The standard theist claim is that God is ultimately simple -- not that He is complex — Dfpolis

Then why is it so difficult and contradictory to define?

Then why is it so difficult and contradictory to define? — Harry Hindu

It depends on what kind of definition you want. The dictionary does an adequate job with "creator and ruler of the universe." If you want a definition based on genus and specific difference, the problem is that God is not in a genus because genera are defined by a limiting specification, and, as I explained above, God is unlimited.

"Creator", "ruler of the universe", and "unlimited" are terms that imply complexity, not simplicity. You keep contradicting yourself, but that isn't surprising.

A non-explanation is not a solution. It is a cop out. — Dfpolis

That may be true but one needs information to conclude, I don't believe we have enough to dis/prove a god.

You seem not to understand how deduction works. — Dfpolis

Deduction may be the wrong word. Does belief, perception or answer work?

On the other hand when I say "see" I mean "perceive." Perceiving empirically, without delusion or malfunction. That being said there is no emperical evidence of a god, none, anywhere; but that of the universe is insurmountable. We're pretty sure the universe is here.

Given those facts one can deduce that god is not and the universe is. No assumption of a creator is necessary to prove the existence of the universe as we experience it. A god however, one that is invisible from all facets or who has simply not visited this section of the universe can't be proven or disproven as of now, which is why I'm not a dogmatic atheist.

We can see rainbows, but we cannot see the law of conservation of mass-energy. — Dfpolis

One can "see" the conversation of mass-energy. Otherwise it wouldn't be a scientifically proven phenomenon.

For science to work, everything must have an adequate explanation, even if we do not know it. — Dfpolis

Yes and no, science is the process of discovering reality not the collection of ultimate conclusions.

The distinguishing things about God is that, as the end of the line of explanation, God cannot be explained by something else (or he would not be the end of the line). So, God must be self-explaining. — Dfpolis

Or non-existant.

Existence is not the ability to act in this way or that way, but the unspecified ability to act. — Dfpolis

A bit nitpicks but I believe "interact" would be a more accurate expression. "Act" implies intent or intelegence. Rocks exist but don't act.

The universe cannot do any logically possible act. — Dfpolis

I disagree, they occur in and thus by the universe, all of your actions and thoughts are included within that. If one goes by the multiverse theory even more so.

One had to first conclude there is a god, without evidence, to go by your concept. But I do like the concept.

If there is a god and I ever meet him, I will ask why he exists. If he does not know, I will throw my hands up in disgust at the meaningless nature of existence. — Devans99

I'm with you.

I could also contend that this is only a problem if we understand the universe as something created. The Big Bang implies a beginning, not a creation. And to put on my (very inadequate) speculative astrophysicist hat, perhaps the Big Bang is not even a beginning, but simply the start of a form that we recognize. We do not know what came before. — Brillig

I think a beginning implies creation. If anything comes into existence, it seems like it should be explainable in some way. For instance a tree is created by a certain combination of factors, and, as with most things, seeing that something exists. It would seem that anything which has a beginning, at least in the observable world, is created in some sense. So it seem rational, if we see a beginning to the universe, to wonder what kind of conditions led to that beginning. I think you agree with this, but you seem to think that it is equally reasonable to claim that there were random preconditions which caused the big bang and that there was a Divine creator which caused the big bang. The problem with this is part of the neatness of a creator is, at least with most conceptions, is he possesses the quality of aseity, or he explains himself. Any other pre-conditions, the argument suggests, would lead you into an infinite regress until you reach something which is self-explained.

Also in your response to Ben, you seem to think that when we accept some kind of creator, we welcome a whole new host of problems which does not come with an atheistic explanation, such as what kind of being is this “God”. This only seems tangentially related, as the point of the fine tuning argument is not to arrive at any particular conception of God, but rather that some sort of being we could conceivably call “God” exist. The only attributes one can imply based on this argument are God’s aseity and eternity. Also, it would seem that that however many complications come with some version of God, it would be less complicated than another explanation. Again, because, if we take an a se being to be the cause of the big bang, we don’t have to explain his existence, whereas it would seem that any other cause would require a more complicated explanation. In other words, it doesn’t seem that we are, as you put it, “trading one mystery for several”, but rather we are solving potentially infinite mysteries with one.

"Creator", "ruler of the universe", and "unlimited" are terms that imply complexity, not simplicity. — Harry Hindu

Thank you for sharing your faith. Now, do you have an argument a rational person could consider?

