Is God Perfect?

[lunchforthesky]

To save Perpetual Burn the hassle of posting this on every page of the Christianity Thread i'll make a new thread.

Consider This:

God is perfect.
Perfection necessitates the absence of limitation.
Desire implies limitation.
Absence of desire negates ability of action.
Therefore, a perfect god could not act.
Therefore, God did not create the Universe.

Or alternatively

If God is perfect then by definiton he is only capable of perfection.
Yet Humans are imperfect.
The ability to create something imperfect requires imperfection.
Therefore God cannot be perfect and have created Man at the same time.

Any of our resident religious folk care to solve these problems??

[Eliminator]

one time he asked me if he looked fat in his new blouse and i was like "no god you look just fine it's perfect" and he didn't believe me

[lunchforthesky]

God wears a blouse?

[Eliminator]

well that was his experimentation period every deity goes thru it

[PerpetualBurn]

This thread carries the official PerpetualBurn stamp of approval.

[-1up!-]

To save Perpetual Burn the hassle of posting this on every page of the Christianity Thread i'll make a new thread.

Consider This:

God is perfect.
Perfection necessitates the absence of limitation.
Desire implies limitation.
Absence of desire negates ability of action.
Therefore, a perfect god could not act.
Therefore, God did not create the Universe.

Or alternatively

If God is perfect then by definiton he is only capable of perfection.
Yet Humans are imperfect.
The ability to create something imperfect requires imperfection.
Therefore God cannot be perfect and have created Man at the same time.

Any of our resident religious folk care to solve these problems??


Nice! On a logical level, both arguments are rock-solid, especially the second. But remember... Proof can be made that God is not perfect in a rational argument, but Christians like to run for that good old cop-out : "God works in mysterious ways"! Therefore declaring that if he exists, God stands outside the realm of logic. But if God exists outside the realm of logic and reason, we can assume that God is irrational. Using these 2 arguments to propose that God can't be perfect, we can also propose God is imperfect and irrational. In that case, if he exists, why should he be cared about?

[Iskandar]

I don't see how "the ability to create something imperfect requries imperfection."

[PerpetualBurn]

How can the perfect make a mistake? It must be made exactly as they chose.

[Iskandar]

How can the perfect make a mistake? It must be made exactly as they chose.
What if imperfection is exactly what they chose?

[peeted]

why cant something perfect create something imperfect?

perfection is merely a subjective human value judgement wich, supposing there was a god shurley it would transcend mere human values.

[PerpetualBurn]

What if imperfection is exactly what they chose?

If it's exactly as the perfect chose it to be, then it follows that it too is perfect. It's following the perfect design of the perfect creator. It's exactly as it was meant to be.

How is it imperfect?

[griftadan]

The ability to create something imperfect requires imperfection.

this doesn't make any sense.

[Iskandar]

How is it imperfect?
To me, it seems your argument is saying, If it's exactly as the creator intended, it's perfect. Is this what constitutes perfection, then?

If it does, then you're absolutely right.

[griftadan]

debating "perfection" in an abstract sense with no context at all always struck me as ridiculous.

[PerpetualBurn]

Well I think the term perfect in the second argument is too vague and contentious, but essentially it is saying "anything that a perfect thing does is perfect by definition".

It was the first one that I wrote in the Christianity thread.

[lunchforthesky]

Well it is common theology that everything God does is flawless, therefore he could never make anything imperfect as everything he does is perfect simply because it is God's will that it happens (although that steps on the toes of the first statement).

A perfect being cannot fail to be perfect in everything he does and so is incapable of imperfection, which it is claimed humanity is.

[shaqadelic]

Pseudo philosophical discussion ITT.

If a perfect Creator can't create something that has flaws, then that Creator is not perfect.

[spitfirejunky]

The problem with this reasoning is that it tries to put God's omnipotence within the bounds of logic. And even if we defined omnipotence as being able to do anything within the bounds of logic, we've pretty much limited omnipotence in the same way that desire would limit it.

That aside, I'm going to take a swing at it anyway:

Absence of desire negates ability of action.

Here you assumed that desire exists, right?

[spitfirejunky]

Pseudo philosophical discussion ITT.

If a perfect Creator can't create something that has flaws, then that creator is not perfect.

Self-contradictory claim.

If a perfect creator can't not be perfect, then that creator is not perfect.

[Der Übermensch]

God cannot create a imperfect thing accidentally. However, he can create one purposefully.

[shaqadelic]

^^^

Good point.

If a perfect creator can't not be perfect, then that creator is not perfect.

Who to say flaws make something imperfect? The best art piece in the world people call perfect masterpiece has flaws in them.

[Amit]

that's like saying who says something has to be red to make it red :-X

[spitfirejunky]

There are many problems with explaining the trait of perfection.

If perfection is the lack of flaws, then a universe that's changing may result in having an action or trait that was once a flaw no longer be a flaw. As such, a perfect being must be one that changes with the universe.

[PerpetualBurn]

I think my argument was better because I defined perfection in a reasonable way.

But people are ignoring it.

[spitfirejunky]

I acknowledged that definition for this discussion. I just felt I needed to post that for shaq.

Anyways, are you gonna address my post on the first page?

[PerpetualBurn]

Must've missed it.


Here you assumed that desire exists, right?

Yes.

[spitfirejunky]

So essentially you believe that a sentient being must have desire in order to act, right?

These questions are kinda retarded, but they're necessary just to keep things in perspective. I'll continue when I get back from comp-sci.

[PerpetualBurn]

Absence of desire negates ability of action.

I appreciate if you want to take a questioning approach to the argument rather than a direct one, but the answer to that question is already in the argument as an explicit premise.

[lunchforthesky]

Here you assumed that desire exists, right?

Well you cant act without desire.

[shaqadelic]

spitfirejunky

I don't agree that perfection lacks flaws neither do I agree flaws are needed in something to make it perfect.

Well I think the term perfect in the second argument is too vague and contentious, but essentially it is saying "anything that a perfect thing does is perfect by definition".


Using this definition, I don't agree that human were created imperfect, but instead we were created with flaws just like God intended so in that sense we are 'perfect'.

Thus in this case, we can only be imperfect if God intended to create human with flaws but we ended up flawless.

That's how I view it.

(forgive me if my English is not clear enough) :)

[lunchforthesky]

So essentially you believe that a sentient being must have desire in order to act, right?

These questions are kinda retarded, but they're necessary just to keep things in perspective. I'll continue when I get back from comp-sci.

But its not retarded to think that same sentient being has eternal love for us all :rolleyes:

[Sepstrup]

^^^

Good point.



Who to say flaws make something imperfect? The best art piece in the world people call perfect masterpiece has flaws in them.

My thesaurus says so. Flawless, perfect... You know.

[lunchforthesky]

Who to say flaws make something imperfect? The best art piece in the world people call perfect masterpiece has flaws in them.

Oh come on, you know that when we desribe art as a masterpiece its nothing like desribing god as perfect.

God is supposed to be more perfect than you could ever sufficiently describe, everyhting he does is the absolute pinnacle of achievement that could possibly of occured.

[shaqadelic]

My thesaurus says so. Flawless, perfect... You know.

Yeah, but thesaurus don't have philosophical discussions, much less one edging pseudo realm.

Oh come on, you know that when we desribe art as a masterpiece its nothing like desribing god as perfect.

Well, it may be different but it comes back to the vague and contentious nature of 'perfection', that was I was trying to address.

[lunchforthesky]

Not really, perfection is an overused/misused word but in the literal sense God is perfection.

[shaqadelic]

Well some might argue that by sending people to hell, God is not the perfect forgiver and etc.

But for me, I believe God is perfect. I was referring to human in that previous post.

[lunchforthesky]

No because its not a test it doesnt work like that, its not for us to question his perfection in a theologians view, God cannot help but achieve perfection regardless of what his actions are.

Which in my opinion negates his ability to achieve imperfection and so humans cannot be imperfect and God be perfect.

[ringworm]

i feel like whether you're for/against "God", why cant we just simply sit back & marvel at what we really are?

a collective "body" made up of materials that the rest of the universe also shares

mammals on a rock hurdling through space on a near perfect orbit to sustain life, inside trillions of other "masses" all composed in a seemingly infinite vaccum of space

How could you get bored thinking of that & how easily a few alterations in orbit or many other variables could have easily passed us by? :)

[shaqadelic]

lunchforthesky

By this view, I don't agree that human were created imperfect, but instead we were created with flaws just like God intended so in that sense we are 'perfect'.

Thus in this case, we can only be imperfect if God intended to create human with flaws but we ended up flawless.

That's how I view it.

[lunchforthesky]

because thats how bad things happen. Yes our very existence is amazing but we shouldnt sit back we should seek to find out more about the truth of how we came to be hear and how we can improve life for everyone.

[lunchforthesky]

lunchforthesky

By this view, I don't agree that human were created imperfect, but instead we were created with flaws just like God intended so in that sense we are 'perfect'.

Thus in this case, we can only be imperfect if God intended to create human with flaws but we ended up flawless.

That's how I view it.

That contradicts mainstream rleigious views but regardless.

Care to shed light on Perpetual Burn's Paradox?

[shaqadelic]

But religious view don't use Perpetual Burn's definition on God's perfection. In fact many religions warn (not prohibit) believers of trying to figure out the characteristic of God without being an authority of the religion because you may just end up confusing yourself.

His paradox doesn't click with me because God has successfully created us with flaws, so He is a perfect creator and we are perfectly the way He intended us to be so in that sense, we are perfect or more accurately 'perfectly flawed'.

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't see how any other definition of perfection can be used.

[lunchforthesky]

Oh theyd love that wouldnt they, And also id love for religious nut jobs to stay the hell away from science but it just doesnt work like that now does it. If someone if trying to teach people that the world was created in 7 days then im not going to like it. Also its part of being human and not an animal or general retard to question things and want to pursue the truth.

Erm PB's is the top one and says nothing about perfection.

[shaqadelic]

Er, he gave the definition of perfection concerning God.

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14078434&postcount=15

And also id love for religious nut jobs to stay the hell away from science but it just doesnt work like that now does it.

