If God created everything why didn't he create it perfect?

[Willamena]

Why is it necessary to assume that "God" is/must be a perfectionist?

just thinking out loud.

Well, you're here, aren't you?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Well, you're here, aren't you?

I'll jump in and say that I never presumed God to be perfect in such a semantic twisted literacy. I just issue critical thinking for others who try to denounce Him.

 

[Quagmire]

Why is it necessary to assume that "God" is/must be a perfectionist?

just thinking out loud.

So you don't believe God is Omni-anal?

 

[waitasec]

I just issue critical thinking for others who try to denounce Him.

how come?

 

[Penumbra]

Assuming there is a "correct" theology.

Or until it was disclosed that the artist was 6 months old and blind.

Because the argument was predicated on presumptions to begin with.

The fact that it's undesirable doesn't confirm anything except that it's undesirable. And I would offer that it is actually desirable more often than not, otherwise we wouldn't indulge in it the way we do.

Which identifies a big part of the problem right there: we think we're God's boss.

Better for who? The victims? Wherever they are, I'm sure they aren't worried about it anymore.

It isn't supposed to be a defense, just a tool for keeping a few things in perspective.

That's what I'm saying: relative to perfection, the scenario that you're offering isn't any less imperfect than our own reality.

It would merely be an improvement, but unless there were no conceivable way to improve on that, then it isn't a viable definition or example of perfection.

I'm not making any positive claims here and I didn't put forth any ascertains so I don't need a defense.

Again, just as with any debate concerning any version of the Problem of Evil, the onus is on the advocate of the POE to demonstrate how the fact of imperfection equates to evidence of lack of perfection in God.

The whole idea is predicated on the assumption that pain/suffering, in and of itself, should be considered a systemic imperfection, rather than just a feature.

Then you would have to offer me a really, really good deal.

I might even take your word for that, but I probably still wouldn't give you any $ for it.

Again: it would depend on whether or not you were trying to get me to buy the thing. If you were just telling me about it because you were excited to have it and it was making you happy for the moment, sure, I wouldn't necessarily have to know why it was effecting you that way in order to be happy for you.

Of course. All guitars are imperfect, shattered or not.

Religion has nothing to do with it. Like I said: if this were a theological debate, then theological answers would be acceptable.

Since it's a logical debate---were not discussing any claimed attributes for God, we're trying to determine whether the fact of what we perceive as imperfections in the world logically rules out any possible attributes for god.

All that needs to be demonstrated is whether or not the fact of imperfection in our world logically rules out the possibility of a perfect creator of this world.

Like I said: the only thing that needs to be assessed here is the validity of the idea that an imperfect world (as we perceive it to be) somehow suggests imperfection in god.

Which is why I didn't say more optimal. One may be as good as another.

And I've never seen a decent rebuttal to my suggestion that the POE is predicated on an assumption.

Until that's done, the POE carries zero weight, and the whole argument goes out the window.

Much of your post consisted of unrelated asides rather than being a cohesive argument to demonstrate any one thing.

For instances,
-The example regarding an engineer was not about being a boss. The manager in the example doesn't represent humanity, it's just a character to make a point. If agonizing deaths of a hundred million men, women, and children are necessary constraints to achieve some end-goal, then how is that perfection? The Problem of Imperfection is less-so about telling god what to do, and more-so an argument against the proposition that this god exists.
-Your remark regarding the picture was witty, but unless your argument is that god is the metaphorical equivalent of a blind child, it's not really related to the concept of whether a god is perfect (and if anything it would be an admission that god is not perfect). The example is meant to illustrate that, yes, we can judge a creator by what it has created. It can give us a substantial amount of information to work with.

The guitar question which you've answered shows a predicted level of inconsistency on the subject. You're willing to be sold an idea, such as the concept of a perfect god, without being highly skeptical of the claim, and yet you'd scrutinize the claim if I was attempting to sell you a broken guitar that I claim is magnificent and valuable.

The burden of proof does not lie with the one putting forth the problem of evil/suffering/imperfection, unless that person is specifically stating that it makes a god concept impossible. Most of these problems are intelligently put forth as questions, such as Epicurus did thousands of years ago, and such as the OP has done.

They're questions meant to point out an inconsistency that rarely or never gets properly addressed by theists. If it can be shown that there are major imperfections in the world (such as genetic defects, choking hazards, a spine that is prone to problems, etc), it constitutes a very strong argument against several types of gods, such as powerful and benevolent ones, caring and perfect ones, etc. You say that theologies aren't involved here, but they are. The majority of defenses against these problems are theologies (or rest upon them indirectly), but as far as I've seen, none of them properly and fully answer the problem.

The proposition of the existence of a perfect god is an idea being sold. When scrutinized, it faces the same problem as the broken guitar. If god is perfect, then why do biological problems exist? Why the existence of disabling genetic defects, or diseases that kill millions, or allowing animals to suffer? These are questions which show the implausibility and unlikelihood of the god hypothesis, and compares it to hypotheses that do not include god concepts.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

how come?