That may be true but one needs information to conclude, I don't believe we have enough to dis/prove a god. — Grey Vs Gray

The fact that rocks persist is more than adequate. See my video #15 God & Scientific Explanation - Existence Proof https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJUIxaSDfU0.

Deduction may be the wrong word. Does belief, perception or answer work? — Grey Vs Gray

Unexamined belief? The point is simple. Not seeing something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We apply reason to the data of experience to discover causes that we cannot see.

there is no emperical evidence of a god — Grey Vs Gray

I ask you to think for a moment. Evidence requires the skill to use it before a conclusion can be reached. Fifty years ago, no one knew how to use DNA as forensic evidence. That did not mean that crime scenes had no evidence, it only meant that we did not know how to use it. The only way to know that there is no evidence for p is to know that p is false. So, your claim is either based on some non-existence proof, or it is baseless.

One can "see" the conversation of mass-energy. Otherwise it wouldn't be a scientifically proven phenomenon. — Grey Vs Gray

At last! We deduce the existence of things we cannot see from things we can see. The first sound deduction of God's existence I know of was by the father of mathematical physics -- Aristotle. He deduced the existence of an unmoved mover from the fact that things change. Since then many other sound proofs have been added.

For science to work, everything must have an adequate explanation, even if we do not know it. — Dfpolis

Yes and no, science is the process of discovering reality not the collection of ultimate conclusions. — Grey Vs Gray

I did not say it was. I am saying that the notion of "brute facts" (things that "just are" for no reason) is incompatible with science. Cosmologists even look for explanations of the big bang. So, no exception is made for the universe, nor should it be.

The distinguishing things about God is that, as the end of the line of explanation, God cannot be explained by something else (or he would not be the end of the line). So, God must be self-explaining. — Dfpolis

Or non-existant. — Grey Vs Gray

The choices are everything has an explanation and so God exists, or some phenomena have no explanation and so science is an irrational enterprise.

A bit nitpicks but I believe "interact" would be a more accurate expression. "Act" implies intent or intelegence. Rocks exist but don't act. — Grey Vs Gray

By "act" I only mean doing something. Doing something may or may not involve conscious intent. Rocks act by scattering light, resisting pressure, exerting gravitational attraction, etc. -- all with no minds of their own.

The universe cannot do any logically possible act. — Dfpolis

I disagree, they occur in and thus by the universe, all of your actions and thoughts are included within that. If one goes by the multiverse theory even more so. — Grey Vs Gray

You are contradicting yourself. Since a multiverse is possible, there are possible acts that are not possible in this universe. So this universe cannot do all possible acts and cannot be self-explaining. Since the laws of physics are contingent, and not metaphysically necessary, it is logically possible to act according to laws that are not instantiated in even a multiverse. So physical systems cannot be self-explaining.

One had to first conclude there is a god, without evidence, to go by your concept. — Grey Vs Gray

This is a plain statement of closed mindedness. As I noted earlier, the only way to know that there is no evidence is to know that there is no God. As you claim not to know this, you are letting your beliefs stand in the way of an open consideration of the data and their implications.

On the other hand, having examined a number of sound proofs, I know how to use the evidence we have to prove that God exists.

If there is a god and I ever meet him, I will ask why he exists. If he does not know, I will throw my hands up in disgust at the meaningless nature of existence. — Devans99

God knows He is self-explaining because His essence is His existence.

Comments merged from other thread dealing with the same essay in the OP. OP fron @Brillig was:

This discussion is in reaction to Robin Collins' 1998 essay "The Fine-Tuning Design Argument: A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God," but I do not think you need to have read it to engage with the ideas (any quotations below come from that essay). I'd like to take issue with the notion that the argument from design has changed much since Paley and Hume wrote about it, simply because we have new information about how the universe began. Collins seems to think that careful analysis of the initial conditions of the universe will reveal ample support for an intelligent designer. His argument goes something like this:

1) "Whenever we are considering two competing hypotheses, an observation counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis under which the observation has the highest probability." If two hypotheses compete, and we observe something, that observation is evidence of the hypothesis that says it is more likely to happen.

2) The conditions of the beginning of the universe must either count as evidence for theism or atheism (competing hypotheses).

3) "Almost everything about the basic structure of the universe--for example, the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial distribution of matter and energy--is balanced on a razor's edge for life to occur." Many elements of physics need to occur just so in order for human life to exist (observation).

4) It is more likely that an intelligent entity willed physics to behave like this than that it occurred spontaneously or by some other unknown means.