Maybe in Christianity fundies. But other religions do accept and encourage pursue of science and education/knowledge in general, Islam for example.

[lunchforthesky]

Only when it doesnt tread on the toes of religion (the same can be said of christian fundies), as soon as it does there not happy.

[PerpetualBurn]

In the first argument, the one that I wrote, I was defining perfection as the absence of limitation.

[shaqadelic]

lunchforthesky

Well, as far as I know in Islam, science is encouraged but materialistic conclusions are not.

Oh well, but we are going off topic now. Well I think I have said my views on this thread, hopefully it was clear enough.

In the first argument, the one that I wrote, I was defining perfection as the absence of limitation.

Alright.

[lunchforthesky]

What evidence do you actually have/why do you belive god is perfect? Nothing else is perfect in the Universe so why would you think God something there is no evidence for is something nothing else in the universe can be.

[peeted]

Only when it doesnt tread on the toes of religion (the same can be said of christian fundies), as soon as it does there not happy.

I think you will find that most none fundamental religious groups are fairly accepting of science. People get a disproportionate view of these things because its the fundamentalists who make all the noise.

[PerpetualBurn]

What evidence do you actually have/why do you belive god is perfect? Nothing else is perfect in the Universe so why would you think God something there is no evidence for is something nothing else in the universe can be.

This is kind of irrelevant really. I can't disprove the existence of a perfect being outside of the Universe, but I think I've logically demonstrated that such a being couldn't have created the Universe.

[lunchforthesky]

I agree.

[shaqadelic]

Like many believers, I don't have any 'material evidence' that would convince you or that you would accept.

On the contrary, by your view I think the universe is perfect, it allows us to exist when that is so improbable in the first place (if you accept the Big Bang theory).

[lunchforthesky]

But their is a massive leap between the universe being perfect in your view and the the bible (which unlike the universe is a human creation) being true. Yet little evidencial justification for that leap, so why make it?

[shaqadelic]

Who says I follow the Bible?

[peeted]

Who says I follow the Bible?

unless your a stead fast atheist people on hear seem to assume your a christian fundamentalist.

[lunchforthesky]

Your either with us or against us :p

joking.

[shaqadelic]

Yeah. haha. I am gonna take a nap now.

[sexymuffin]

the first argument is more solid than the second becuase the world could be viewed as perfect in all it's imperfections. People are imperfect but the imperfections are what makes us strive to work towards something greater. The good and evil in the world balance one another out perfectly and give people a full life, full of abstinence and indulgence.

[lunchforthesky]

The world wasnt desinged for our benifit we have adapted to it so i dont understand your point.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

i feel like whether you're for/against "God", why cant we just simply sit back & marvel at what we really are?

a collective "body" made up of materials that the rest of the universe also shares

mammals on a rock hurdling through space on a near perfect orbit to sustain life, inside trillions of other "masses" all composed in a seemingly infinite vaccum of space

How could you get bored thinking of that & how easily a few alterations in orbit or many other variables could have easily passed us by? :)

That's a veyr athiestic philosophy


what riles us is the christian insistance on trying to find all purpose in a logically-exempt superbeing

[spitfirejunky]

I appreciate if you want to take a questioning approach to the argument rather than a direct one, but the answer to that question is already in the argument as an explicit premise.

Well you cant act without desire.

I try to make these things clear now so we don't go on a 4 page battle about semantics. And any philosophical discussion necessitates that these things be made clear in the beginning just as a point of reference. Moving on...

So can non-sentient beings act without desire?

[lunchforthesky]

Well God in the bible regualarly wills something to happen as does every other God in any religion im aware of therefore yes God desires things to happen.

[sexymuffin]

The world wasnt desinged for our benifit we have adapted to it so i dont understand your point.

my point is in all its beauties and turmoils, the world is absolutely perfect. We have overpopulation problems and then omg a flu comes through and kills a bunch of people. The ones that survive are seen as people who adapt by atheists, but theists may see this as a deity using an epidemic like this to keep the population down.

it's very simple, you see

[lunchforthesky]

It doesnt really work like that. When the plague killed a third of Europe was their overpopulation, no not really.

[sexymuffin]

^the plauge could be seen as a necessary evil to move us forward. by giving humans a crippling blow, they are forced to press on with science etc to create cleaner living conditions and a better way of living.


what riles us is the christian insistance on trying to find all purpose in a logically-exempt superbeing

that doesn't rile me, what riles me about christians is when they're policies begin to dictate how i live and their only real argument is "because God says so"

otherwise, let them be illogical idiots

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

^the plauge could be seen as a necessary evil to move us forward. by giving humans a crippling blow, they are forced to press on with science etc to create cleaner living conditions and a better way of living.



that doesn't rile me, what riles me about christians is when they're policies begin to dictate how i live and their only real argument is "because God says so"

otherwise, let them be illogical idiots

describe your beliefs in a sentence pls

[Rabbi]

There's no yes or no answer to this question. If we said yes then we'd be religious conservatives and if we said know we'd be endlessly explaining ourselves to the conservatives why their is no God. There is no God.

[matt_h]

Even though we are made in his image, he is not like us. He is not human, his logic is different from ours. He is beyond our understanding of logic, perfection, everything. Therefore I dont know if he's completely perfect, it is different points of view really, because it isnt something we are meant to comprehend.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Even though we are made in his image, he is not like us. He is not human, his logic is different from ours. He is beyond our understanding of logic, perfection, everything. Therefore I dont know if he's completely perfect, it is different points of view really, because it isnt something we are meant to comprehend.

If i was god i wouldn't do that to people

I don't believe that god could be so great a scientist and mathematician to design the universe as it is AND also make people so curious as they are and then for a man who understands science and created curiosity to be all "no understanding for you"

[sexymuffin]

describe your beliefs in a sentence pls

on what issue?

[Electronic Wolf]

God has to exist to be perfect.

[Smokey D]

If God exists outside of time, then He cannot desire. The sum of the universe's experience is no different to a being outside of time than the first iteration. They would be experienced at the same time. Let's assume God did make the universe and that therefore its ultimate conclusion would be perfect. If the experience of the conclusion of the universe is no different to the experience of the beginning (as it would be for a being outside time), then how could there be a lack of perfection in that first instance, given it is the same as a perfect ending.



Or, let us assume that God is perfect. In addition to this attribute of perfection, we often ascribe God the attribute of infinity. Together, these make God infinitely perfect.

One of the characteristics of infinity is that the sum of any finite number deducted from infinity is still infinite (∞ - x = ∞ where x =! ∞). All relevant scientific information informs us that the universe is finite (according to the laws of thermodynamics). Every relevant theological source tells us that the Creation is imperfect (from the Bible and subsequent theologians). Assuming these to be true, the universe is therefore both finite and imperfect. It is a finite imperfection.

If we deduct this finite imperfection from God's infinite perfection, we are still left with an infinite amount of perfection (as per ∞ - x = ∞ where x =! ∞). The finite imperfection is infinitely small compared to God's infinite perfection, and cannot be said in any meaningful sense to exist at all.

[lunchforthesky]

Maths is a human construct and thus cannot be applied to a character attribute which is not measurable in a mathematical sense. God is not physically perfect we just use the word to describe his ability. Seen as it is only an aesthetic quality granted to us by him i dont really see how you can start measuring it. It would be like measuring love.

[Petros]

I see this thread as pointless and potentially never going to end. Have fun debating this.

[lunchforthesky]

Yet you post in the Christianity Thread?

[Petros]

Yet you post in the Christianity Thread?

I see that as being mostly pointless too. The same old arguments are just brought up over and over and over.

[Surtr]

Please close this..:(

This is seriously a pointless debate.

[PsychoTronn]

to God: Peace \/

[Surtr]

To Mod: Close

[lunchforthesky]

Why is it pointless?

[Petros]

If we didnt question things we'd still think the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and that appollo rode a blazing chariot across the sky causing the sun to rise and set, its called being a human.

This is the greatest myth of all. Never in the history of science or philosophy was it questioned that the earth was not spherical. There are too many obvious observations that can be made that the ancients could know the earth was spherical. The whole issue was that the Catholic church believed the earth was the center of the Universe and that the sun revolved around the earth, not that it was flat.

[lunchforthesky]

This is the greatest myth of all. Never in the history of science or philosophy was it questioned that the earth was not spherical. There are too many obvious observations that can be made that the ancients could know the earth was spherical. The whole issue was that the Catholic church believed the earth was the center of the Universe and that the sun revolved around the earth, not that it was flat.

Im aware that Learned men knew the earth was round form an early stage but i thought the common man continued to believe it flat into the middle ages.

[Petros]

Im aware that Learned men knew the earth was round form an early stage but i thought the common man continued to believe it flat into the middle ages.

Well, maybe I don't know. The commoners of the middle ages were profoundly stupid and believed a lot of BS.

[CrossTheBreeze]

No one says that, or whoever does is an idiot.

But you're quite obviously missing my point, so whatever.

Continue your bashing of Religion, just because you think it's cool. Maybe someday you'll realize how stupid it is.

Until then..farewell.

Thank you for the arrogance.

[Smokey D]

Please close this..:(

This is seriously a pointless debate.

No.

Maths is a human construct and thus cannot be applied to a character attribute which is not measurable in a mathematical sense. God is not physically perfect we just use the word to describe his ability. Seen as it is only an aesthetic quality granted to us by him i dont really see how you can start measuring it. It would be like measuring love.

Every quality we ever describe is a human construct. It would rather defeat the purpose for us to not talk about things simply because we have constructed them.

[CrossTheBreeze]

Smokey D, just out of curiousity what are your beliefs?

[lunchforthesky]

Good modding Smokey.

[Smokey D]

Smokey D, just out of curiousity what are your beliefs?

Agnostic, but a functional atheist.

Good modding Smokey.

<3

[RockAndRoll]

If God exists outside of time, then He cannot desire. The sum of the universe's experience is no different to a being outside of time than the first iteration. They would be experienced at the same time. Let's assume God did make the universe and that therefore its ultimate conclusion would be perfect. If the experience of the conclusion of the universe is no different to the experience of the beginning (as it would be for a being outside time), then how could there be a lack of perfection in that first instance, given it is the same as a perfect ending.



