Has "god" created anything perfect?

I doubt we ever will what with decay and all.

Hmm,

 

I like the question, but it is so vague. 

 

Its seems to be in the eye of the beholder.  I can "refer" to something as perfect, but in what sense.  Acting perfect, Looking perfect, tasting perfect.....get my drift.....

Thoughts, music, art.....all appeal to the individual, do perfection can be debated and disrciminated, like the old saying goes....."ones man's trash, another man's treasure...."

 

Can anything truly exists without flaws?

 

Xtrians would say that perfection would be God, and his Son Jesus, because they are without sin.......being without sin is the "perfect" in question in that rite.

But that can't be true because babies are born without ever committing a sin.......so what does that imply?

 

Creation seems to be the practical application of thought and the power to shape mass and energy repsectively according to one's will.  However, this implies that in order for creation to exist, there is the never ending cycle of what created God....and what came before God....and so on.  Creationists from the very begginning negate their own belief by saying...." I believe in creation, but the god I believe in was always just there".........Logical Fallacy. 

 

We simply just do not know.....

 

Thanks for making me think, hope any of this rambling made sense to you.

 

mr. O

 

 

 

 

Me

All of creation awaited the arrival of man . It continued to wait as he learned  to cultivate and harvest. MAn combined the fruits of his harvest and in so doing created the prefect scotch whiskey.

Ok so man created whiskey first then refined it to perfection as scotch.Then he tried rye whiskey and said that every thing is perfectly what it is. Line all three up bartender.  That is a very good point that I really haven't spent time thinking about. It points to 2 thousand years of unresolved philosophy and the question why? In classical Greek and in the bible the word for perfection is teleon. It really meant finished. We get another philosophy from it called teleology.  A perfect trip is one where you arrive at your destination whether you had two flat tires or not.

Even the concept of 'perfection' is itself imperfect, for the reasons you lay out here.

I maintain that we have not a single example of anything that is perfectly perfect.

One question to ask the theist is: Perfect in what way? If you really think about it (try this), for any example of being perfect in X way, you can always come up with a way in which being perfect in X automatically makes it imperfect in Y way. Perfectly enormous is too big to fit in my pocket, so it's imperfectly small.

To be 'perfect' in some way is to lack any flaw in that way. To be perfectly perfect would be to lack any flaws in any way at all. But this is logically impossible, because different 'ways of being' are directly contradictory to each other.

Since it is impossible to be perfectly perfect, then the concept of 'perfection' itself lacks the ability to specify itself perfectly, and so is imperfect.

The kind of perfection theists seek is not possible, and has never once been observed. Their 'god' remains an imperfect human conception.

Interesting point you make, Natural.

There are categories of ideas which we can conceive of only by implication, via other 'ideas', and 'Perfect' would be one of those, I think. The other idea being the idea of exact correspondence to whatever a thing is supposed to be a 'perfect' instance of.

Another would be 'infinite', which we can imagine directly even less than 'perfection'.

I can realistically approximate in my head the idea of a 'perfect' circle, ie with all parts of the circumference being equidistant from the center, the limitation there being that I cannot really conceive of a true geometric 'point'. Or for that matter, a geometric line.

 

 

Well, the most perfect thing in the world is the 6L6 vacuum tube, which is made all the more perfect by the existence of the also perfect 12AX7 vacuum tube. Those and Balvenie double wood (thanks for that TG, I might have missed the implication otherwise).

 

 

However, that brings up the question of what we even mean by perfect. If something can be “most perfect” then can some change bring it to even greater perfection? If so, then how was it perfect before? Obviously, 6L6's are better when they are matched for a single DC voltage. Or not. Some people go out of their way to run a mismatched pair because it forces an otherwise class A amp to run in class B.

 

And yes, I am being deliberately obtuse. Still, perfection would have to be defined in some measurable way in order to even make a claim. Even if you had that to work with, how could you be sure that something was not imperfect but in a way that is below the threshold of being measurably imperfect?

Calvados, because it can be consumed as an apéritif or a digestif, or in between courses.