5) Fine-tuning provides strong evidence for preferring theism to atheism.

Saying that the conditions of the Big Bang were just precise enough for life to occur seems backwards. The Big Bang came first. We should not think in terms of our existence requiring the Big Bang to occur in a certain fashion. We should instead consider that the way the Big Bang did occur simply caused life to develop as it did. Collins uses the principle of indifference to calculate the probability of human life existing. I think he neglects to consider that we should be indifferent to these statistics at all. I am not saying that the principle of indifference does not apply when calculating probability; I am saying that, for the purposes of this argument, there is little use in calculating probabilities.

Imagine that a different kind of big bang occurred in a different kind of universe that currently does not exist. In this big bang, the laws of physics as we know them are different, such that there is a nearly 100% chance that human life (or something like it) will develop. We can remember all the forces that Collins considers, and imagine them like this: If the initial explosion had differed in strength by 500%, it wouldn't have affected the end result. Differences in the strong nuclear force, or gravity, or the mass of a proton or neutron would also not have impacted the existence of humans.

Under these conditions, humans spring up. They begin to question the purposes for their existence, as humans seem fond of doing. Some say there is a God, and some say there was no reason. They do research, and understand the information I laid out above as their observation and evidence in this argument. It's at this point that, with completely different evidence, we can easily construct similar arguments that already surround this debate (ex. 3). Theists could claim that the universe seemed tailor made for humans, which must have required forethought and will. Atheists could claim that one designer would require another designer, so it's more probable that the universe is simply what we see.

What's important here is not so much the math, but the idea that numbers and probabilities concerning very theoretical problems can always be interpreted in a variety of ways. When we stop considering these numbers, we are left with the same old regress of explanation and faulty analogy. Collins' biosphere on Mars sounds very like a watch to me. So despite all this new information from astrophysics, the argument for a creative designer (or a "fine tuner") has not changed much since the 18th century.

In the interest of full amnesty, I am not an astrophysicist, and do not fully understand the concepts that support many of these theories. Perhaps this argument comes out of some critical ignorance of mine, but currently, these are my thoughts. Do you agree? Do you disagree? Let's talk about it.

The ground of being God escapes this sort of objection. But in that case, it's misleading to say that God created the universe, as if God were one more thing in existence, thus requiring an infinite regress of explanations. Some of the atheistic objections are based on less sophisticated notions of the Abrahamic deity.

I don't think God exists, but there are different versions, some of which don't have the same objections.

@SophistiCat

I think you make a very good point about the Fine-Tuning Argument being an explanation potentially generated from a preselected argument (i.e. existence of a God). However, I would like to challenge your assertion that “whatever the universe is trying to tell us, it is not that it is fine-tuned for life.” It seems to me that what is truly remarkable about our universe is how the complexity throughout allows life- abundantly and diversely. In searching to explain human existence, purpose, and even explain our own need to search for meaning, we reach a point where the natural world can explain no further…yet we recognize that the natural world seems perfectly balanced to accommodate our existence and is things were slightly different (on a biological, chemical, astrophysical level), human life would be impossible. At this point it seems reasonable to consider whether our physical world exists in the way it does by accident, through random change, or if something outside of our universe orchestrated this world, explaining its seemingly fine-tuned nature and the human desire for a greater meaning in life. Thus, complexity that allows the firing of neurons to construct thoughts about an explanation for existence itself seems very improbable under conditions that very easily could have been otherwise.

Of course, on a basic chemical level, reactions need energetically favorable conditions to occur unless there is an input of energy, trending towards increasing entropy which makes complexity in general impressive as randomness is preferable. Yet life thrives on the principles of thermodynamics. The chemosynthesis of photoautotrophs is powered by maximizing the energetically favorable conditions while still building complexity. I don’t think it follows that:
“Another objection is that life, being a high-level complex structure, is going to be fine-tuned (again, in the sense of being sensitive to variations of low-level parameters) no matter what. In fact, any such complex structure is bound to be fine-tuned”

Part of what makes life so remarkable is not only that it exists complexly, but there is a trend in increasing complexity. Life is not just surviving it is changing and adapting- which sets it apart from being any “high-level complex structure.” The tenacity and development of life should be considered in fine tuning. Looking at the evolutionary process and how life has been facilitated and increased in complexity, the development of flagella is a classic example. The probability that this mechanism would arise, this fundamental piece in cell mobility and eventually multicellularity seems so unlikely but happened with extreme success. Evolution informs us that random genetic mutations lead to diversity which will persist if it does not harm the individual’s reproductive ability…. That conditions would exist such that the intermediate steps in flagellum development would have occurred, leading to a such increased biological complexity seems to be another aspect of what our universe is “fine-tuned” for. If it were fine tuned to any other standard (even just complexity in general), a convincing argument would need to be made for what the fine-tuning is for and again we would again be faced with the problem of explaining life as some big accident with in a universe finely-tuned to a different standard.