Because people who do not know Abrahamic religion tend to not know Abrahamic religion

You can't presume to have a valid opinion on God if you only look at the bad and not the good. There are, believe it or not, connections and rationale in it's entirety that really dismantle a lot of the common indiscretions some have.

 

[Quagmire]

Much of your post consisted of unrelated asides rather than being a cohesive argument to demonstrate any one thing.

For instances,
-The example regarding an engineer was not about being a boss. The manager in the example doesn't represent humanity, it's just a character to make a point. If agonizing deaths of a hundred million men, women, and children are necessary constraints to achieve some end-goal, then how is that perfection? The Problem of Imperfection is less-so about telling god what to do, and more-so an argument against the proposition that this god exists.

But the whole premise is based on holding god accountable to us and our standards. In that sense, we really are putting ourselves in the position of God's boss.

-Your remark regarding the picture was witty, but unless your argument is that god is the metaphorical equivalent of a blind child,

What I was trying to say with that is that you can't necessarily judge the artist by their art without taking into account a few details about the artist. In this case, just based on the drawing and nothing else, the claim that the artist is "this supposedly amazing artist, who is gifted beyond comprehension" seems ridiculous.

If later, we're made to realize that the drawing was done by a 6 month old blind person, then the claim "this (is a) supposedly amazing artist, who is gifted beyond comprehension" is undeniable.

Basically what I'm saying is that when it comes to Creation/reality/existence, we don't know enough about either the art or the artist to make any judgements about the artist based on the art.

it's not really related to the concept of whether a god is perfect (and if anything it would be an admission that god is not perfect). The example is meant to illustrate that, yes, we can judge a creator by what it has created.

If we understand what they've created, ie., the nature, the purpose, the essence. When it comes to reality, we don't know much about any of that. Most of what we use to qualify these things with is pure speculation, and it's always speculation based on a lot of assumptions.

It can give us a substantial amount of information to work with.

Considering all there is to this particular work of art, it would take an astronomical number of lifetimes just to view it in it's totality, let alone understand it.

The guitar question which you've answered shows a predicted level of inconsistency on the subject. You're willing to be sold an idea, such as the concept of a perfect god,

What makes you say this?
I'm not trying to advocate for the existence of a perfect god, all I'm doing in this thread is demonstrating that perceived imperfection in our reality doesn't necessarily equate to an imperfect creator. There's a difference.

without being highly skeptical of the claim, and yet you'd scrutinize the claim if I was attempting to sell you a broken guitar that I claim is magnificent and valuable.

Of course. then again, if the broken guitar walked up to me on the street and attempted to sell itself to me, I would probably start reaching for my wallet.

The burden of proof does not lie with the one putting forth the problem of evil/suffering/imperfection,

If it's pointed out to that person that one of the premises the idea they're using to base their argument on is faulty, yes, it's up to that person to either A). Demonstrate that premises legitimacy, or B). Concede that their conclusion is unfounded.

You can have an equation with a zillion legitimate variables, but if even one of those variables is a question mark, then the total is also a question mark.

unless that person is specifically stating that it makes a god concept impossible.

If they're using the argument to make any statements in regards to the God concept.

Most of these problems are intelligently put forth as questions, such as Epicurus did thousands of years ago, and such as the OP has done.

As I've said before, IMO, one of the questions in the POE is based on an unfounded assumption. There's nothing wrong with the OP (and I feel we've strayed a bit from the exact topic, since the OP is using inefficiency in design to base his questions on rather than any perceived moral deficiency in reality as it operates )

They're questions meant to point out an inconsistency that rarely or never gets properly addressed by theists.

Like I said: one of the premises the POE is based on seems like a loaded question to me. It's making an assumption and asking the recepient to accept the assumption as a given.

If there's a flaw in the question, then pointing out that flaw and asking that it be addressed is the most appropriate answer.

If it can be shown that there are major imperfections in the world (such as genetic defects, choking hazards, a spine that is prone to problems, etc), it constitutes a very strong argument against several types of gods, such as powerful and benevolent ones, caring and perfect ones, etc. You say that theologies aren't involved here, but they are. The majority of defenses against these problems are theologies (or rest upon them indirectly), but as far as I've seen, none of them properly and fully answer the problem.

It doesn't matter what the majority of responses or defenses are based on.

The proposition of the existence of a perfect god is an idea being sold.

The idea that you can get Nikes online at a terrific discount is also an idea being sold. What does that have to do with this debate?

When scrutinized, it faces the same problem as the broken guitar. If god is perfect, then why do biological problems exist?

They don't generally exist in nature, not for very long anyway. As far as our particular set of biological problems, almost all of those are self inflicted.

Why the existence of disabling genetic defects,

Several reasons, almost all of which come down to manmade environmental factors.

or diseases that kill millions,

Almost (if not all) infectious diseases can be traced to the advent of livestock domestication.