Or, let us assume that God is perfect. In addition to this attribute of perfection, we often ascribe God the attribute of infinity. Together, these make God infinitely perfect.

One of the characteristics of infinity is that the sum of any finite number deducted from infinity is still infinite (∞ - x = ∞ where x =! ∞). All relevant scientific information informs us that the universe is finite (according to the laws of thermodynamics). Every relevant theological source tells us that the Creation is imperfect (from the Bible and subsequent theologians). Assuming these to be true, the universe is therefore both finite and imperfect. It is a finite imperfection.

If we deduct this finite imperfection from God's infinite perfection, we are still left with an infinite amount of perfection (as per ∞ - x = ∞ where x =! ∞). The finite imperfection is infinitely small compared to God's infinite perfection, and cannot be said in any meaningful sense to exist at all.
I don't think even you buy that argument.

Maths is a human construct
Pfft, Math > You.


This is the greatest myth of all. Never in the history of science or philosophy was it questioned that the earth was not spherical. There are too many obvious observations that can be made that the ancients could know the earth was spherical. The whole issue was that the Catholic church believed the earth was the center of the Universe and that the sun revolved around the earth, not that it was flat.
Wikipedia disagrees.

[Smokey D]

I don't think even you buy that argument.

Which one?

I think it's pretty strong logic.

[RockAndRoll]

Which one?

I think it's pretty strong logic.

Either.

I really don't. I don't think either really makes much sense at all.

[Smokey D]

Well, the assumptions are all pretty dubious but I think the logic is fairly tight.

[AmericanWeiner]

a) how are humans imperfect?

b) how does desire indicate imperfection?

[Smokey D]

how does desire indicate imperfection?

By demonstrating a lack of completeness.

But I don't know if it's been proven that the Universe came into existence because God desired it. Maybe part of God's perfection is that the universe had to come into existence.

[AmericanWeiner]

How does desire imply incompletetion?

Why can't desire be part of perfection and completion?

Why can't we define perfection as the way we are?

[Smokey D]

I would assume because that would mean we wouldn't need anything. We need things, and are therefore imperfect.

I don't know how fruitful it is to be going into the definition of perfection. We can't just go changing the dictionary willy nilly.

[RockAndRoll]

I think it's all pretty dubious.

Like you say because the conclusion and the beginning are experienced at the same "time" they are therefore the same.

And despite the entirely dubious nature of 'infinite perfection' in the first place I don't think you can treat perfection the way you do. Any imperfection is imperfection. It doesn't matter 'how much perfection' you have, whether it's infinite or not, '1' imperfection is imperfection.

[RockAndRoll]

I don't know how fruitful it is to be going into the definition of perfection. We can't just go changing the dictionary willy nilly.
Perfection is a pretty dubious term to be using the first place.

As an existentialist would say perfection is an essence we give to things, it is not of existence.

[RedDebil]

The creator is neither perfect nor imperfect. I see "God" as a force rather than a person. A person is fallable, but a force or supernatural power is omnipotent, therefore you cannot catagorize the creator of the universe as infallable.

[Petros]

Wikipedia disagrees.

Wikipedia is not an authority. It's someone's opinions masquerading as facts.

If you are curious where I got this information, it was in a lecture from TTC on the History of Science: Antiquities to 1700. Lawrence Principe is a professor at John Hopkins University. Lawrence Principe > Wikipedia.

[AmericanWeiner]

Well, this is two largely and widely different perspectives on humanity.

Where western culture has traditionally viewed humans as apart from nature and thus unnatural, eastern culture has traditionally viewed humans as a part of nature and natural. In the latter case, it's perfectly sensible to argue that all of our natural needs and desires are part of the perfect organism that is [insert philosophical title for "the way of things"] here.

That idea can even be applied to western religion when considering that God must be perfect and created a perfect organism that we are part of- sin, desire, nature etc etc.

However, if we view ourselves as apart from nature for whatever reason, that largely falls apart and can't be defended.

[Smokey D]

Like you say because the conclusion and the beginning are experienced at the same "time" they are therefore the same.

The sum of the universe is perfection (assuming it goes according to God's plan). If there is no time, there cannot be a time when it is possible to detect imperfection. The only thing that matters is the sum of the Universe.

This argument I wasn't so happy with. I didn't really describe it right.


And despite the entirely dubious nature of 'infinite perfection' in the first place I don't think you can treat perfection the way you do. Any imperfection is imperfection. It doesn't matter 'how much perfection' you have, whether it's infinite or not, '1' imperfection is imperfection.

According to ∞ - x = ∞ where x =! ∞, if something is infinitely small, it does not exist. If infinity possesses the characteristic ∞ - x = ∞ where x =! ∞, the point is logically valid.

Admittedly, this is something of a paradox, but there you go.

Perfection is a pretty dubious term to be using the first place.

As an existentialist would say perfection is an essence we give to things, it is not of existence.

You can't be an existentialist and be talking about God.

Wikipedia disagrees.

It was well known by people whose business it was to know that the world wasn't flat. Peasant farmers probably thought it was.

Well, this is two largely and widely different perspectives on humanity.

Where western culture has traditionally viewed humans as apart from nature and thus unnatural, eastern culture has traditionally viewed humans as a part of nature and natural. In the latter case, it's perfectly sensible to argue that all of our natural needs and desires are part of the perfect organism that is [insert philosophical title for "the way of things"] here.

That idea can even be applied to western religion when considering that God must be perfect and created a perfect organism that we are part of- sin, desire, nature etc etc.

However, if we view ourselves as apart from nature for whatever reason, that largely falls apart and can't be defended.

I think there is a difference between objective perfection and an imperfect agent fulfilling their task perfectly.

[AmericanWeiner]

The point is that we need a philosophical connotation for perfection before any sort of debate can happen.

However, I'm not sure what you mean by imperfect agent.

I try to join these god debates but something is always lost in translation

[RockAndRoll]

Wikipedia is not an authority. It's someone's opinions masquerading as facts.

If you are curious where I got this information, it was in a lecture from TTC on the History of Science: Antiquities to 1700. Lawrence Principe is a professor at John Hopkins University. Lawrence Principe > Wikipedia.


In early Classical Antiquity, the Earth was generally believed to be flat. Greek philosophers from that time period were prone to form conclusions similar to those of Anaximander, who believed the Earth to be a short cylinder with a flat, circular top.[1] is conjectured that the first person to have advocated a spherical shape of the Earth was Pythagoras (6th century BC), but this idea is not supported by the fact that most presocratic Pythagoreans considered the world to be flat.[2]

...

[1]^ Anaximander, Fragments and Commentary, Arthur Fairbanks, ed. and trans., (Plut., Strom. 2 ; Dox. 579); cited from the Hanover Historical Texts Project. [1]
[2]^ Burch, George Bosworth. The Counter-Earth. Osirus, vol. 11. Saint Catherines Press, 1954. p. 267-294


WOAH! Wikipedia can cite sources too? WTF?!?!?!?!

[Smokey D]

Well, I might use a broken wrench to hammer something into place. The tool is broken (a fairly standard attribute we could call imperfect), but it suited my task perfectly.

[AmericanWeiner]

Then you would say imperfection is the inability to perform the intended task perfectly?

I'll go with that to get out of semantics, but it's not my philosophy.

[Smokey D]

No, imperfection would be any flaw whatsoever. However, see my infinity thing for a paradox regarding that.

This argument I wasn't so happy with. I didn't really describe it right.

Because I was unhappy with it, I'm going to try and rephrase the argument as I intended.

Desire is an action. An action requires time in which to occur. If God exists outside of time, He cannot desire.

If observed from outside of time, the universe takes place in one instant. There is no time for us to observe the differences between the beginning and the end of the universe. Therefore, the only important thing is the sum of the universe. If the sum of the universe is according to God's will, to whom we have already ascribed perfection, then it is perfect.

From the two, God cannot desire and the universe is perfect with respect to God.

[AmericanWeiner]

Oh, isn't there some ongoing debate in the mathematics world about whether or not infinity is a number and thus may or may not be able to be used in equations or expressions?

I have another problem though- what constitutes a flaw?

[RockAndRoll]

The sum of the universe is perfection (assuming it goes according to God's plan). If there is no time, there cannot be a time when it is possible to detect imperfection. The only thing that matters is the sum of the Universe.
Umm that's not really an argument any more. It's really just Assume God created a perfect universe: the universe god created is perfect.



According to ∞ - x = ∞ where x =! ∞, if something is infinitely small, it does not exist. If infinity possesses the characteristic ∞ - x = ∞ where x =! ∞, the point is logically valid.

Admittedly, this is something of a paradox, but there you go.

Sorry, what exacly does !(infinity symbol) represent?

You can't be an existentialist and be talking about God.
Fine, as someone who realizes that perfection is a very dubious word whose meaning lies in value measurment and since no one can actually agree on what good/bad/perfect/flaws etc are this whole thing becomes rather onnsensical would say: This thing is rather nonsensical since we have not agreed upon a meaning of perfection.

It was well known by people whose business it was to know that the world wasn't flat. Peasant farmers probably thought it was.

wikipedia disagrees :/

[Petros]

WOAH! Wikipedia can cite sources too? WTF?!?!?!?!

Woopee! Unless you read those sources you are just taking the wiki authors interpretations of them.

Now, it is true in a sense; he is assuming that science starts at Plato and Aristotle, not the pre-socratics, and in the history of science it was known the earth was spherical because Aristotle said it was, and it was not until the 1700's that Aristotle was dethroned as the prime philosopher. So yeah, whatever, who cares.

[Smokey D]

Umm that's not really an argument any more. It's really just Assume God created a perfect universe: the universe god created is perfect.

See the edit.

Sorry, what exacly does !(infinity symbol) represent?

Does not equal.

Fine, as someone who realizes that perfection is a very dubious word whose meaning lies in value measurment and since no one can actually agree on what good/bad/perfect/flaws etc are this whole thing becomes rather onnsensical would say: This thing is rather nonsensical since we have not agreed upon a meaning of perfection.


