What is God’s Heaven or plan at the end? Would you like it?

NO, it was when auto makers invented the SUV.Hell in a handbasket.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

You make a lot of 'just so' statements in your posts. This is a characteristic example. Some unprovable proposition is 'just so' because you have decreed it.'Perfection', of course, is a human idea. There's little point arguing about whether or not the universe is 'perfect' because whether it is or not depends entirely on how one defines the word.If you like to think of the universe as perfect the way it is, you can define 'perfect' to correspond. Then--lo and behold--everything fits. If you don't much care for some aspects of the universe as it is, you define 'perfect' to mean something else.The same applies to ideas like 'free will' and 'evil' and 'the soul.' These are concepts that operate entirely at the mercy of our definitions.Reality is what it is. The rest is talk.____

False dichotomy. More alternatives exist. All are equally unprovable, and therefore equally valid.Your failure to notice this stands as evidence that your own perceptions are not perfect. Reality is truth. So you reason, but this is reality: your spelling is atrocious.In one post you've shown us failled for failed, looser for loser and, more than once, there for their.When you typed these words and posted them they apparently looked right--'perfect'--to you. But they are not.Your frequent spelling errors stand as evidence that not everything that appears 'perfect' to you really is.GIA's decrees therefore do not count for much as arguments. If you are wrong about words in your own posts you can be wrong about many things.This evidence falsifies your argument that your own perception must be perfect 'because God would have it no other way.' The reality is some other way. It's okay to be 'left to explain' something after first admitting reality. Starting with reality is starting with truth. One has that much, whether or not one can ever 'explain.'Atrocious spelling exists. That's the truth. It's reality.If one admits this truth, one knows that much. Any valid explanations that can be provided are gravy.If one denies that atrocious spelling exists, one lacks even that truth. One has denied reality. If one argues that atrocious spelling 'cannot' exist, despite all evidence to the contrary, because 'God would not let it happen', one has missed a trick at the start. One has chosen to analyze a dream world, not the real one. Not necessarily. They could be waiting for people closer to home to proofread.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I do indeed. I am sympathetic, I assure you.And our spelling errors can teach us something, if we pay attention.They remind us that what looks perfect to us may not be perfect in fact. Any idea we might entertain that a perfect God, if that God exists, would 'not allow' our perceptions to fail us stands falsified by the experience. We do not apprehend reality perfectly.To say your English spelling is 'Perfect for a Franglais' is to get silly with the word 'perfect.' Instead of talking about English spelling 'perfection' the way the consensus has it, you define the word 'perfect' to mean whatever you want it to mean in order to get the result you want.As long as everyone can do this, there is nothing to argue. GIA's universe is perfect by definition, because GIA has already defined the word perfect to mean 'the way things are.' Others say the universe is imperfect. They are also correct by definition. They define the word perfect as 'meeting all the requirements of a standard.' Between standards and realities a discrepancies can exist, as in the case of misspellings. So they are also right.Until a consensus is reached on the definition of 'perfect' there is nothing to argue.The problem for you, GIA, is that a consensus does exist. You just choose not to be part of it. You use a custom definition that gets the results you want--one that no consensus exists for--and end up talking to yourself, making 'just so' statements that go nowhere. Sorry, wrong number.It is you who have yet to respond to the meat of my words. I made an accurate observation about your spelling that served as the basis for an argument. You have played the victim and ignored the argument.Please address it. If so, it is you who run. Send me a wire when you are ready to discuss the issues I have raised.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

This is very pretty, GIA, but you have yet to address the point I made: that your 'perfect universe' remains a fiat of your own definition.Introducing 'the uncertainty principle' just blows the whistle on your own game. It's a puff of fog that lets you have your perfection and imperfection both at once, just as others do. You may then wait for a certain God to bring certainty just as others wait for a perfect God to bring perfection.In both cases, people seek completion of what now seems partial. It's the same idea. Observe.GIA:

The only clear consensus I see is Christians, waiting for a God who by definition is Perfect, and can only create Perfect universes, to return to fix what ain't broke.

GIA paraphrased (replacing 'perfect' with 'certain'):

The only clear consensus I see is Christians, waiting for a God who by definition is Certain, and can only create Certain universes, to return to fix what ain't broke.

Six of one and half a dozen. You might as well argue:

This reality that a god would have to see as Certain, if He was a God of merit, would need to include things like the imperfection principle to keep something for future generations to occupy their time.

You will have said as much.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Ah. So you agree there are 'imperfections' that a perfect God 'allows.'You and the other side now agee. Thank you for your candor--and for playing.Group hug. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning