Giving God human qualities

[richardlowellt]

I don't think we are flawed. I think that a creator must create perfect things. The creator may create parts and bits that by themselves appear to us flawed, but how can a perfect creator create things that are not perfect?

Not flawed, your joking right. here are the flaws this demon god created in us.

1.) A body with no defense against parasitic organisms.
2.) A body with no defense against viruses, HIV, just one example.
3.) Eyes wired backwards and upside down prone to retinal detachment.
4.) Joints that wear out
5.) A rib cage that does not fully enclose our most vital organs.
6.) A body so fragile that a mer fall or puncture can kill us.

Our universe is in a constant state of turmoil and entropy, suns exploding and destroying entire solar systems, colliding galaxies, black holes devouring all, cold, hostile to life, bombarded with radiation, is this what you would call perfect?

Perhaps, the apparent flaws are merely perfection in another form, that we have a hard time understanding. Isn't that possible?

It is certainly a nice dodge, a way to let this demon god off the hook, they are flaws for us, we are suppose to be the ones he cares about, how would these flaws in another form affect us? It may be possible, but certainly not reasonable and logical, personally I don't believe it is possible.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Many ask why do some try to give human qualities to God.

I believe that God uses humans to perpetuate God's glory and eternal power. I don't think God sits in a vacuum, but has a purpose in creating us, and it is because of this purpose, he is absolutely interested in us.

Non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Even if one were to presume that "God" does not sit idly while creation functions, that does not give reason to suppose that "God" is interested "personally" in any one aspect of creation over any other. "God" is a being which transcends the boundaries of knowledge and being omnibenevolent there is no reason to assume that concern would be placed more greatly on one aspect of creation over any other. So why is it our purpose is any more "important" to the "divine plan" for the cosmos than some other purpose?

MTF

 

[Valjean]

If he was so interested in us why would he infest the planet with parasitic organisms and disease? Why create a planet with a molten core that promotes death and destruction for those he is suppose to be interested in?

That molten core generates the magnetic field that shields us from cosmic rays and solar wind, and prevents said silar wind from "blowing" away our atmosphere like it did on solid-cored Mars.

 

[cardero]

Many ask why do some try to give human qualities to God.

I believe that God uses humans to perpetuate God's glory and eternal power. I don't think God sits in a vacuum, but has a purpose in creating us, and it is because of this purpose, he is absolutely interested in us.

Pull the string!!!

 

[Just_me_Mike]

If he was so interested in us why would he infest the planet with parasitic organisms and disease? Why create a planet with a molten core that promotes death and destruction for those he is suppose to be interested in?

The mistake here is in thinking evil serves no purpose, is arbitrary, and can not assume a role in a perfect creation.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Even if one were to presume that "God" does not sit idly while creation functions, that does not give reason to suppose that "God" is interested "personally" in any one aspect of creation over any other. "God" is a being which transcends the boundaries of knowledge and being omnibenevolent there is no reason to assume that concern would be placed more greatly on one aspect of creation over any other. So why is it our purpose is any more "important" to the "divine plan" for the cosmos than some other purpose?

MTF

Again it seems popular here, that humans being significant, somehow lessons the importance of everything else. I submit that everything is equally important as this creation and purpose carries out. As is stated in the bible, even the lilies in the field are important to God.

So please stop inserting the assumption that I believe otherwise.

 

[richardlowellt]

Asking God to not infest the world with parasitic organisms is the equivalent to asking him to take us off the planet.




Confusing replay at best, nonsense at worst.

This makes absolutely no sense, what the hell are you trying, and not a very good try, to say?

 

[richardlowellt]

That molten core generates the magnetic field that shields us from cosmic rays and solar wind, and prevents said silar wind from "blowing" away our atmosphere like it did on solid-cored Mars.

This is the best he could do? He's all powerful, surely there could have been other ways to shield us rather than create a planet with a cooling crust giving rise to all sorts of disasters, very careless, sloppy, and down right incompetent, not well thought out at all. So much for all knowing all powerful.

 

[richardlowellt]

The mistake here is in thinking evil serves no purpose, is arbitrary, and can not assume a role in a perfect creation.

BS, the mistake here is assuming any good can come from imperfectly creating us and our world. No one said parasites were evil, they are part of nature, no god placed them here, no loving god could, there existence further proves that no such being created anything, same for the cooling planet. I will assume the imperfect human and the imperfect universe he is part of was never created by any supernatural being. The imperfections we see, and the premiss of a perfect being creating all is an oxymoron.

 

[Morse]

This makes absolutely no sense, what the hell are you trying, and not a very good try, to say?

Parasitism - A symbiotic relationship where the parasite organism benefits at the expense of the host. The host is sometimes killed

Parasitoidism - A symbiotic relationship where the parasite organism benefits at the expense of the host. The host is always killed.

Humans are parasites, the earth is our host. The comment wasn't supposed to go anywhere, but you felt pedantic enough to go over this thread and nit pick through everybody's posts, regardless of whether or not they held any thread impact.

As well, congratulations, you get angry too easily.

 

[Morse]

This may be activate one of Mr.Angry's mood swings, but hell, whatever. This theory of mine combines a concept expressed in quantum physics with my personal speculations on how a higher power may function.