I think we can still use it. Perfection means a lack of flaws. We can use this definition to debate it without spelling out each flaw which is lacking.

wikipedia disagrees :/

Wiki is wrong in this respect. Some Greek chap determine the circumference of the globe in the pre-Christian era, and sailors had detected a curve to the horizon long before Columbus found the Americas.

[RockAndRoll]

Woopee! Unless you read those sources you are just taking the wiki authors interpretations of them.
You say that as if it were relevant. You've hardly provided any evidence that your sources are more reliable than wiki's.

Now, it is true in a sense; he is assuming that science starts at Plato and Aristotle, not the pre-socratics, and in the history of science it was known the earth was spherical because Aristotle said it was, and it was not until the 1700's that Aristotle was dethroned as the prime philosopher. So yeah, whatever, who cares.

... well apparently you since you brought it up. Too bad you were wrong and all I guess though.

[Smokey D]

You say that as if it were relevant. You've hardly provided any evidence that your sources are more reliable than wiki's.



... well apparently you since you brought it up. Too bad you were wrong and all I guess though.

Wiki says "By the time of Pliny the Elder in the 1st century, however, the Earth's spherical shape was generally acknowledged among the learned in the western world. Around then Ptolemy derived his maps from a curved globe and developed the system of latitude, longitude, and climes. His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages, although Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ca. 3rd to 7th centuries) saw occasional arguments in favor of a flat Earth"

[RockAndRoll]

Desire is an action. An action requires time in which to occur. If God exists outside of time, He cannot desire.
You do realize you just rid god of the ability to act though right?

Does not equal.
Okay then yes, there is still 'infinite perfection' but there is also imperfection. Therefore god is imperfect. Like I said it doesn't matter 'how much perfection you have' any imperfection means you are imperfect. the imperfection exists therefore god according to this model is imperfect.

I think we can still use it. Perfection means a lack of flaws. We can use this definition to debate it without spelling out each flaw which is lacking.

Ah, but you must define flaw.

Wiki is wrong in this respect. Some Greek chap determine the circumference of the globe in the pre-Christian era, and sailors had detected a curve to the horizon long before Columbus found the Americas.
I don't know why you're talking about christians or colombus, I don't recall ever mentioning them.

[RockAndRoll]

Wiki says "By the time of Pliny the Elder in the 1st century, however, the Earth's spherical shape was generally acknowledged among the learned in the western world. Around then Ptolemy derived his maps from a curved globe and developed the system of latitude, longitude, and climes. His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages, although Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ca. 3rd to 7th centuries) saw occasional arguments in favor of a flat Earth"

Yes, that's great. I'm glad they figured that out by the 1st century. But that's completely inconsequential.

[CrossTheBreeze]

Wiki is wrong in this respect. Some Greek chap determine the circumference of the globe in the pre-Christian era, and sailors had detected a curve to the horizon long before Columbus found the Americas.
I think that was Ptolomy (sp?)

EDIT:nevermind you guys already settled that

[Petros]

You say that as if it were relevant. You've hardly provided any evidence that your sources are more reliable than wiki's.


Do you really want to argue about wikipedia? It is as useful a resource as you make of it. I told you my source, and can give you a biblography of sources, but will it do any good if you don't read them? Sources don't mean much unless you read them and verify them for yourself. Professor Lawrence Principe is faculty at John Hopkins; Universities have ethical standards which they require of their faculty, whereas Wikipedia is the result of dozens of mostly unknown people who have an interest in a subject but do not necessarily have an ethical obligation to report accurate information. I am not saying wikipedia is wrong, I am saying you would be stupid to accept what they claim as fact without researching the sources cited and finding out for yourself.

[AmericanWeiner]

Please defer all questions to me to RockAndRoll as we seem to be on the same page and I'm going to bed


However if RockAndRoll abuses this priviledge it will be revoked

[RockAndRoll]

OH SHI!:eek: I'll be very careful!

[RockAndRoll]

Do you really want to argue about wikipedia? It is as useful a resource as you make of it. I told you my source, and can give you a biblography of sources, but will it do any good if you don't read them? Sources don't mean much unless you read them and verify them for yourself. Professor Lawrence Principe is faculty at John Hopkins; Universities have ethical standards which they require of their faculty, whereas Wikipedia is the result of dozens of mostly unknown people who have an interest in a subject but do not necessarily have an ethical obligation to report accurate information. I am not saying wikipedia is wrong, I am saying you would be stupid to accept what they claim as fact without researching the sources cited and finding out for yourself.
Well look, are you or are you not disputing the fact that at one point people thought the world was flat?

[Petros]

Well look, are you or are you not disputing the fact that at one point people thought the world was flat?

No, not at all.

[RockAndRoll]

Good, then we can agree that this statement:

This is the greatest myth of all. Never in the history of science or philosophy was it questioned that the earth was not spherical.
Was incorrect? (and poorly phrased. :p)

[Petros]

Was incorrect? (and poorly phrased. :p)

Ok, poorly phrased, but not actually incorrect, if you assume that science begins at Aristotle.

[RockAndRoll]

Ok, poorly phrased, but not actually incorrect, if you assume that science begins at Aristotle.

Even granting that assumption (not that I actually do) Philosophy most definitely did not.

[thickasabrick]

Okay well personally, and I realize I'm just jumping into this, I believe that in order to properly assess propositions asserted about God a few things would have to be answered first.

1. If God created the universe, did he create logic/science etc. as a means for humans to prove his existance?

Also, it is a universally accepted fact (at least I think so) that no object can be created "out of nothing" in this world we live in.

2. If God created all matter, "evil," cause/effect chains etc...did he create them out of nothing?

3. If so, then that would mean God himself is not subject to the laws of logic/science. If that is true, then it's very possible that trying to prove God using logic/science is an effort in vain. Unless my first question holds true.

Anyone agree?

And as an "add-on," let's assume that God created good and evil and endowed man with these qualities. If he created good out of nothing, then how can he be omni-benevolent himself? If he is omni-benevolent, then wouldn't he have to be omni-malevolent as well?

I've heard various arguments for and against all this stuff I've said, but I like discussing this so feel free to address any of my questions/points.

[RockAndRoll]

'defying the laws of logic' as it were is a non idea. It's not a possibility. Heck it's not even an impossibility, it's pure meaninglessness.

[Smokey D]

You do realize you just rid god of the ability to act though right?

Well, so long as He's out of time, then yeah.

Okay then yes, there is still 'infinite perfection' but there is also imperfection. Therefore god is imperfect. Like I said it doesn't matter 'how much perfection you have' any imperfection means you are imperfect. the imperfection exists therefore god according to this model is imperfect.

But according to ∞ - x = ∞ where x =! ∞, an infinitely small thing doesn't exist.

Ah, but you must define flaw.

I don't really see why.


I don't know why you're talking about christians or colombus, I don't recall ever mentioning them.

Because this was an argument concerning the Catholic Church and its supposed belief in a flat earth?

Yes, that's great. I'm glad they figured that out by the 1st century. But that's completely inconsequential.

The fact that they figured out the world wasn't flat and that virtually no one who knew anything about anything said it was is inconsequential?

[thickasabrick]

Okay so then how could God logically be perfect then?

He couldn't create good and evil out of nothing, therefore it would be foolish to think that God is all good and no evil, but he somehow created evil out of nothing.

[Petros]

Even granting that assumption (not that I actually do) Philosophy most definitely did not.

Yes true; philosophy as we know it began with Thales. There is a very good reason to assume science begins with Aristotle, although I won't try to persuade you of it. Aristotle made a lot of mistakes and was wrong about a lot of things...
So I won't derail this thread anymore about it.

[RockAndRoll]

Well, so long as He's out of time, then yeah.Doesn't that render the whole thing sort of meaningless?

But according to ∞ - x = ∞ where x =! ∞, an infinitely small thing doesn't exist.
Um, so you're argument is that if a perfect thing has an imperfection that doesn't exist it's still perfect... ya okay... once again kind of meaningless.

I don't really see why.
Well if perfection is lacking flaws and we don't define flaws we haven't really gotten anywhere.

You might as well have said perfection is lacking gloogallygorp as both are completely undefined and are meaningless until you define them.




Because this was an argument concerning the Catholic Church and its supposed belief in a flat earth?
No it wasn't. :p


The fact that they figured out the world wasn't flat and that virtually no one who knew anything about anything said it was is inconsequential?

Yup.

[spitfirejunky]

Well, we're not here to resolve the coexistence of God and the universe. We're here to give PerpetualBurn a hard time.

[thickasabrick]

RockAndRoll you seem to be a smart guy, address any points in reasoning I have made in my posts. I'm fairly new to this stuff.

[RockAndRoll]

Yes true; philosophy as we know it began with Thales. There is a very good reason to assume science begins with Aristotle, although I won't try to persuade you of it. Aristotle made a lot of mistakes and was wrong about a lot of things...
So I won't derail this thread anymore about it.
Yeah, I know I know. But those are historians' definitions of philosophy and science anyways, they don't know what they're talking about, darn buggers. :p

Okay so then how could God logically be perfect then?

He couldn't create good and evil out of nothing, therefore it would be foolish to think that God is all good and no evil, but he somehow created evil out of nothing.
I don't really understand what you're saying, but that's okay because I'm not arguing that god has or does not have any particular qualities. I'm simply stating that defying logic as it were is meaningless.

[Smokey D]

Doesn't that render the whole thing sort of meaningless?

Actually, it probably bolsters PB's argument. Maybe I should add in that the existence of the universe is a consequence of the existence of God. I'm sure that can be worked into the logical sequence somewhere.

Um, so you're argument is that if a perfect thing has an imperfection that doesn't exist it's still perfect... ya okay... once again kind of meaningless.

Only if the perfection is infinite.

And I did say there was a paradox.

Well if perfection is lacking flaws and we don't define flaws we haven't really gotten anywhere.

You might as well have said perfection is lacking gloogallygorp as both are completely undefined and are meaningless until you define them.

Not really equatable. We have a general understanding of flaws. We shouldn't need to go through an exhaustive list to prove the principle.

No it wasn't.

This is the greatest myth of all. Never in the history of science or philosophy was it questioned that the earth was not spherical. There are too many obvious observations that can be made that the ancients could know the earth was spherical. The whole issue was that the Catholic church believed the earth was the center of the Universe and that the sun revolved around the earth, not that it was flat.