The idea that there is some limitless number of universes and we just happen to have struck lucky, is adding a completely new and totally unverified dimension to reality - beyond what we already know. What we already know is that the situation looks very much like design. That is the simplest and most parsimonious solution. That this goes against the prevailing naturalism/physicalism of our times is neither here nor there. — Antony Latham

:up: :) True, but it's even more simple than this, they just have no clue.

True, but it's even more simple than this, they just have no clue. — chiknsld

Well, if you consider the 10exp500 pissible solutions to string theory no clue... I don't, but there are ideas. Problem seems to be how is chosen between them. And even then, 10jexp500 is nothing in the face of infinity.

The basic free parameters to be settled are the coupling strengths of three charges and the value of the gravity strength. Vary one of them and the universe collapses. Is there maybe a hidden relation between them, I don't know, if this has been looked at. I'm not even sure now what I said about varying them couplings. Would it all be very different? Not sure. It seems pretty obvious though that space gotta have 3 dimensions.

What about the speed of light and Planck's constant? The speed of light gotta be finite in order for mass to exist and events to be spatiotemporally separated. Are that speed and the coupling strengths connected? They all have to do with space, time, and mass. They gotta have a connection somehow.

So, are the parameters contemplated? Yes. Probably.

Well, if you consider the 10exp500 pissible solutions to string theory no clue... I don't, but there are ideas. Problem seems to be how is chosen between them. And even then, 10jexp500 is nothing in the face of infinity.

The basic free parameters to be settled are the coupling strengths of three charges and the value of the gravity strength. Vary one of them and the universe collapses. Is there maybe a hidden relation between them, I don't know, if this has been looked at. I'm not even sure now what I said about varying them couplings. Would it all be very different? Not sure. It seems pretty obvious though that space gotta have 3 dimensions.

What about the speed of light and Planck's constant? The speed of light gotta be finite in order for mass to exist and events to be spatiotemporally separated. Are that speed and the coupling strengths connected? They all have to do with space, time, and mass. They gotta have a connection somehow.

So, are the parameters contemplated? Yes. Probably. — Haglund

Ahh, very interesting. :)

Btw, is your background in Mathematics? What do you think about mathematical paradoxes? Do you think that gives us a clue into the nature of reality?

The standard theist claim is that God is ultimately simple -- not that He is complex
— Dfpolis
Then why is it so difficult and contradictory to define? — Harry Hindu

I remember watching a video lessons on geometry back a decade or so ago. The speaker, a lady, goes to great lenghts to point out that geometric definitions must end at some point (pun unintended). Either this must be because the simplest geometric idea (like a point) can't be defined for there's nothing simpler in terms of which a definition could be constructed or because the problem of an infinite regress rears its ugly head. The only viable option seems to be use circular definitions, despite the rules of good definitions forbidding such tomfoolery.

What sayest thou, sir?

I remember watching a video lessons on geometry back a decade or so ago. The speaker, a lady, goes to great lenghts to point out that geometric definitions must end at some point (pun unintended). Either this must be because the simplest geometric idea (like a point) can't be defined for there's nothing simpler in terms of which a definition could be constructed or because the problem of an infinite regress rears its ugly head. The only viable option seems to be use circular definitions, despite the rules of good definitions forbidding such tomfoolery.

What sayest thou, sir? — Agent Smith

All definitions end with what the definitions point to in the world. You may look up a word in a dictionary and get more words, but eventually those scribbles on the page refer to something that is not just more scribbles, or else what do the scribbles mean? What makes a scribble a word and not just a scribble? If you wanted a definition of "circle", would you look in the dictionary, or would it be better if I just pointed at several examples of actual circles in the world? It seems like the latter is more direct while the former is indirect. It seems like the former would only be useful if there were no circles around for me to point to to show you what a circle is.