Quoted from: Nothing

13. Nothing is perfect- I'm afraid on this one I disagree with entirely. I believe everything and everyone is perfect. I believe the only flaw we humans have is the BELIEF that no one or no thing is perfect and only by believing in this flaw do flaws exist at all!

This is a debatable point. The entirety of human existence is riddled with our flawed people and imperfect creations. But I am sure that for the entirety of human existence, we have considered ourselves faulty to a degree (unless you’re the pope of course). If we were perfect, we would have no need for machines or tools.

By this logic, one must drop the belief of indubitable imperfection in order to achieve perfection. After attaining this perfect mind set, our flaws will cease to exist. Under a certain magnification this may look obviously false, but I would first like to expose this to a certain slant of light.

My fanciful idea of the higher power involves the concept of a design that details everything. Whether it is theory, events, objects, notions, possible outcomes, or infinity of other topics, it is all designed there. This design would by default have to include each individual human being, and each role, outcome, notion, or pertinence that may or may not occur in their life, otherwise it would not be infinite. This implies that everything have a role, a role that encompasses every possible outcome that it is able to conceive or attain.

If it is able to attain every possible outcome or goal, then it would by default be perfect. But it is a relative perfection. It is not perfect within the entirety of the design, it is perfect within its own portion of possibilities, outcomes, and perceptions. It is perfect for the parts it may or may not play in the world. This is perfection to it, because it can only know that which it is able to conceive.

This is of course assuming that my fanciful perception of the higher deity or the concept that everybody is perfect has even a modicum of accuracy.


Note, I just copy pasted this because it relates to the subject a teeny bit. Its a form of relative perfection, not absolute perfection.

 

[Autodidact]

Many ask why do some try to give human qualities to God.

I believe that God uses humans to perpetuate God's glory and eternal power. I don't think God sits in a vacuum, but has a purpose in creating us, and it is because of this purpose, he is absolutely interested in us.

And you know this how?

 

[Morse]

And you know this how?

Haven't you read the numerous threads about the theistic argument "I have faith, and faith does not require proving"?

 

[richardlowellt]

Parasitism - A symbiotic relationship where the parasite organism benefits at the expense of the host. The host is sometimes killed

Parasitoidism - A symbiotic relationship where the parasite organism benefits at the expense of the host. The host is always killed.

Thanks for reenforcing my point about a flawed creation.

Humans are parasites, the earth is our host. The comment wasn't supposed to go anywhere, but you felt pedantic enough to go over this thread and nit pick through everybody's posts, regardless of whether or not they held any thread impact.[/QUOTEA statement was made about a perfect being creating everything perfect, I don't think it was pedantic of me to point out the flaw associated with that premiss. And I didn't "nit pic" through everybody's posts only the one claiming a perfect being creating perfection.

As well, congratulations, you get angry too easily.

I do when people use flawed reasoning and claim their beliefs to be factual, yes I do.

 

[Morse]

No attacks on my relative perfection? By the presented logic, it would not be a flawed creation unless stated in terms of absolute.

 

[richardlowellt]

No attacks on my relative perfection? By the presented logic, it would not be a flawed creation unless stated in terms of absolute.

your premiss does not address physical flaws in both humans and the cosmos, nor the flaws in creating this planet. Your ideas are certainly interesting although very abstract.

 

[Morse]

your premiss does not address physical flaws in both humans and the cosmos, nor the flaws in creating this planet. Your ideas are certainly interesting although very abstract.

The physical flaws are present because the functions we evolved for do not need to make use of said parts. As well, everything must die, that is a part of a perfect world. The flaws could very well incorporated into our relative perfection as a means to die. Because if we did not die because we had perfect bodies, the world would become overpopulated, and the laws of scarcity would go into hyperdrive. The result is an imperfect world.

A cycle that involves violent death seems imperfect, but it has its reasons.
I don't think I addressed the question very well, but I will mull it around in my glass for a bit. I may have contradicted myself as well...

 

[richardlowellt]

The physical flaws are present because the functions we evolved for do not need to make use of said parts.

And what are the functions that we have evolved to do? What "said parts" do we not need? How does a rib cage that does not fully enclose our most vital organs, and retinas prone to detachment fall into your scheme?

As well, everything must die, that is a part of a perfect world. The flaws could very well incorporated into our relative perfection as a means to die.

All well and good, yes of course we expect to die, but not because we have been designed so fragile that a mere fall can kill us.

Because if we did not die because we had perfect bodies, the world would become overpopulated

Oh, I think once we eliminated the mindless breeding cycle that religion demands, that "be fruitful and multiply" mindset that religion hoodwinks the poor and uneducated into believing, we could certainly control our population. Of course we would eventually die, that is part of the natural cycle of things, perfect? I'm inclined to think not.

A cycle that involves violent death seems imperfect, but it has its reasons.

I'm mot sure what these reasons could be, unnecessary suffering seems to have no purpose.

I don't think I addressed the question very well, but I will mull it around in my glass for a bit. I may have contradicted myself as well...

I think I understand what you are getting at.

 

[richardlowellt]

This may be activate one of Mr.Angry's mood swings, but hell, whatever.

I guess I'm Mr. Angry? :thud:

 

[Morse]

I guess I'm Mr. Angry? :thud:

Not anymore. I made an assumption and I was wrong in that assumption. I apologise.

As for the large quote thing, were all those things inside the quotes but outside mine your statements? Which would make the only statement outside of quotes sarcastic... Which means I have to defend my point...