Er?

[thickasabrick]

Here's what I was trying to say, I'll try and say it more clearly. We'll just assume God can't defy logic for now.

1. No object can be made "out of nothing"
2. Humans identify degrees of goodness or badness, or goodness and evil
3. If God is subject to logic, he could not create good and evil out of nothing.
4. If God could not create good and evil out of nothing, why assume he is all good and he somehow created evil out of nothing and endowed this trait on humans.
5. If good and bad do actually exist in this world, and God created this world, and God is subject to logic, it would be much more probable that God is in fact all good and all evil.

[spitfirejunky]

Okay so then how could God logically be perfect then?

He couldn't create good and evil out of nothing, therefore it would be foolish to think that God is all good and no evil, but he somehow created evil out of nothing.

Your latter point has a few problems. First off, nothing came out of nothing. Everything came out of God. Even if God is omnibenevolent, He still created evil. And the creation of evil isn't necessarily evil in itself.

[thickasabrick]

That's not very convincing spitfirejunky.

So God was innately good and created evil out of nothing? That seems illogical to me.

[RockAndRoll]

RockAndRoll you seem to be a smart guy, address any points in reasoning I have made in my posts. I'm fairly new to this stuff.
:lol: why thank you.
Is there any thing in particular you wanted me to adress though?

[Mr. Ron]

I would assume because that would mean we wouldn't need anything. We need things, and are therefore imperfect.

I don't know how fruitful it is to be going into the definition of perfection. We can't just go changing the dictionary willy nilly.

God seems to need us, doesn't he?

[thickasabrick]

I wanted you to address my argument about good and bad.

If God created the world and everything in it, and he cannot defy logic, he couldn't have created all this "stuff" out of nothing.

Hence it would be very improbable or illogical that God was always good and somehow created evil out of nothing.

[spitfirejunky]

That's not very convincing spitfirejunky.

So God was innately good and created evil out of nothing? That seems illogical to me.

God doesn't have to bare the traits of all His creations.

[RockAndRoll]

Actually, it probably bolsters PB's argument. Maybe I should add in that the existence of the universe is a consequence of the existence of God. I'm sure that can be worked into the logical sequence somewhere.
Okay, you get back to me on that one. :p


Only if the perfection is infinite.

And I did say there was a paradox.
Okay, ya you did. So I guess, we both agree that your argument is paradoxical? (and I'm assuming we both agree that paradoxes aren't good)


Not really equatable. We have a general understanding of flaws. We shouldn't need to go through an exhaustive list to prove the principle.
I don't want a list of flaws. I want a definition. Essence, not examples.



Er?
Yeah, I probably should of cut that out when I quoted it, it would have made my point clearer. My bad. I was adressing the first half of the quote.

[thickasabrick]

God doesn't have to bare the traits of all His creations.

So you are saying God can defy logic?

If that is the case, then how could we hope to arrive at any conclusion about God using logic, unless God created logic for humans to use as a tool to prove his existance.

It's sort of circular, because if God cannot defy logic, then I do not believe that he could create evil out of nothing, and yet naturally be all good.

[RockAndRoll]

I wanted you to address my argument about good and bad.

If God created the world and everything in it, and he cannot defy logic, he couldn't have created all this "stuff" out of nothing.

Hence it would be very improbable or illogical that God was always good and somehow created evil out of nothing.

Well I don't think it actually defies any rules of logic to create something out of nothing, only rules of physics, (although some people might argue it doesn't actually even defy the laws of physics) which is a different story.

[spitfirejunky]

So you are saying God can defy logic?

If that is the case, then how could we hope to arrive at any conclusion about God using logic, unless God created logic for humans to use as a tool to prove his existance.

It's sort of circular, because if God cannot defy logic, then I do not believe that he could create evil out of nothing, and yet naturally be all good.

What didn't God create out of nothing?

[thickasabrick]

Okay so let's assume God created the universe out of nothing.

That would mean he created cause/effects, he created matter, he created man's ability to think, etc. This would have to include goodness and evil, since they seem to exist in our world.

God would have to have created the concepts of goodness and evil to serve a purpose in the universe he created.

But goodness and evil always stand in relation to eachother, there is no clear-cut division between good and bad.

So how could God be innately good, and create evil out of nothing? Goodness cannot exist without something to compare it to. What I'm asserting is that goodness and badness would have to be created at the same time. Which means God would either have to be all good and all evil, or neither.

[Mr. Ron]

Or in a more simplified form, anything and everything that takes place in our world was made possible by god, because without god nothing would be possible. If he exists.

[RockAndRoll]

Okay so let's assume God created the universe out of nothing.

That would mean he created cause/effects, he created matter, he created man's ability to think, etc. This would have to include goodness and evil, since they seem to exist in our world.

God would have to have created the concepts of goodness and evil to serve a purpose in the universe he created.

But goodness and evil always stand in relation to eachother, there is no clear-cut division between good and bad.

So how could God be innately good, and create evil out of nothing? Goodness cannot exist without something to compare it to. What I'm asserting is that goodness and badness would have to be created at the same time. Which means God would either have to be all good and all evil, or neither.

I tend not to really bother with arguments about good and evil since people generally fail to define them in any meaningful way.

[CrossTheBreeze]

I tend not to really bother with arguments about good and evil since people generally fail to define them in any meaningful way.

how would you define good and evil.

[RockAndRoll]

how would you define good and evil.

To be quite honest I don't know. I generally don't use good and evil in my arguments though I don't think so I don't really need to. I let other people define good and evil if they wish to use them.

[CrossTheBreeze]

To be quite honest I don't know. I generally don't use good and evil in my arguments though I don't think so I don't really need to. I let other people define good and evil if they wish to use them.

yeah, I really wouldn't know how to either.

[thickasabrick]

Good and evil shouldn't really have to be defined with a stipulative definition. All humans have the ability to judge or percieve things as being good or bad, or a mix of both.

It would be silly to assume that humans created the concepts of good and evil without God "allowing it." If God designed/created the universe, the concepts good and evil would have to be part of his creation.

But good and evil always stand in relationship to eachother...if there was no good in the world, humans couldn't make a distinction between good and bad, if there was no "bad" in the world, human's couldn't make a distinction between good and bad.

Hence the existance of good and bad rely on eachother in order to exist as concepts.

So how could one assert that God is all good and has always been all good, yet when he created the world out of nothing, he somehow pulled the concept of evil out of his ***.

Good and bad can't be seperated, they would have to be created at the same time. Hence God couldn't be all good and no bad, human's cannot possibly say that good could exist in a time when there was no bad to compare it to.

[RockAndRoll]

Yeah, most people can't. Which becomes a problem when they try to use good and evil in an argument, the words pretty meaningless really until the person attributes meaning to them. But if you don't ever use good and evil it hardly matters that you can't define them.

[666Ozzfan]

Ok, I only just saw this thread and thought I'd throw in a little thinking.

We all here assume a God existing before the universe.

So, before the universe, the only thing that existed was God.

God cannot create anything MORE perfect than himself.

If God was imperfect, would we know?

Lets say for a minute that God is imperfect. This imperfect God - due to whatever imperfection, would not be able to create anything that is perfect. This would be the universe, and most importantly for this discussion, us. Now, because We have been created imperfectly, this implies that we are not perfect. This could go so far as to say that our perception of the world would be imperfect. This means that our concept of God would be imperfect. This imperfect perception would then result in the perception that this imperfect god, is perfect. Because God created everything (well he did for the sake of this argument), God will be either just as (im)perfect, or he'd be closer to perfect than whatever it is he creates, i.e. us. So whatever our highest possible imagination of God, whatever we can imagine God to be perfect, that is our perception of perfect, because we do not have actual perfection with which to compare it to.

God = imperfect
Creation = imperfect
Us = imperfect
Our perception of God = imperfect (thats the actual perception being imperfect)
This then results in us believing what a perfect God woud be, although he may not be.

Therefore,

God = perfect - or so is our belief.


But God cannot be less imperfect than anything he creates, so we do not have actual perfection with which to compare God to, so God can only become our definition of perfection.

[thickasabrick]

Well if God is All-Powerful then it is entirely possible he could create something more perfect than himself.

However, the "all-powerful" trait is usually expressed along with "all-knowing" and "all perfect," so we can just throw that out the window.

[sexymuffin]

thicksabrick there is no such thing as good and evil only actions.

[thickasabrick]

Why do you say that? Are you including God in that statement or just things within the universe he created?

[sexymuffin]

well no one can define good and evil so it seems unlikely they exist as anything outside of an idea.

what is good for one is bad for another so battling with what's good and what is evil is pointless as there is no defining good and evil.

edit: if there is somehow a god, i don't believe he created good and evil, i believe man did. God is not all good and all evil, he is the absence of both.

[thickasabrick]

Okay well I'm sure people can define "perfect" right? Since "God is perfect" seems to be the question at hand here. Does "perfect" mean "all good" or are perfection and goodness two completely different concepts that don't correlate?

Because it's possible we could drop the whole "good and evil" term and still make this thread work.

[samariah]

where do we get "right/wrong" "good/evil" from in the first place? im not talking about everyone thinking the same things are good and the same things are evil. why do we feel somethings are better than others. for instance, why is loving someone better than killing them?

[sexymuffin]

^it could be inherent traits we have as humans for survival purposes

if we have no ideas of right and wrong then there is nothing stopping us from exterminating ourselves

Okay well I'm sure people can define "perfect" right? Since "God is perfect" seems to be the question at hand here. Does "perfect" mean "all good" or are perfection and goodness two completely different concepts that don't correlate?

i see perfect as complete, and imperfect as incomplete, so i don't believe it has much to do with good and evil

[samariah]

that seems valid h/o do animals have right and wrong? not that i am aware. furthermore, they don't seem to be exterminating themselves even though they don't have right and wrong.

note: im speaking of animals other than human beings

[thickasabrick]

I think the concepts of good and bad are notions created purely for survival purposes and it is our culture/society that influences us mainly.

Since there are so many different cultures and societys that influence a person (not just the one they are currently in, or were born in) it's almost common sense that a scientifically unmeasurable quantity or quality such as good and evil wouldn't have a clear cut definition.