DAMN IT is there no end of debating. Must we even bring it into the sacred Halls of Gear Worship. I kinda go with Buddy Guy and B.B. King (may his name be honored) . Guy last I saw was using CyberTwin. I forget what B.B. uses but has preferred the solid state sound

 

Ah Tommy, try the Sovtek brand for tubes. The newer stuff is hit or miss for quality and you may have to go through a few of them to get the right match. If you get a good deal on the NOS stuff, grab it while you can as they were military graded.

 

Off topic but military gear often uses tubes as transistors die in a xray flash. Tubes can still work after being nuked.

 

Apart from that, groovetubes stuff is pricey but worthwhile if you are not playing every day. They also come with a bias number in the 1-10 range so that matching is much easier.

 

Past that, here is the amp part of my gear list:

 

Hartke 120x15 combo. It is a heavy SOB and made heavier because someone before me changed the speaker to one that is heavier than spec.

 

Hartke 500 watt head@4ohms. Played into a Genz-Benz 4ohm 2x12 cab.

 

Marshall MG 30 series as the grab-and-go unit. I got lucky on that one as it happened to have an undocumented 12 inch speaker. Even the web site does not mention anything other than a 10 inch unit. Bought new, so I know that it is not a change.

 

Also, I have one of the old brown faced GrooveTubes Trio preamps. I don't have the MIDI board for it though. Just the foot switch. Not that that is a huge problem.

 

If you are curious about matters, I would point you at “The Tube Amp Book” by Pittman Aspen, the owner of Groove Tubes. It has all the science behind tubes that you may never need unless you are trying to build your own gear. It also has the schematics for a couple of hundred specific amps.

 

If you ever find a deal on a silver face Fender you will really want that book as it has the instructions for restoring it to the pre-CBS black face version.

 I was created by a man and a woman....

And look how that turned out.

100% correct.

Tubes are also still the most linear electronic signal devices ever invented (AFAIK).

 

I was jess messin' wit ya.

There's no 'perfect' tone.

 

I forget the chronology, but I believe the first 100 W Marshalls were EL 34 output tubes, and later came the KT 88's, and the 6L6's came in the 800 series.

I have 3 vintage Marshall tops.

1969 JMP 100W Super Lead (Model 1959)

1978? JCM 800 Lead Series 100W (Model 1959)

1974? JMP Mk II 50 W (Model 1989?)

 

Only my 800 series is a 6L6 output tube. My older JMP's are EL 34's.

If I had to choose just one, it would be the '69 Super Lead.

 

Marshall's first amp, the JTM 45, was basically a clone of a Fender Bassman.

The legend goes that Leo Fender didn't care about sound when he commissioned his first amp designs. His 'mandate' was that an amp be designed around all the surplus tubes and transformers from WWII that were overflowing in warehouses in California. They couldn't give the stuff away.   He was quoted as saying he could buy a case of tubes for 10 cents.

Talent, Baby!

Talent!

Lol, no I'm not from Texas.

 

Just about!

Apparently, Aspen Pittman's 'Purple Marshall'...

 

A number of players have borrowed it to record with, and have begged to buy it from him, but to no avail.

 

Back on topic...

 

I made the same case for the 'unlimited' attribute for a god.

Being unlimited is not a 'positive' attribute. It's a 'dimensionless' quality.

It sounds impressive, but it's actually a negative quality, and utterly useless way to demonstrate how anything 'works'.

It's completely paradoxical, and self refuting, because it's infinitely constructive and deconstructive at the same time, or infinitely positive and negative at the same time, or infinitely small and large at the same time, infinitely weak and strong etc, etc...

Which is essentially explaining, 'n o t h i n g'.

Just rhetoric.

Pure eff'n rhetoric and hyperbole.

SPICE file on that Bob?

Man created WoW. Perfection achieved.

 

you mmorpg sickos... i don't even want to be in hell with you

se si capisse qualcosa di quello che scrivi ti risponderei

^that's what i understood

I haven't logged on to WoW in a few weeks so there is something wrong lol.

1)no, it means that even trying to understand the meaning in that way I still don't understand it. 2)What has chuck norris to do with world of warcraft?

