come up with a rationality for calling something the "universe's goal," and shy of the Universe being directed by a conscience and knowing that conscience's goal - or the Universe itself being conscious and knowing ITS goal, you cannot say whether a star burning out is something perfect or imperfect.

Im not sure i can debate that terminology. "Goal" and such.
What if it just "is"

if something "just is," and I'm assuming that by "just is" you're stating that it has no goal, then calling it perfect or imperfect would be category error(#2 from my original post).

 

[Erinwltr]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

" The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection."

I generally like your comments. You are on level. But that is one big assumption. Is that a quote from Hawking or did you come up with that?

It was observed from like 100000 stars. Spectroscopy, i believe was the technique.
The universe being imperfect came from Hawking though.

Thank you. Thought that had a familiar ring.
But I'm not buying that what was observed from spectroscopy is cosmic imperfection. How would anyone possibly know unless they touched perfection?

 

[Mindful]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

" The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection."

I generally like your comments. You are on level. But that is one big assumption. Is that a quote from Hawking or did you come up with that?

It was observed from like 100000 stars. Spectroscopy, i believe was the technique.
The universe being imperfect came from Hawking though.

Thank you. Thought that had a familiar ring.
But I'm not buying that what was observed from spectroscopy is cosmic imperfection. How would anyone possibly know unless they touched perfection?

Then, one would have to define "perfection".

 

[TNHarley]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

" The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection."

I generally like your comments. You are on level. But that is one big assumption. Is that a quote from Hawking or did you come up with that?

It was observed from like 100000 stars. Spectroscopy, i believe was the technique.
The universe being imperfect came from Hawking though.

Thank you. Thought that had a familiar ring.
But I'm not buying that what was observed from spectroscopy is cosmic imperfection. How would anyone possibly know unless they touched perfection?

Thats not what i said.
Cosmic imperfection came from hawking.
We coming from stardust was observed by SDSS

 

[progressive hunter]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

" The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection."

I generally like your comments. You are on level. But that is one big assumption. Is that a quote from Hawking or did you come up with that?

It was observed from like 100000 stars. Spectroscopy, i believe was the technique.
The universe being imperfect came from Hawking though.

Thank you. Thought that had a familiar ring.
But I'm not buying that what was observed from spectroscopy is cosmic imperfection. How would anyone possibly know unless they touched perfection?

Thats not what i said.
Cosmic imperfection came from hawking.
We coming from stardust was observed by SDSS

thats a flat out lie,,,nothing like that has been observed and cant be

 

[Mindful]

So I looked it up:

Perfection organism to the largest galaxy. Society's definition of perfection is something complete, but this is impossible because nothing is ever complete; it's always in a state of constant change.

'People don't sit there and watch the sun during the day in the sky. They either watch to see the sun set, or watch the sun rise, as it is always in a state of contstant change.'

That is perfection.

 

[TNHarley]

One of the basic rules of the universe is that nothing is perfect. Perfection simply doesnt exist.. without imperfection, neither you nor i would exist.
The universe would have expanded in a smooth way from a single point. Etc etc
-Hawking

 

[Erinwltr]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

" The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection."

I generally like your comments. You are on level. But that is one big assumption. Is that a quote from Hawking or did you come up with that?

It was observed from like 100000 stars. Spectroscopy, i believe was the technique.
The universe being imperfect came from Hawking though.

the only thing observable from a star is its color and nothing else

The only thing observable about your god is an ancient book put together by a select group of individuals that was written by ignorant desert savages that wiped their ass with their hands and fucked their relatives

Well well. We were doing so well.

 

[G.T.]

Perfection isn't a difficult concept to understand, and I'm not seeing that it was anyone's issue of distinction here. If you think the perfect cup is any cup which has a ball in it - then placing a ball into a cup reaches perfection in accord with your stated goal.

 

[BULLDOG]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

I would lean toward this being one of the bad arguments against a deity, because it could be addressed in several ways...

1. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy - "we can't think of any other reason stars would die, if it weren't due to error or imperfection., therefore, they're designed imperfectly" = a.f.i. fallacy.
2. It's a categorical error - you're equivocating death with imperfection without knowledge of any intended goal of a star.
3. Their appeal to "god works in mysterious ways" is annoying, but works to address the claim of contradiction and exacerbates that it's an argument from ignorance Ala point 1.