But it all comes down to maximizing our chances for survival.

[samariah]

so do you think that the concept of one action being "better" than another is an instinct?

[sexymuffin]

^yes and no, because the idea of right and wrong fluctuate heavily, but everyone still has ideas of right and wrong. so it's instinctual to have ideas of right and wrong, but right and wrong are not instincts.

that seems valid h/o do animals have right and wrong? not that i am aware. furthermore, they don't seem to be exterminating themselves even though they don't have right and wrong.

note: im speaking of animals other than human beings

animals are not sentient beings so that question is irrelevant. They operate on instinct, not on a conscience thought process.

[samariah]

ok so my next topic is: how did we attain a concious thought process? did it evolve? how/why? :confused:

[samariah]

im just trying to throw stuff out there, mind you

:)

[PsychoTronn]

ok so my next topic is: how did we attain a concious thought process? did it evolve? how/why? :confused:

us humans are dominate because we have evolved upright walking and and big brains. a theory is that our brians got bigger from protein and and useing tools to get stuff and over a long period of time we got smarter and stronger. we developed a sence of right and wrong and established relationships with each other. the neanderthols buried their dead as a sign of respect just like we do

[sexymuffin]

ok so my next topic is: how did we attain a concious thought process? did it evolve? how/why? :confused:

it's an evolutionary process. we have the ability to adapt without making huge physical changes, which is something no other organisms have been able to do. We don't solve problems by mutating and becoming stronger humans, we solve them by thinking them through and finding a solution that best benefits humanity as a whole. this is very beneficial for a species to have, because survival is no longer left up to the probability of evolution.

[RedDebil]

that seems valid h/o do animals have right and wrong? not that i am aware. furthermore, they don't seem to be exterminating themselves even though they don't have right and wrong.

note: im speaking of animals other than human beings

Sentience refers to possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different usages in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".

Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness

[DrummingBen]

ok so my next topic is: how did we attain a concious thought process? did it evolve? how/why? :confused:

Because we werent as fast/big/strong/tiny/camoflaged etc as other animals, so we decided to be smarter than them :)

[RedDebil]

ok so my next topic is: how did we attain a concious thought process? did it evolve? how/why? :confused:

This is an interesting read.

http://www.theosophical.ca/Life&Death.htm

[sexymuffin]

Sentience refers to possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different usages in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".

Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness

you learn something new everyday

thanks for that, i wasn't aware of the difference/my misusage of the word

however,

large areas of the human brain are yet unused

this is false

[lunchforthesky]

Perfect equals the ability to only acheive positive results regardless of ones methods.

We evolved an intelligent brain over millions/thusands of years.

[spitfirejunky]

Okay so let's assume God created the universe out of nothing.

That would mean he created cause/effects, he created matter, he created man's ability to think, etc. This would have to include goodness and evil, since they seem to exist in our world.

God would have to have created the concepts of goodness and evil to serve a purpose in the universe he created.

But goodness and evil always stand in relation to eachother, there is no clear-cut division between good and bad.

So how could God be innately good, and create evil out of nothing? Goodness cannot exist without something to compare it to. What I'm asserting is that goodness and badness would have to be created at the same time. Which means God would either have to be all good and all evil, or neither.

The same way He is innately immaterial and timeless, and created both matter and time.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Well, maybe I don't know. The commoners of the middle ages were profoundly stupid and believed a lot of BS.

yeah like christianity



LOL



/sorry, couldn't resist

[angry armadillo]

could god create a large enough sandwich, so large, he could not eat it?

[samariah]

no sandwich is too large

[samariah]

:thumb:

[Mr. Ron]

The same way He is innately immaterial and timeless, and created both matter and time.

That doesn't change the fact that he made evil posible.

[samariah]

where did evil come from? why is genocide evil, why is slaughtering your family for no good reason evil, why is robbing a poor family evil, etc.

[thickasabrick]

so do you think that the concept of one action being "better" than another is an instinct?

If you've ever taken a Socioloy course, the first thing they usually teach you is that humans are different than other animals because we do not have instincts. We are born with certain reflexes, but no instincts. We are the only animal without instincts. That's at least what current Sociological belief is.

However the popular theory is that human's created culture in the place of instincts. Culture influences how a person thinks and acts in a situation. In some cultures, burping is impolite. In other cultures, it's a compliment to the cook.

Which is why I think human's created the concepts of good and bad purely as like an "institution" to try and maximize comfort and chances for survival for the individual and the group.

In a given culture, there possibly could be a clearcut definition between good and bad, however, there is so much cross-culture influence (especially in today's world) that there is no clearcut definition that each culture still agrees on.

[lunchforthesky]

Humans have instincts of course they do.

[sexymuffin]

where did evil come from? why is genocide evil, why is slaughtering your family for no good reason evil, why is robbing a poor family evil, etc.

unless you have a God to tell you what absolute morality is, than there is no reason that i can tell you killing your family is bad.

but we couldn't have a functioning society without laws to protect people, so you will be punished accordingly.

[lunchforthesky]

where did evil come from? why is genocide evil, why is slaughtering your family for no good reason evil, why is robbing a poor family evil, etc.

Firstly people didnt randomly kill each other for no reason before Jesus and secondly violence has hardly stopped for breath since Jesus arrived. Even if he was the son of God we have learnt nothing from his teachings.

[thickasabrick]

Humans have instincts of course they do.

You are using the incorrect definition for instinct then. Remember, Sociology is a science. The claims they put forth have been made after decades and decades of scientific observation. Human's do not have instincts. Or if they do, we haven't been able to identify them yet.

[lunchforthesky]

Did Cavemen not have instincts?

They were human.

We have the instinct the raise a family when it is of little real benifit to ourselves.

[thickasabrick]

There are several factors that make up an instinct.

-unlearned, genetically transmitted, innate, inborn
-species wide, invariant among members of a species
-manifest full-blown the first time the required level of maturity has been reached and the triggering stimuli is present in the environment.

Raising a family is not an instinct. It isn't innate and genetically transmitted knowledge, it's something you must be taught. The "rules" of raising a family across the human species is widely variant, even in a single society.

[lunchforthesky]

I think its instictual to want a family, i didnt mention anyhting about how to raise them

[Mr. Ron]

unless you have a God to tell you what absolute morality is, than there is no reason that i can tell you killing your family is bad.

but we couldn't have a functioning society without laws to protect people, so you will be punished accordingly.

Well, even without religion there are obvious negative aspect of offing your entire family. But thats besides the point.

[thickasabrick]

Well I'm afraid you are wrong, lunchforthesky.

[Mr. Ron]

Well I'm afraid you are wrong, lunchforthesky.

How is he wrong?

[thickasabrick]

Instinctual behaviour must be innate, genetically transmitted, invariant among species etc.

Is wanting a family genetically transmitted, and invariant among species?

There are tons of variations across cultures, and within cultures, about family. Not every individual in the human species wants to raise a family or be a part of a family. If even one individual in a species shows variant behaviour, it isn't instinct.

Should I expand on that?

[Mr. Ron]

Instinctual behaviour must be innate, genetically transmitted, invariant among species etc.

Is wanting a family genetically transmitted, and invariant among species?

There are tons of variations across cultures, and within cultures, about family. Not every individual in the human species wants to raise a family or be a part of a family. If even one individual in a species shows variant behaviour, it isn't instinct.

Should I expand on that?

Humans are flock animals. We need social interaction and companionship. I would say wanting a life partner is a part of that instinct to multiply.

[lunchforthesky]

Just because there are variations of how or when we have a family doesnt stop almost every human form wanting one, it is natural human instinct.

I fail to see how you saying something which covers exaclt what ive been saying proves me wrong. It really is invariant amongst species we all have instinct to reproduce and survive.

[thickasabrick]

Humans are flock animals. We need social interaction and companionship. I would say wanting a life partner is a part of that instinct to multiply.

You are misusing the term instinct though.

Human's have needs and drives, just like every living thing does. Human's need to reproduce, human's are driven to reproduce. Drives are not instincts.

If wanting a life partner is instinctual, that would mean that every human on earth would have a "life partner" the second they reached whatever level of maturity is necessary for that instinct to manifest itself.

Most other animals multiply without the use of a life partner. Most human's multiply without the use of a life partner. It's not an instinct.

In fact, the notion of a life partner is a cultural thing. Tons of cultures don't have life partners.

[Mr. Ron]

You are misusing the term instinct though.

Human's have needs and drives, just like every living thing does. Human's need to reproduce, human's are driven to reproduce. Drives are not instincts.

If wanting a life partner is instinctual, that would mean that every human on earth would have a "life partner" the second they reached whatever level of maturity is necessary for that instinct to manifest itself.

Most other animals multiply without the use of a life partner. Most human's multiply without the use of a life partner. It's not an instinct.

In fact, the notion of a life partner is a cultural thing. Tons of cultures don't have life partners.

No, i'm pretty sure the instinct to survive has sex and partnership under it.

[lunchforthesky]

Most cultures have partners and almost all animals who act on instinct have partners for life.

[thickasabrick]

No, i'm pretty sure the instinct to survive has sex and partnership under it.

Survival is not an instinct. You do not have "the instinct to survive."

Let me outline something for you because you seem to be uneducated in this subject.

Spiders need food.
Satisfying hunger is the drive that is produced by that need.
Building webs to catch food is the instinctual behaviour that allows spiders to survive. They aren't taught to build webs, it is an innate ability.

Notice the difference between Need, Drive, and Instinct? There are species of spiders that do not build webs for food, but within the species that do build webs, every single spider innately knows how to build a web without being taught. That's instinct.

Humans do not innately choose a partner, that's just something our culture has ingrained in us. In some cultures they do not have life partners.

[Mr. Ron]

Survival is not an instinct. You do not have "the instinct to survive."
Let me outline something for you because you seem to be uneducated in this subject.

Spiders need food.
Satisfying hunger is the drive that is produced by that need.
Building webs to catch food is the instinctual behaviour that allows spiders to survive. They aren't taught to build webs, it is an innate ability.