All definitions end with what the definitions point to in the world. You may look up a word in a dictionary and get more words, but eventually those scribbles on the page refer to something that is not just more scribbles, or else what do the scribbles mean? What makes a scribble a word and not just a scribble? If you wanted a definition of "circle", would you look in the dictionary, or would it be better if I just pointed at several examples of actual circles in the world? It seems like the latter is more direct while the former is indirect. It seems like the former would only be useful if there were no circles around for me to point to to show you what a circle is — Harry Hindu

A circle is a (geometric) shape, true, but its precise definition - the set of all points equidistant from one other point (the center) - is more precise and is in words.

However, my point is if one faces difficulty with defining something, it might mean you're dealing with an undefinable (point, space, time, etc.) or that you've come to the realization that you're up against $\infty$ (infinite regress) and that's always worrying.

Question: In math at least definitions of an object seems to be a matter of deconstructing it into parts e.g. a triangle has 3 sides (read lines); lines are a set of points, and so on.

Is this true of nonmathematical objects too? For instance a dog is a tame wolf (genus & differentia), but tame and wolf are not exactly parts of a dog are they? Maybe they are...

A circle is a (geometric) shape, true, but its precise definition - the set of all points equidistant from one other point (the center) - is more precise and is in words.

However, my point is if one faces difficulty with defining something, it might mean you're dealing with an undefinable (point, space, time, etc.) or that you've come to the realization that you're up against — Agent Smith

Then the precise definition only refers to imaginary objects in the mind. There is no such thing in the world in which the set of all points are equidistant from one other point (the center). If what we are talking about only exists in our minds, then that is something that I cannot show you and can only describe to you, hence my explanation that we use words to describe something to someone else that they cannot actually see. You can try to draw one based on the precise definition, but you will fail utterly. Depending on what measurement we are using, one point will not be equidistant as all the other points. There will be a point that is a micrometer more or less distant from the center than other points.

Then the precise definition only refers to imaginary objects in the mind. There is no such thing in the world in which the set of all points are equidistant from one other point (the center). If what we are talking about only exists in our minds, then that is something that I cannot show you and can only describe to you, hence my explanation that we use words to describe something to someone else that they cannot actually see. You can try to draw one based on the precise definition, but you will fail utterly. Depending on what measurement we are using, one point will not be equidistant as all the other points. There will be a point that is a micrometer more or less distant from the center than other points. — Harry Hindu

Nirvana fallacy? There are certain margins of error we must be willing to accept, especially since the world is, for some reason, imperfect. The human mind, all life in fact, has been, for the most part of its earthly existence, has been a constant struggle against nature's imperfections, oui? I frankly find it odd that you would demand flawlessness in a world that is, well, flawed. Perhaps it's proof, as Plato believed, our minds are not of this world. How else could it have ever conceived of forms?

There is no reason why the world is imperfect. Imperfect is an idealistic concepts we humans made up to point out flaws that piss us off.

-"The human mind, all life in fact, has been, for the most part of its earthly existence, has been a constant struggle against nature's imperfections, oui? "
-Imperfection is an unnecessary qualifier. Humans have being struggling against nature and their own nature. Perfection is a goal we strive for and we project it on to nature as if it is possible for anything perfect to exist especially in the eyes of subjective observers.
Our ability to produce minimalistic concepts is evidence on how demanding for our brains is to hold complex details in concepts. We need those concepts to apply shortcuts in order to "survive".
A circle is a mental shortcut representing a simplified version of all round things we have ever experienced in our world...until Cad and DTP programs brought them in to our lives. lol
Why using any simple concept that appears weird to us as an excuse to make a magical claim about the nature of our existence?
I get it, humans need their lives to have meaning in a cosmic scale so they need an ideology that can remove them from this finite world and place them in a magical realm where everything is perfect....even our expiration date in there is a....circle.
Again a friend of mind reminded me that Philosophy is an exercise of frustration...not a buffet of comforting ideas to put in our mental plates...

There is no reason why the world is imperfect. — Nickolasgaspar

PSR?

Imperfection is an unnecessary qualifier. — Nickolasgaspar

You missed the point then.

Our ability to produce minimalistic concepts is evidence on how demanding for our brains is to hold complex details in concepts. — Nickolasgaspar

Sometimes it'll do, sometimes it just won't. The trick is to know when it will and when it won't. :up:

humans need their lives to have meaning in a cosmic scale — Nickolasgaspar

Maybe some, not me! I've had my share of grandiose delusions!

Philosophy is an exercise of frustration — Nickolasgaspar

:up: However, most philosophers seem happy & content!

The point of philosophy was bewilderment and that invariably leads to frustration, but that's tenuous link (re aporia, ataraxia, bushido).

