The Argument from ‘Perfection’
i dont know if it was a big bang but something sure as hell blew up and that is why all those meteors are hitting us.
maybe blowing it up was gods way to start the creation and considering the way it was put back together it takes a fool not to believe a higher power did not have a hand in doing it.
It moves better than a rolex watch.
A fool is the one who claims "it was put back together" by some magical invisible man. We know the fundamental forces of nature which lead to star formation and planetary accretion. We know which of those forces gave rise to chemistry and the operations of life.
The fool is the one who has failed to educate themselves on these discoveries and instead relies upon ancient myths and legends to conclude that a being with a mind and a will just did it all in six days. The fool ignores the fact that his explanation actually explains nothing whatsoever. Magic is not an answer, it is an excuse for ignorance.
Please tell me how you draw a comparison between the cosmos and a Rolex watch?
the cosmos design is perfect. arolex watch near perfect. only a fool would not know the difference.even the most expensive timepiece requires adjustment. the cosmos is perfect and to my knowledge has never neede adjustment.
you are a fucking idiot not to know perfection is more than an accident and something mankind can never achieve.
Call me a fool if you like but I think your reasoning is flawed. First off, what is your definition of perfect? Second, if the cosmos is "perfect" then please describe how an "imperfect" cosmos would appear.
You continue to draw a correlation between a watch and the cosmos but we know that a watch is man-made because watches do not occur naturally but the cosmos IS all that is NATURAL. We know that a watch has a purpose because man built it for a purpose, to measure the passage of time in distinct units which we humans have defined based on things we observe in NATURE.
You may call me all the names in the book but you are the one asserting perfection and being completely unwilling or unable to explain what it is about the cosmos that makes it PERFECT.
The fact that mankind cannot reproduce the entire cosmos has no bearing on your argument. Our inability to craft something we observe in nature does not infer that it was crafted by something or someone else nor to then conjure up a specific deity that gives the remotest shit about any of us.
So please explain to this foolish fucking idiot how you came to the conclusion that the cosmos is perfect and what an imperfect cosmos would look like.
you have just answered all your questions yourself. re-read your post.
has to be magic or i got a bad case of, if you dont know, i aint gonna tell ya.
Thank you for surrendering the argument. You could have be intellectually honest and just admitted your argument is flawed instead of asserting that my question to you was simultaneously my own answer as if that makes sense in any sort of rational reality.
I asked you to support your assertion of a "perfect cosmos" by describing an "imperfect cosmos" and the best thing you can manage is "you have just answered all your questions"? Then follow that up with "if [I] don’t know then [you] aint gonna tell [me]"
Thank you for admitting that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
TRY THIS FOR AN ANSWER AND DONT ASK FOR PROOF BECAUSE THE PROOF IS IN THE STATEMENT.
THERE IS NO IMPERFECT COSMOS. EVERYTHING IS IN PERFECT SYNC.
HAS YOUR LIFE EXPERIENCES NOT SHOWN THAT? ACCIDNETS OR BIG BANGS DO NOT RESULT IN PERFECTION
Again, you keep employing the word perfection without justification. The word "perfect" is intended to distinguish one thing from everything else. For example, I could assert that in my opinion a certain woman has a ‘perfect’ body only because I could provide examples of other women with ‘imperfect’ bodies for comparison. I could assert that a certain object is perfectly spherical or perfectly circular because I can cite examples of objects which are neither.
You keep writing that the cosmos is ‘perfect’ yet we only know of one cosmos, there is nothing from which our cosmos may be distinguished. It is therefore dishonest and irrational to assert that what we observe is perfect unless you can answer the necessary question, compared to what? If, as you say, there is no ‘imperfect cosmos’ then there can be no ‘perfect cosmos’ for the same reason you cannot have ‘up’ without a ‘down’ or ‘front’ without a ‘back’. Your argument from perfection is fallacious.
You say everything we observe is perfectly synced? Again I have to ask, what would an out of sync cosmos look like? The cosmos is predictable because the laws of gravity and electromagnetism are universal. Gravity pulls things into balls and causes massive things to orbit each other. Electromagnetism gives rise to stars and eventually life. The cosmos simply IS the way it IS and there is no evidence thus far that some super intelligent being has spend eons mucking about in our one little galaxy, with our one little solar system, on this one little rock for 4.5 billion years just to finally make YOU and ME.
The cosmos is also not an accident. Accidents are events which occur contrary to intended events. There is no evidence of intent therefore cosmos we observe cannot be accidental.
Lastly, inflation does not result in perfection because, as I have pointed out, the cosmos is not ‘perfect’; it just exists.