That's a start.

If a god were omnipotent, there would be no need for any exploding star to happen. No reason for the star to have a goal. Omnipotence means the intended end result is the beginning state.

That's just a string of claims - support them. The need or non-need for a star to explode seems it would require omnipotence to even know in the first place, so I'm not sure where you're drawing that from.

Omnipotence means there is no need for any steps to do anything. If you want light, just say "Let there be light" and there it is. An omnipotent god wouldn't need to have a star explode to get carbon to create man. If he wanted man, he could just say "let there be man" , and man would exist with all the carbon, and other things needed to make a man. The argument that a star would have to explode first contradicts the claims of omnipotence.

If you want to claim god just liked seeing stars explode, and later became bored and decided to make man, I have no way of arguing against that, but it would throw the conversation so deep into absurdity till there would be no basis for logical discussion.

 

[G.T.]

One of the basic rules of the universe is that nothing is perfect. Perfection simply doesnt exist.. without imperfection, neither you nor i would exist.
The universe would have expanded in a smooth way from a single point. Etc etc
-Hawking

He's just using conjecture and seems to anthropomorphize the Universe when he speaks about it in this way, which is a category error.

 

[G.T.]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

I would lean toward this being one of the bad arguments against a deity, because it could be addressed in several ways...

1. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy - "we can't think of any other reason stars would die, if it weren't due to error or imperfection., therefore, they're designed imperfectly" = a.f.i. fallacy.
2. It's a categorical error - you're equivocating death with imperfection without knowledge of any intended goal of a star.
3. Their appeal to "god works in mysterious ways" is annoying, but works to address the claim of contradiction and exacerbates that it's an argument from ignorance Ala point 1.

That's a start.

If a god were omnipotent, there would be no need for any exploding star to happen. No reason for the star to have a goal. Omnipotence means the intended end result is the beginning state.

That's just a string of claims - support them. The need or non-need for a star to explode seems it would require omnipotence to even know in the first place, so I'm not sure where you're drawing that from.

Omnipotence means there is no need for any steps to do anything. If you want light, just say "Let there be light" and there it is. An omnipotent god wouldn't need to have a star explode to get carbon to create man. If he wanted man, he could just say "let there be man" , and man would exist with all the carbon, and other things needed to make a man. The argument that a star would have to explode first contradicts the claims of omnipotence.

If you want to claim god just liked seeing stars explode, and later became bored and decided to make man, I have no way of arguing against that, but it would throw the conversation so deep into absurdity till there would be no basis for logical discussion.

You're taking liberties in your extrapolation of the word omnipotence, and then expounding on that which is not a justification of the claim to begin with. Omnipotence simply means unlimited power, which would include the power to decide the way in which you reach your goals and doesn't mean you, at all times and in all cases, make them "just be" with no steps.

 

[TNHarley]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

" The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection."

I generally like your comments. You are on level. But that is one big assumption. Is that a quote from Hawking or did you come up with that?

It was observed from like 100000 stars. Spectroscopy, i believe was the technique.
The universe being imperfect came from Hawking though.

the only thing observable from a star is its color and nothing else

The only thing observable about your god is an ancient book put together by a select group of individuals that was written by ignorant desert savages that wiped their ass with their hands and fucked their relatives

Well well. We were doing so well.

He is a hard headed dipshit that talks down to everyone. He got what ue deserved.

 

[progressive hunter]

" The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection."

I generally like your comments. You are on level. But that is one big assumption. Is that a quote from Hawking or did you come up with that?

It was observed from like 100000 stars. Spectroscopy, i believe was the technique.
The universe being imperfect came from Hawking though.

the only thing observable from a star is its color and nothing else

The only thing observable about your god is an ancient book put together by a select group of individuals that was written by ignorant desert savages that wiped their ass with their hands and fucked their relatives

Well well. We were doing so well.

He is a hard headed dipshit that talks down to everyone. He got what ue deserved.

so questioning your poorly defined assumptions is talking down to you???

maybe its your assumptions thats the problem and you get butthurt when questioned about it

 

[TNHarley]

It was observed from like 100000 stars. Spectroscopy, i believe was the technique.
The universe being imperfect came from Hawking though.

the only thing observable from a star is its color and nothing else

The only thing observable about your god is an ancient book put together by a select group of individuals that was written by ignorant desert savages that wiped their ass with their hands and fucked their relatives

Well well. We were doing so well.