Nirvana fallacy? There are certain margins of error we must be willing to accept, especially since the world is, for some reason, imperfect. The human mind, all life in fact, has been, for the most part of its earthly existence, has been a constant struggle against nature's imperfections, oui? I frankly find it odd that you would demand flawlessness in a world that is, well, flawed. Perhaps it's proof, as Plato believed, our minds are not of this world. How else could it have ever conceived of forms? — Agent Smith

But that's the point. Are we talking about defining objects in the world, or defining objects in the mind. We need to make that clear or else we end up talking past each other.

It's not that the world is not perfect. Perfect is just another model in the mind, and not a feature of the world outside of the mind. The world just is a certain way and the way we model it is another, but representative of the way it is. Life is not adapting to imperfections. It is adapting to the way things are, which is constantly changing. Using the terms, imperfection/perfection is implying that you have knowledge of what a perfect world would be like and that everyone would agree with you.

But that's the point. Are we talking about defining objects in the world, or defining objects in the mind. We need to make that clear or else we end up talking past each other.

It's not that the world is not perfect. Perfect is just another model in the mind, and not a feature of the world outside of the mind. The world just is a certain way and the way we model it is another, but representative of the way it is. Life is not adapting to imperfections. It is adapting to the way things are, which is constantly changing. Using the terms, imperfection/perfection is implying that you have knowledge of what a perfect world would be like and that everyone would agree with you. — Harry Hindu

:up:

You missed the point then. — Agent Smith

No the point is fallacious.

Sometimes it'll do, sometimes it just won't. The trick is to know when it will and when it won't. — Agent Smith

-the existence of "circles" prove that we tend to simplify aspects of reality through idealistic concepts.
You are referring to an irrelevant aspect.(whether it is useful...while I address what our brain does).

However, most philosophers seem happy & content! — Agent Smith

Again you always seem to miss the aspect of the thing in question.....nice talking to you agent smith...

The human mind, all life in fact, has been, for the most part of its earthly existence, has been a constant struggle against nature's imperfections, oui? — Agent Smith

Mmmm...Non. Imperfections need to be embraced. Only where due, you should look for it. In the modern era, perfection seems to be attended to mostly in the physical domain of bodily appearances. The body is tried to be reshaped in an ideal resembling a horrible abstraction from the natural standard. Resulting in mental sickness and dissolvement from reality. And even the mental domain seems prone to the same abstractions, reshaping the mind into a logical process resembling the the so beloved computers and logical processes inside. Just listen to the CEO talk and (mainly) his (mainl) perfect wife accompanying (mainly) him in perfect silence. The perfect constructor of the perfect world to come "communicating" logically perfect ideals.

Only where it's due, perfection should be sought.

No the point is fallacious. — Nickolasgaspar

I won't try to explain why you're wrong.

-the existence of "circles" prove that we tend to simplify aspects of reality through idealistic concepts.
You are referring to an irrelevant aspect.(whether it is useful...while I address what our brain does) — Nickolasgaspar

The brain is a simplifying apparatus. Telos?

Again you always seem to miss the aspect of the thing in question.....nice talking to you agent smith... — Nickolasgaspar

Possible, very possible! Thanks for your comments.

humans need their lives to have meaning in a cosmic scale
— Nickolasgaspar

Maybe some, not me! I've had my share of grandiose delusions! — Agent Smith

:up:

Mmmm...Non. Imperfections need to be embraced. Only where due, you should look for it. In the modern era, perfection seems to be attended to mostly in the physical domain of bodily appearances. The body is tried to be reshaped in an ideal resembling a horrible abstraction from the natural standard. Resulting in mental sickness and dissolvement from reality. And even the mental domain seems prone to the same abstractions, reshaping the mind into a logical process resembling the the so beloved computers and logical processes inside. Just listen to the CEO talk and (mainly) his (mainl) perfect wife accompanying (mainly) him in perfect silence. The perfect constructor of the perfect world to come "communicating" logically perfect ideals.

Only where it's due, perfection should be sought. — Haglund

Fine-Tuning is synonymous with perfection insofar as the conditions for life is at stake, oui?

I won't try to explain why you're wrong. — Agent Smith

I am not sure that you could even if you tried.

-"

The brain is a simplifying apparatus. Telos? — Agent Smith

"
-No....our mental shortcuts create simplifications of reality.

Possible, very possible! Thanks for your comments. — Agent Smith

-Possibility needs to be demonstrated...not declared.

His arguments show a much different intention.