I offset chuck with bruce campbell at times in barrens chat.

hey girl, how come now you hang about here? you have work to do! this is the point:

I think that if you want it loud you could take a solid state lead distortion into a class a (it needs good pickups), but if you want it very messy try distortion a vintage cab with low frequencies (<400Hz, before the distortion) turned up!
For me the "feel" tone means +20/+30 dB in high frequencies, a little compression (absolutely not needed) or saturation, then amplify into a limiter: you can control in this way the distortion and so the richness of the tone simply with the velocity (pressure) of the notes (it's important with a setting like this to lower the high tones of the guitar, I use 3/10, and try all the pickup cfgs). But really I'm a drummer, so I play guitar just for experimenting.
Now, who's the fool that claims that tubes are the most linearestest devices? I'll show you where you have to shove you 2nd harmonic distortion! Smiling I mean, transistors are so linear they are almost ideal... where do you live? valve-landia?

Back on the tracks: the argument is very simple: "atheists are wrong" because if the "order" is always man made (like all the inventions and stuff), then we (ordered matter) "must" "come" from something superior. I'm sure there has been incalculable threads dedicated to this ugly (like in "stupid" and "fallacious&quot way of thinking. What follows is that man is incapable of perfection and only gods (eventually the biblical god) are. I think theists for the most part think of pragmatical perfection, but I can't say. What I was asking for was your precedent experiences with this type of discourse.

"Has "god" created anything perfect?" - "Humans and all the stuff that surrounds them" (that probably doesn't deserve a discussion)
"I like the question, but it is so vague. " - I know.
"'Perfection' exists only as a concept." - that's what i always said
"Since it is impossible to be perfectly perfect, ..." haha I don't know if you have ever read catholic dogmatics (systhematic theology), but I guarantee this is in for a laugh!
"In what way are atheist's wrong?" - hope i've explained better
"I was created by a man and a woman...." - yeah, that recalls one of the most important points: "all the things man invented come from something that was existing before"; more on this later
"Tubes are also still the most linear electronic signal devices ever invented" - hah it was you, the tubes-gurgler; but i see your prejudicies: your name in reverse is Fender, I can see through your lies...
"PS turn it to 11" - then you must own a particular brand of combos. I know only one or two that goes to 11...

"all the things man invented come from something that was existing before", which means so that order cannot be formed from non-order, or that life cannot come from non-life: this very common, I mean this should not be new to people in this forum? anyway it's stupid because to argue about that you have to define what life is, so noone goes happily thereafter.

the second point, the definition of 'perfection', has been discussed, but what i maybe did not underlined enough is point 1: man cannot create, only elohim (and their brothers) "does".


 

I know I posted it two times, but it's because bad things happen and so people start talking on everything *not* related to the thread.
About the chain: you have to pay attention. On the first, solid state->class a (single ended), you need a biiig distortion, at least 40dB to 60dB: at that point the pickups cfg doesn't really matter anymore Smiling. For the other, bass+distortion+vintage cab, it's very important to check the lowest high-pass, because 1)you risk hearing the picking a lot & 2)some fx/heads have a high-pass on their own (often at ~200Hz), so you have to try. I actually listened this on some songs, incredible. The last, highs+saturation, is hard to do without a graphic eq. The point is equing from 0Hz/+0dB to 20KHz/+30dB, a straight line. Old strings also are useful because they are mellow.

Are you a mosfet lover? Do you *complicate* your life with mosfets?
Class D ampli are obviously not for coloring the sound. That's the great thing: generalize, dividi et impera. By the way, you can always use a valve preamp or any other effect. I've never heard how a class D sounds, but if they are so efficient and small, then welcome.

I know of the 11 thing, like I know it's just a number printed on a label. Also I've tried a peavey (and I like them). But I'm not a brand-lover: a lot of cabs use the same celestion speakers. Eq a little and you will ever need another cab.

Hey, wish me luck: I just registered on cattoliciromani.com (like to say romancatholics.com) to spread the atheist word. Countdown to the permaban: 10...9...8...

 

www.chucknorrisfacts.com