Notice the difference between Need, Drive, and Instinct? There are species of spiders that do not build webs for food, but within the species that do build webs, every single spider innately knows how to build a web without being taught. That's instinct.

Humans do not innately choose a partner, that's just something our culture has ingrained in us. In some cultures they do not have life partners.

Yes, yes we do. Drives are a part of instincts.

[thickasabrick]

Yes, yes we do. Drives are a part of instincts.

No, drives are not instincts. Instincts are the actual skills that are innately present in animals in order for them to achieve/fullfill their drives.

Drives and instincts are two different things. Drives are not a part of instincts.

edit - You realize this discussion of instincts/culture started because I was saying good and bad are culturally dependent, not instinctual. If they were instinctual, there would be no variance or disagreement on good and bad across cultures or within cultures. Which is clearly not the case.

[lunchforthesky]

Someone seems to have lied to you about what an instinct is.

WE HAVE AN INSTINCT TO SURVIVE.

Neanderthols had partners, cavemen had partners it is not culture it is instinct.

[Mr. Ron]

No, drives are not instincts. Instincts are the actual skills that are innately present in animals in order for them to achieve/fullfill their drives.

Drives and instincts are two different things. Drives are not a part of instincts.

Ok, give me a list of instincts that you think humans have.


Drives go hand in hand with instincts since they are connected with each other and use eahcother to satisfy themselves.

[thickasabrick]

Listen, I don't walk into a thread about Doctors and Medicine and try to tell them that they are going about medicine or treating patients wrong when I obviously haven't been educated about medicine.

edit - Dr. Ron. As I've been saying this entire time, humans DO NOT have instincts. It is believed that as human's evolved into more intellectually complex animals, they lost instincts and developed culture.

If you understood the definition of instincts and drives then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Mr. Ron]

Listen, I don't walk into a thread about Doctors and Medicine and try to tell them that they are going about medicine or treating patients wrong when I obviously haven't been educated about medicine.

Ok Mr. expert then give me a list of human instincts. Try not to google too much.

[lunchforthesky]

Basically you have a bizzare view of the word instinct.

[sexymuffin]

guys thicksabrick is right we don't really have instincts as humans.

you say we have the instinct to survive, but we can choose to kill ourselves, so obviously it's not instinctual if there is a large number of people who act otherwise.

[thickasabrick]

Basically you have a bizzare view of the word instinct.

That's like telling a mathematics student that he has a bizarre view of the term "addition." I can assume you haven't actually been educated in the field of Sociology or Anthropology or anything like that, and you are just spouting out your own opinions on what instincts are.

edit - Thank you sexymuffin!!! I'm sorry if I sound like a huge jerk guys. I'm only partly a huge jerk. It just really bothers me when people try and argue about things that are scientically accepted facts when they have no proof/basis for their argument.

Scientists have spent decades and decades studying this stuff, it's hard to just form an opinion and beleive that it will hold up to current scientific theories.

[StarsAtNoon93]

i dont know if anybodys brought this up in the 11 pages of this thread or not, but i guess ill bring it up now

the "logical problem of evil" basically states that:
1)god is said to be omnipotent and omniscient
2)god is said to be beneficent
3)If god were all knowing, he would know about the problems of the world; if god were all powerful, he would have the capacity to fix them
4)The fact that the problems of the world still exist indicate that either, a, god is not all power/all knowing, or, b, god is not morally perfect

theres more, but thats the basic gist of it

[thickasabrick]

Yes that was stated right away. I was trying to use that argument for a few pages.

The main reason it isn't a convincing argument is that people assert that Pefection and All-Good are not the same things. God is perfect. But he has no degree of goodness or badness in him because he created those qualities for the world.

That's at least what someone else said.

[sexymuffin]

i dont know if anybodys brought this up in the 11 pages of this thread or not, but i guess ill bring it up now

the "logical problem of evil" basically states that:
1)god is said to be omnipotent and omniscient
2)god is said to be beneficent
3)If god were all knowing, he would know about the problems of the world; if god were all powerful, he would have the capacity to fix them
4)The fact that the problems of the world still exist indicate that either, a, god is not all power/all knowing, or, b, god is not morally perfect

theres more, but thats the basic gist of it

it's possible the ends justify the means. that is, how the world ends up is perfect despite all the problems in the world.

also god is only said to be all these things in major religions, there are many ideas of god

[AmericanWeiner]

an example of instinct would be care for one's children


or disgust at feces, vomit, and other "dirty" things.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

an example of instinct would be care for one's children


or disgust at feces, vomit, and other "dirty" things.

I agree


If someone bleached a turd you still wuldn't touch it even if you "knew" and believed it had no germs

[-1up!-]

Dr. Ron. As I've been saying this entire time, humans DO NOT have instincts. It is believed that as human's evolved into more intellectually complex animals, they lost instincts and developed culture.

Culture is acquired and instincts are innate. How can one replace the other? You're coming in here stating that there is no human instincts when it is still a debated subject where no clear consensus was reached yet. Although I'd suggest it is a lot harder to precisely detect instincts in humans because they are also governed by reason and passion.

[spitfirejunky]

Just because we can override our instincts it doesn't mean we don't have them.

[thickasabrick]

Culture is acquired and instincts are innate. How can one replace the other? You're coming in here stating that there is no human instincts when it is still a debated subject where no clear consensus was reached yet. Although I'd suggest it is a lot harder to precisely detect instincts in humans because they are also governed by reason and passion.

Yes I realize science is debatable. We shouldn't blindly trust scientists who state "humans have no instincts" just like we shouldn't trust scientists who say "water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen."

However, until someone can scientifically prove otherwise, it is an accepted scientific fact that humans have no instincts. Everyone who disagrees with me is just going by their own beliefs.

Now, if we are just going by our own beliefs...why even create a thread asking whether God is Perfect. If science can't be used as an aid in trying to prove or disprove God's perfection, then what can be used? Surely this thread shouldn't rest entirely on belief or else it would be pointless.

[class]

I don't see how "the ability to create something imperfect requries imperfection."

123

[Cain]

But if God exists outside the realm of logic and reason, we can assume that God is irrational.

Irrational by human standards. And as we very well know, humans have an extremely limited ability to reason about certain things in the first place. If God truly stands outside our frame of reference for rationality then why should he obey our terms for what is irrational? In the corporeal world not even life comes in perfect opposites and in the dense mix of what humans call reason there are many shades of gray. To presume that God, if he truly exists, would exhibit solely the characteristics we attribute to "perfection" etc. is, in my opinion, mistaken, and if Christians say that he IS perfect in the sense the threadstarter implies then that stems for their own lack of comprehension of their lack of ability to comprehend God, if you get my meaning.

It might also be suggested that God can have enough power to create humans and endow them with the senses of morality and reason they possess, and have an easily more advanced capacity to reason that extends beyond man's abilities, and still be imperfect.

Using these 2 arguments to propose that God can't be perfect, we can also propose God is imperfect and irrational. In that case, if he exists, why should he be cared about?

Because his power is greater than ours and there is much that we could nevertheless learn from him, especially if he did indeed create us?

[Cain]

Another note: I think people mess up this question a lot because many people who challenge the notion of God's existance have a political beef with the concept of organized religion and its canonization of belief systems. Trying to disprove God's very existance by applying human standards of rationality is equally misguided as an attempt to assign to him the dogmas of modern churches.

By trying to unravel the complexities of emotion like love, etc. one can see that such activity is beyond the scope of that reason to handle, and is in many ways not even an appropriate reaction to it: for instance, to physiologically describe love as endorphins and pheromones and chemical reactions in the brain is inherently unsatisfying to us because love doesn't feel like a bunch of juice sloshing around from one side of the cerebral cortex to the other. Reason can thus be suggested as an inappropriate device to be leveled at the concept of love in the quest to understand its dimensions, and one can thus assume that God, which similarly stands beyond that reason's scope, is also inappropriately analyzed and thus inappropriately understood, such as He can be, using those tools.

[fifi trixibell]

Using thickasabrick's definition of instinct it could be reasoned that the act of sex is an instinct. The drive to reproduce leads us to have sex. We do learn this behavior, but I'd be willing to bet that if we put a male and female human on an island together who have never been told about sex they would instictually figure it out.

[Sroji]

My dogs figured it out without any examples.

[thickasabrick]

Using thickasabrick's definition of instinct it could be reasoned that the act of sex is an instinct. The drive to reproduce leads us to have sex. We do learn this behavior, but I'd be willing to bet that if we put a male and female human on an island together who have never been told about sex they would instictually figure it out.

I could argue that. Was there a time when you didn't know how sex worked? I can remember back to before I realized how to actually have sex (using the penis and vagina). I had to be taught that the male sticks his penis in the girls vagina.

Now, let's imagine a bird building a nest. This is instinctual behaviour. Nesting species of birds do not try several different methods of building a "home" before they stumble across the stick/mud nest method.

Now, if this male and female were put on an island, and the male automatically went and stuck his penis in the female and started mating, that would be instinctual. But I can imagine it would involve a fair amount of fumbling and misplaced penises and failed attemps before they figured out the penis/vagina thing, even for an animal as smart as a human.

[samariah]

im sorry i just had to laugh at the image that put in my head

[fifi trixibell]

Now, if this male and female were put on an island, and the male automatically went and stuck his penis in the female and started mating, that would be instinctual. But I can imagine it would involve a fair amount of fumbling and misplaced penises and failed attemps before they figured out the penis/omnibus thing, even for an animal as smart as a human.

I obviously don't know this for sure, but I would assume that the male on this island would eventually go up to the female and do just that(haven't you ever seen "The Blue Lagoon"). And of course it would involve fumbling, even animals don't get it right the first time. Haven't you ever seen two dogs go at it. I'm not saying that for sure we have instincts, it's just my opinion.

[fifi trixibell]

You could also say that when babies chew on things when their teeth are coming in is an example of human instincts. All babies automatically start doing this when their teeth come in, and nobody told them to do it.

[samariah]

is suckling an instinct, for babies?

[Der Übermensch]

ja, and so is rooting (ie finding the nipple).

[thickasabrick]

Suckling and rooting are reflexes not instincts. They are not invariant among species, some babies actually do not suckle or root innately. The only reason I know that is because someone asked that same question in class once.

