Near perfect existence

[Chriliman]

In this forum I would like to engage honest atheists in a conversation about near perfect existence. I would like honest atheists to describe their versions of what near perfect existence would or should be like.

If you're an honest theist, I'd like you to just observe this thread as objectively as possible because a truth will be demonstrated eventually. I would ask that the first honest person (either atheist or theist) who observes the demonstrated truth to then at that time comment and reveal what the truth is that will be demonstrated.

Understand I'm making a prediction that a truth will be demonstrated through this forum, if my prediction is correct anyone is welcome verify by conducting a similar thread in an attempt to falsify the demonstrated truth.

So I'm asking all atheists to describe their ideas about what near perfect existence could or should be like, that is if you even believe near perfect existence is achievable by humans.

Thanks!

 

[Freodin]

There nothing like a "near" perfect existence. There only is "perfect existence". But it cannot be "achieved". It exists.

 

[Chriliman]

There nothing like a "near" perfect existence. There only is "perfect existence". But it cannot be "achieved". It exists.

Okay, so describe what you think perfect existence would be like.

 

[Freodin]

Okay, so describe what you think perfect existence would be like.

Anything that exists. (I have that nagging feeling that we are not quite on the same level regarding the term "existence". )

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do you mean "what would your best possible life be like (living in the world we live in now)?"
Or "What would the best possible society look like?"
Or "What would the best possible human organism be like?"
Or something else?

Your question is not clear to me.

 

[Chriliman]

Anything that exists. (I have that nagging feeling that we are not quite on the same level regarding the term "existence". )

I'm trying to get a better understanding of how you would solve the issues that humans face in existence.

You seem to be implying that the existence of humans is perfect, but I don't want to put words in your mouth, is this what you're saying?

 

[Chriliman]

Do you mean "what would your best possible life be like (living in the world we live in now)?"
Or "What would the best possible society look like?"
Or "What would the best possible human organism be like?"
Or something else?

Your question is not clear to me.

Yes to all.

"What would your best possible life be like (living in the world we live in now)?"

"What would the best possible society look like?"

"What would the best possible human organism be like?"

 

[Freodin]

I'm trying to get a better understanding of how you would solve the issues that humans face in existence.

I still don't thing our understanding of "existence" is quite the same.
As I see it, there isn't any issue that humans face "in existence". They exist... or the don't.

You seem to be implying that the existence of humans is perfect, but I don't want to put words in your mouth, is this what you're saying?

Basically... yes.

"What would your best possible life be like (living in the world we live in now)?"

"What would the best possible society look like?"

"What would the best possible human organism be like?"

All very interesting questions. Not related to "(near) perfect existence" as I see it, but interesting.

My answers to these questions would vary between "There isn't any." to "Depends on your idea of 'best'".

 

[Eudaimonist]

In this forum I would like to engage honest atheists in a conversation about near perfect existence.

Near perfect for what purpose? How "near" is near enough?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

Near perfect for what purpose? How "near" is near enough?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Basically, can you imagine an existence involving yourself and others, where you could coexist without any problems anywhere in existence?

 

[Chriliman]

I still don't thing our understanding of "existence" is quite the same.
As I see it, there isn't any issue that humans face "in existence". They exist... or the don't.

Lets try to remain objective and not assume one another's understandings of existence. My understanding of existence is that I currently exist and I observe things that are not perfect, therefore, I don't think I currently exist in a perfect reality.

What you seem to be implying is that you understand that you also exist and that you think you exist in a perfect reality. Again, if I'm wrong, please clarify.

 

[Freodin]

Lets try to remain objective and not assume one another's understandings of existence. My understanding of existence is that I currently exist and I observe things that are not perfect, therefore, I don't think I currently exist in a perfect reality.

I'd like to object (pun intended) here: you observe things that you consider to not be perfect.

Eudaimonist has already asked the question: perfect... for what purpose?

If you have an objective standard for "perfection", I'd like to see it. You already mentioned one thing "no problems". I would disagree on several counts here: neither is "no problems" an objective measurement of "perfection", nor do I think that such an "existence" is possible.

What you seem to be implying is that you understand that you also exist and that you think you exist in a perfect reality. Again, if I'm wrong, please clarify.

Yes, you understand that correctly.

 

[Chriliman]

I'd like to object (pun intended) here: you observe things that you consider to not be perfect.

Eudaimonist has already asked the question: perfect... for what purpose?

If you have an objective standard for "perfection", I'd like to see it. You already mentioned one thing "no problems". I would disagree on several counts here: neither is "no problems" an objective measurement of "perfection", nor do I think that such an "existence" is possible.

Yes, you understand that correctly.