He is a hard headed dipshit that talks down to everyone. He got what ue deserved.

so questioning your poorly defined assumptions is talking down to you???

maybe its your assumptions thats the problem and you get butthurt when questioned about it

Be sure to wash your hands

 

[progressive hunter]

the only thing observable from a star is its color and nothing else

The only thing observable about your god is an ancient book put together by a select group of individuals that was written by ignorant desert savages that wiped their ass with their hands and fucked their relatives

Well well. We were doing so well.

He is a hard headed dipshit that talks down to everyone. He got what ue deserved.

so questioning your poorly defined assumptions is talking down to you???

maybe its your assumptions thats the problem and you get butthurt when questioned about it

Be sure to wash your hands

why

 

[BULLDOG]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

I would lean toward this being one of the bad arguments against a deity, because it could be addressed in several ways...

1. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy - "we can't think of any other reason stars would die, if it weren't due to error or imperfection., therefore, they're designed imperfectly" = a.f.i. fallacy.
2. It's a categorical error - you're equivocating death with imperfection without knowledge of any intended goal of a star.
3. Their appeal to "god works in mysterious ways" is annoying, but works to address the claim of contradiction and exacerbates that it's an argument from ignorance Ala point 1.

That's a start.

If a god were omnipotent, there would be no need for any exploding star to happen. No reason for the star to have a goal. Omnipotence means the intended end result is the beginning state.

That's just a string of claims - support them. The need or non-need for a star to explode seems it would require omnipotence to even know in the first place, so I'm not sure where you're drawing that from.

Omnipotence means there is no need for any steps to do anything. If you want light, just say "Let there be light" and there it is. An omnipotent god wouldn't need to have a star explode to get carbon to create man. If he wanted man, he could just say "let there be man" , and man would exist with all the carbon, and other things needed to make a man. The argument that a star would have to explode first contradicts the claims of omnipotence.

If you want to claim god just liked seeing stars explode, and later became bored and decided to make man, I have no way of arguing against that, but it would throw the conversation so deep into absurdity till there would be no basis for logical discussion.

You're taking liberties in your extrapolation of the word omnipotence, and then expounding on that which is not a justification of the claim to begin with. Omnipotence simply means unlimited power, which would include the power to decide the way in which you reach your goals and doesn't mean you, at all times and in all cases, make them "just be" with no steps.

Not what the bible says. Unlike Edison, god did not say he found 2000 ways not to make light. He said it, and --- boom --- it happened. Same way with all the miraculous healing and such that happened throughout the bible. Never once did it say god needed to gather materials before he could get started.

 

[G.T.]

I would lean toward this being one of the bad arguments against a deity, because it could be addressed in several ways...

1. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy - "we can't think of any other reason stars would die, if it weren't due to error or imperfection., therefore, they're designed imperfectly" = a.f.i. fallacy.
2. It's a categorical error - you're equivocating death with imperfection without knowledge of any intended goal of a star.
3. Their appeal to "god works in mysterious ways" is annoying, but works to address the claim of contradiction and exacerbates that it's an argument from ignorance Ala point 1.

That's a start.

If a god were omnipotent, there would be no need for any exploding star to happen. No reason for the star to have a goal. Omnipotence means the intended end result is the beginning state.

That's just a string of claims - support them. The need or non-need for a star to explode seems it would require omnipotence to even know in the first place, so I'm not sure where you're drawing that from.

Omnipotence means there is no need for any steps to do anything. If you want light, just say "Let there be light" and there it is. An omnipotent god wouldn't need to have a star explode to get carbon to create man. If he wanted man, he could just say "let there be man" , and man would exist with all the carbon, and other things needed to make a man. The argument that a star would have to explode first contradicts the claims of omnipotence.

If you want to claim god just liked seeing stars explode, and later became bored and decided to make man, I have no way of arguing against that, but it would throw the conversation so deep into absurdity till there would be no basis for logical discussion.

You're taking liberties in your extrapolation of the word omnipotence, and then expounding on that which is not a justification of the claim to begin with. Omnipotence simply means unlimited power, which would include the power to decide the way in which you reach your goals and doesn't mean you, at all times and in all cases, make them "just be" with no steps.

Not what the bible says. Unlike Edison, god did not say he found 2000 ways not to make light. He said it, and --- boom --- it happened. Same way with all the miraculous healing and such that happened throughout the bible. Never once did it say god needed to gather materials before he could get started.

I'm not in defense of any God, I'm merely poking holes into a bad argument so that myself and others can learn - that's just how discourse works. A dissection of the OP is not a support of a deity...that seems to have been your assumption, is all.

 

[BULLDOG]

If a god were omnipotent, there would be no need for any exploding star to happen. No reason for the star to have a goal. Omnipotence means the intended end result is the beginning state.

That's just a string of claims - support them. The need or non-need for a star to explode seems it would require omnipotence to even know in the first place, so I'm not sure where you're drawing that from.

Omnipotence means there is no need for any steps to do anything. If you want light, just say "Let there be light" and there it is. An omnipotent god wouldn't need to have a star explode to get carbon to create man. If he wanted man, he could just say "let there be man" , and man would exist with all the carbon, and other things needed to make a man. The argument that a star would have to explode first contradicts the claims of omnipotence.

If you want to claim god just liked seeing stars explode, and later became bored and decided to make man, I have no way of arguing against that, but it would throw the conversation so deep into absurdity till there would be no basis for logical discussion.

You're taking liberties in your extrapolation of the word omnipotence, and then expounding on that which is not a justification of the claim to begin with. Omnipotence simply means unlimited power, which would include the power to decide the way in which you reach your goals and doesn't mean you, at all times and in all cases, make them "just be" with no steps.

Not what the bible says. Unlike Edison, god did not say he found 2000 ways not to make light. He said it, and --- boom --- it happened. Same way with all the miraculous healing and such that happened throughout the bible. Never once did it say god needed to gather materials before he could get started.

I'm not in defense of any God, I'm merely poking holes into a bad argument so that myself and others can learn - that's just how discourse works. A dissection of the OP is not a support of a deity...that seems to have been your assumption, is all.

Poke away. I know this sounds weird, but even though I hate being shown to be wrong, I still appreciate it because It keeps me from arguing for an unsupportable idea. Does that make sense?

 

[G.T.]

That's just a string of claims - support them. The need or non-need for a star to explode seems it would require omnipotence to even know in the first place, so I'm not sure where you're drawing that from.

Omnipotence means there is no need for any steps to do anything. If you want light, just say "Let there be light" and there it is. An omnipotent god wouldn't need to have a star explode to get carbon to create man. If he wanted man, he could just say "let there be man" , and man would exist with all the carbon, and other things needed to make a man. The argument that a star would have to explode first contradicts the claims of omnipotence.

If you want to claim god just liked seeing stars explode, and later became bored and decided to make man, I have no way of arguing against that, but it would throw the conversation so deep into absurdity till there would be no basis for logical discussion.

You're taking liberties in your extrapolation of the word omnipotence, and then expounding on that which is not a justification of the claim to begin with. Omnipotence simply means unlimited power, which would include the power to decide the way in which you reach your goals and doesn't mean you, at all times and in all cases, make them "just be" with no steps.

Not what the bible says. Unlike Edison, god did not say he found 2000 ways not to make light. He said it, and --- boom --- it happened. Same way with all the miraculous healing and such that happened throughout the bible. Never once did it say god needed to gather materials before he could get started.

I'm not in defense of any God, I'm merely poking holes into a bad argument so that myself and others can learn - that's just how discourse works. A dissection of the OP is not a support of a deity...that seems to have been your assumption, is all.

Poke away. I know this sounds weird, but even though I hate being shown to be wrong, I still appreciate it because It keeps me from arguing for an unsupportable idea. Does that make sense?

It's normal/cool, I started doing it for small things around the house a lot of years ago, just listening to elderly persons teach the most practical ways of doing things because they've had a lot of years of the dumb mistakes & being impractical to learn from...efficiency of thought lead to efficiency of practice and helped improve little things in every-day life instead of being stubborn or something. Open mindedness is the most disciplined way I've learned...to learn. lol