Dunno about teething, I'm no expert on this stuff, I'll ask a prof at school. If you guys wanna make a new thread about instincts that's fine, but I don't think anyones mentioned God or his perfection in a few pages here. Perhaps we should get back on topic.

[rancid22]

If you guys wanna make a new thread about instincts that's fine, but I don't think anyones mentioned God or his perfection in a few pages here. Perhaps we should get back on topic.

lemme update. i think he put it very well.

Irrational by human standards. And as we very well know, humans have an extremely limited ability to reason about certain things in the first place. If God truly stands outside our frame of reference for rationality then why should he obey our terms for what is irrational? In the corporeal world not even life comes in perfect opposites and in the dense mix of what humans call reason there are many shades of gray. To presume that God, if he truly exists, would exhibit solely the characteristics we attribute to "perfection" etc. is, in my opinion, mistaken, and if Christians say that he IS perfect in the sense the threadstarter implies then that stems for their own lack of comprehension of their lack of ability to comprehend God, if you get my meaning.

It might also be suggested that God can have enough power to create humans and endow them with the senses of morality and reason they possess, and have an easily more advanced capacity to reason that extends beyond man's abilities, and still be imperfect.



Because his power is greater than ours and there is much that we could nevertheless learn from him, especially if he did indeed create us?


Another note: I think people mess up this question a lot because many people who challenge the notion of God's existance have a political beef with the concept of organized religion and its canonization of belief systems. Trying to disprove God's very existance by applying human standards of rationality is equally misguided as an attempt to assign to him the dogmas of modern churches.

By trying to unravel the complexities of emotion like love, etc. one can see that such activity is beyond the scope of that reason to handle, and is in many ways not even an appropriate reaction to it: for instance, to physiologically describe love as endorphins and pheromones and chemical reactions in the brain is inherently unsatisfying to us because love doesn't feel like a bunch of juice sloshing around from one side of the cerebral cortex to the other. Reason can thus be suggested as an inappropriate device to be leveled at the concept of love in the quest to understand its dimensions, and one can thus assume that God, which similarly stands beyond that reason's scope, is also inappropriately analyzed and thus inappropriately understood, such as He can be, using those tools.

[BassRevelation]

Im not "religious folk" but i'll take a shot

Perfection necessitates the absence of limitation.
I believe you're confusing 'perfection' with 'omnipotence'. W

Desire implies limitation.
limitation in what sense?

If I have a desire to yell, am I limited when I let out a scream?

If you mean limited in the sense of incomplete or a strong need, then you would have to tell me why God would need humans.

as far as I know, you're argument has fallen apart from this point.



The ability to create something imperfect requires imperfection.

Here's the catch: God created humans in perfection, in His own likeness.

Imperfection, like evil, logically cannot be created, but only manifested. Just like you cant have injustice before the concept of justice, or darkness without the concept of light, a perfect creation was made before imperfection was manifested.

just a few questions for you to think about:
1) Does perfect exist? If so, what do we use as the standard for perfection when measuring imperfection? Or is it a created concept?
2) Have you seen anywhere in any Holy Text where it deems God as perfect?

making sure we're on the same page. If you've already answered, just copy/paste if relevant.

[thickasabrick]

Is getting 100% on a multiple choice or true/false test considered perfection in the same sense that God is perfect? I mean does perfection = without fault or error, or does perfection imply something different.

I've often heard the argument that perfection is simply a measurement in which God is the maximum, even if human's created the concept (certainly animals don't ponder perfection), they only conceived of the concept because God endowed it upon them.

And if that is the case, then the real issue at hand is whether God exists.

[The Digital Pimp]

To save Perpetual Burn the hassle of posting this on every page of the Christianity Thread i'll make a new thread.

Consider This:

God is perfect.
Perfection necessitates the absence of limitation.
Desire implies limitation.
Absence of desire negates ability of action.
Therefore, a perfect god could not act.
Therefore, God did not create the Universe.

Or alternatively

If God is perfect then by definiton he is only capable of perfection.
Yet Humans are imperfect.
The ability to create something imperfect requires imperfection.
Therefore God cannot be perfect and have created Man at the same time.

Any of our resident religious folk care to solve these problems??

Nothing so amusing as people using logic to try to deal with issues around religion.

[sexymuffin]

Nothing so amusing as people using logic to try to deal with issues around religion.

i wonder what's so amusing about it?

[Sroji]

Because religion operates outside of logic and logic is cannot explain everything.

[sexymuffin]

where did evil come from? why is genocide evil, why is slaughtering your family for no good reason evil, why is robbing a poor family evil, etc.

idk how relevant this is to your question but i just found this which is pretty interesting

http://www.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=601147

[Mr. Ron]

Because religion operates outside of logic and logic is cannot explain everything.

It's so easy to say that, isn't it?

[AmericanWeiner]

Is getting 100% on a multiple choice or true/false test considered perfection in the same sense that God is perfect? I mean does perfection = without fault or error, or does perfection imply something different.

I've often heard the argument that perfection is simply a measurement in which God is the maximum, even if human's created the concept (certainly animals don't ponder perfection), they only conceived of the concept because God endowed it upon them.

And if that is the case, then the real issue at hand is whether God exists.

I would argue that philosophically, any score on a test is a perfect score because that was the natural score for the circumstances present.

[Petros]

i wonder what's so amusing about it?

Because most people do not have a very good understanding of logic. You can put forward a valid argument that is meaningless.

"Logic can only extend certainty to the conclusion but cannot establish certainty of the premises."

[-1up!-]

Because religion operates outside of logic and logic is cannot explain everything.

Yes and some of us do have a problem with this cop-out frequently used by religious nuts.

[lunchforthesky]

Im not "religious folk" but i'll take a shot

I believe you're confusing 'perfection' with 'omnipotence'. W

limitation in what sense?

If I have a desire to yell, am I limited when I let out a scream?

No you are limited because you are not screaming all the time and arent omnipotent. Of course humans could never be perfect, it is God we are talking about.


If you mean limited in the sense of incomplete or a strong need, then you would have to tell me why God would need humans.

as far as I know, you're argument has fallen apart from this point.

Limited in the sense that one cannot act without requiring somehting that is not currently occuring already and therefore God lacks something and so isnt perfect. Its not about needing us to survive its about if God were perfect then he couldnt act seen as he supposedly lacks nothing and is the absolutely complete entity but by carrying out any act he is showing that he is incomplete, lacking something and therefore imperfect.


Here's the catch: God created humans in perfection, in His own likeness.

Imperfection, like evil, logically cannot be created, but only manifested. Just like you cant have injustice before the concept of justice, or darkness without the concept of light, a perfect creation was made before imperfection was manifested.

That really makes no sense, you cannot create something in perfection if it can later slip into imperfection because it clearly proves that thing was not perfect to begin with. If God was perfect, then everything he does would be perfect and he would be unable to create anyhting imperfect as even if he attempted to it would still be perfect by default because god is perfect, yet the church has for centuries claimed humans are imperfect, hence the concept of sin, yet if we are created by God then were are by defualt perfect, because he is perfect and incapable of error regardless of what he tries to create it can never be anyhtin g other than perfect.


just a few questions for you to think about:
1) Does perfect exist? If so, what do we use as the standard for perfection when measuring imperfection? Or is it a created concept?
2) Have you seen anywhere in any Holy Text where it deems God as perfect?

making sure we're on the same page. If you've already answered, just copy/paste if relevant.

I suspect God is revered as perfect countless times in the Bible although i dont feel the need to find some quotes for you. Regardless it is a accepted part of the Christian doctrine which is equally as important as what the bible says in my opinion. Perfection in the Godly sense does not exist because God doesn't exist, it is a created concept by early man thousands of years aog to explain things they couldnt begin to comprehend and then adapted and changed over time, whilst maintaining the "perfect" premise.

[Petros]

I guess no one has ever heard the saying "the greatest perfection is imperfection".

The argument of perfection is a strawman, you set up some idea of what it means it means to say what a perfect being is, and than proceed to knock it down.

Without imperfection one could not know what perfection is, so if the universe was created by a perfect being, than perhaps that being choose to make it imperfect so that it's flaws would reveal the nature of perfection and give it's creation a desire to strive for perfection.

[spitfirejunky]

I'm still having trouble grasping the assumption that desire and timelessness are compatible.

The only real resolution to this argument is that if God can act outside of time, then God can act without desire. And I wouldn't know any arguments that support the former since an action can only be distinguished if the world is different at one moment in time compared to another.

So basically, we can't really conceive it to begin with.

[Petros]

Well just consider the argument's premise: God is perfect. This is an inadmissible scientific premise. It can not be verified, so whatever it actually means is kind of useless to argue about I think. All we have are unprovable assumptions about what this God is and what it means for it to be perfect, which doesn't really help anyone on either side of the fence.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I guess no one has ever heard the saying "the greatest perfection is imperfection".

Sayings and idioms; valid in arguments of logical interpretation!

No, I've never heard that saying.

Without imperfection one could not know what perfection is, so if the universe was created by a perfect being, than perhaps that being choose to make it imperfect so that it's flaws would reveal the nature of perfection and give it's creation a desire to strive for perfection.


arrogance is a negative trait (god told us so) so the arrogant being you propose would be imperfect

[Petros]

Sayings and idioms; valid in arguments of logical interpretation!


It's a paradox. Make what you want of it.


arrogance is a negative trait (god told us so) so the arrogant being you propose would be imperfect

Why would it be arrogant to do this?

[samariah]

i dont see that as inherently arrogant either.

[spitfirejunky]

Well just consider the argument's premise: God is perfect. This is an inadmissible scientific premise. It can not be verified, so whatever it actually means is kind of useless to argue about I think. All we have are unprovable assumptions about what this God is and what it means for it to be perfect, which doesn't really help anyone on either side of the fence.

I think that's what I was implying. The premiss can't even be conceived.

[Der Übermensch]

Suckling and rooting are reflexes not instincts.
Hmm... maybe, but the two are still related...
Another one is that even a new born knows to hold its breath underwater.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Why would it be arrogant to do this?

If as you claim god did this so that we could enjoy its perfection, it'd be creating imperfection just to show off how great it was