So your understanding of perfect reality, involves things that are not good, like for instance problems that cause bad feelings, like sorrow?

For discussion sake, I would like to define perfect as the following: having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

So existence that is nearly perfect, would always have the possibility of becoming more perfect. Do you think society can become nearly perfect? If not why not?

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, you understand that correctly.

Since you think you exist in a perfect reality, does this mean you yourself are perfect? If not, how is your reality perfect if an imperfect being exists in it?

 

[Chriliman]

Near perfect for what purpose? How "near" is near enough?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Near perfect for the purpose of peaceful coexistence with other beings.

 

[Freodin]

So your understanding of perfect reality, involves things that are not good, like for instance problems that cause bad feelings, like sorrow?

No, and this is where we differ. My understandung of "perfect reality" involves only one thing: existence. Things that are "not good" exist: therefore they are part of the perfect existence. A "reality" that doesn't include things that are "not good" does not exist: therefore it is not a "perfect existence".

For discussion sake, I would like to define perfect as the following: having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

So existence that is nearly perfect, would always have the possibility of becoming more perfect. Do you think society can become nearly perfect? If not why not?

For discussion sake: I understand your position, even if I disagree with it. I have to say that I still find your definition a little lacking: you don't have presented an objective standard for "goodness", nor have given evidence that such a standard even exists.

But using your definition: yes, I think that it is possible of society, life, human organisms to become "(nearly) perfect".

 

[Freodin]

Since you think you exist in a perfect reality, does this mean you yourself are perfect? If not, how is your reality perfect if an imperfect being exists in it?

You will forgive me if I use my own definition of "perfect existence" again instead of yours.

Yes, I do think that I am (exist) perfect(ly). Imperfect "beings" do not exist.

 

[Chriliman]

No, and this is where we differ. My understandung of "perfect reality" involves only one thing: existence. Things that are "not good" exist: therefore they are part of the perfect existence. A "reality" that doesn't include things that are "not good" does not exist: therefore it is not a "perfect existence".

In order to define your current reality as perfect, wouldn't you yourself have to be perfect?

For discussion sake: I understand your position, even if I disagree with it. I have to say that I still find your definition a little lacking: you don't have presented an objective standard for "goodness", nor have given evidence that such a standard even exists.

I understand that I can't be perfectly objective, therefore, its reasonable for me to claim that I can't possibly produce evidence for an objective standard of perfect goodness.

But using your definition: yes, I think that it is possible of society, life, human organisms to become "(nearly) perfect".

So what do you think a society should do in order to function as a nearly perfect society? What basic functions would it establish in order to become nearly perfect?

 

[Freodin]

In order to define your current reality as perfect, wouldn't you yourself have to be perfect?

Not under your definition.

I understand that I can't be perfectly objective, therefore, its reasonable for me to claim that I can't possibly produce evidence for an objective standard of perfect goodness.

So if you were to present a concept of "perfection", would it be reasonable for me to contradict you?

So what do you think a society should do in order to function as a nearly perfect society? What basic functions would it establish in order to become nearly perfect?

Think (original Marxian) communism. It presents the concept of a (nearly) perfect society.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes to all.

"What would your best possible life be like (living in the world we live in now)?"

"What would the best possible society look like?"

"What would the best possible human organism be like?"

It's really hard to say. Lots of people will have different ideals. And when we get toward the extremes, it's no longer realistic or possible or free from contradiction."

I'd like to be able to shapechange into a housecat and run around for a bit and catch a bird. I probably wouldn't want to be the bird, though.

I'd like to be able to eat as I liked without affecting my perfect (for me) figure. And I'd only poop once a month, but it would always be one of those really satisfying poops.

There would be no want or disease. These things are practically impossible.

People would live, hearty and hale, as long as they liked. And when they got tired of it all, they could stop living.

All children would be wanted. And if longer lifespans caused a population explosion, the earth would expand so there was more room for everyone.

Everyone would have an excellent baloney-detector.

Robots would perform any menial tasks that nobody else wanted to do. And the robots would find it very satisfying (to the extent that they can experience satisfaction).

Adam Sandler would be prevented from making films.

People would not care about what other people did in their bedrooms.

Space travel would be cheap and simple and fast, so there would always be new places to go, new worlds to explore.

"I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, freedom of choice. I'm the kind if guy who would sit in the greasy spoon and think "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the big rack of Barbecued spare ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I *want* high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, butter and buckets of cheese alright? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinatti in a non-smoking section. I wanna run around naked with green jell-o all over my body reading a Playboy magazine. Why? Because maybe I feel the need to okay pal?"

I could continue the laundry list, but I don't see the point. Most of it is a fantasy.