Degenerative diseases are even more obviously the result of lifestyle choices and in a societal sense, self-inflicted conditions.

or allowing animals to suffer?

Animals don't generally suffer in the wild. Any circumstance that's liable to cause suffering in any animal---starvation, dehydration, injury, being eaten by predators-- is almost certainly going to be fatal either immediately or at least after a very short amount of time. The time spent suffering over the course of an individuals lifetime is usually brief, and in most cases, singular events

These are questions which show the implausibility and unlikelihood of the god hypothesis,

Only if that hypothesis includes certain assumptions about god, as well as a whole range of assumptions about reality.

 

[lunamoth]

This thread makes me wonder ... can any values statement be axiomatic?

 

[Quagmire]

This thread makes me wonder ... can any values statement be axiomatic?

I'm going to say yes, but that's only because I don't know what that word means. (something to do with a respiratory disorder, right?)

edit: OK, I Googled it.

axiom: def:
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.


Ah, that I believe is part of the problem: a lot of things that are being taken as axiomatic are actually just overwhelmingly popular assumptions.

 

[Penumbra]

But the whole premise is based on holding god accountable to us and our standards. In that sense, we really are putting ourselves in the position of God's boss.

What I was trying to say with that is that you can't necessarily judge the artist by their art without taking into account a few details about the artist. In this case, just based on the drawing and nothing else, the claim that the artist is "this supposedly amazing artist, who is gifted beyond comprehension" seems ridiculous.

If later, we're made to realize that the drawing was done by a 6 month old blind person, then the claim "this (is a) supposedly amazing artist, who is gifted beyond comprehension" is undeniable.

Basically what I'm saying is that when it comes to Creation/reality/existence, we don't know enough about either the art or the artist to make any judgements about the artist based on the art.

If we understand what they've created, ie., the nature, the purpose, the essence. When it comes to reality, we don't know much about any of that. Most of what we use to qualify these things with is pure speculation, and it's always speculation based on a lot of assumptions.

Considering all there is to this particular work of art, it would take an astronomical number of lifetimes just to view it in it's totality, let alone understand it.

What makes you say this?
I'm not trying to advocate for the existence of a perfect god, all I'm doing in this thread is demonstrating that perceived imperfection in our reality doesn't necessarily equate to an imperfect creator. There's a difference.

Of course. then again, if the broken guitar walked up to me on the street and attempted to sell itself to me, I would probably start reaching for my wallet.

If it's pointed out to that person that one of the premises the idea they're using to base their argument on is faulty, yes, it's up to that person to either A). Demonstrate that premises legitimacy, or B). Concede that their conclusion is unfounded.

You can have an equation with a zillion legitimate variables, but if even one of those variables is a question mark, then the total is also a question mark.

If they're using the argument to make any statements in regards to the God concept.

Like I said: one of the premises the POE is based on seems like a loaded question to me. It's making an assumption and asking the recepient to accept the assumption as a given.

If there's a flaw in the question, then pointing out that flaw and asking that it be addressed is the most appropriate answer.

It doesn't matter what the majority of responses or defenses are based on.

The idea that you can get Nikes online at a terrific discount is also an idea being sold. What does that have to do with this debate?

Basically what you're advocating here is an extreme form of agnosticism, rather than presenting an answer that deals with the real substance of the problem. This is what I mean when I say that what you're presenting is a highly inconsistent level of skepticism. If there's an equation with a zillion legitimate variables, and one of them is a question mark, then we don't throw our hands up and go, "well, we just don't know!". Rather, we analyze the quite a bit of material that's available and draw strong conclusions. Not all options remain equally on the table just because people lack omniscience. The search for knowledge in any reasonable setting doesn't work like that, but for theists advocating a perfect god, it's for some reason expected that their position be given special treatment, as though it should be considered a valid position until some future time when we are omniscient and can discredit it.

The problem of imperfection and the related problems are meant to highlight why this hypothesis of god has much less to stand on than other hypotheses.

You seem to dislike using theologies to deal with this problem, but from what I observe, some of the theologies get a lot further when attempting to deal with this than an extreme form of agnosticism does, because a position built on an extreme form of agnosticism requires inconsistency and special treatment to keep the position viable.

As I've said before, IMO, one of the questions in the POE is based on an unfounded assumption. There's nothing wrong with the OP (and I feel we've strayed a bit from the exact topic, since the OP is using inefficiency in design to base his questions on rather than any perceived moral deficiency in reality as it operates )

The OP brought morality into it in post 5.

They don't generally exist in nature, not for very long anyway. As far as our particular set of biological problems, almost all of those are self inflicted.

Several reasons, almost all of which come down to manmade environmental factors.

Almost (if not all) infectious diseases can be traced to the advent of livestock domestication.

Degenerative diseases are even more obviously the result of lifestyle choices and in a societal sense, self-inflicted conditions.

Some diseases certainly are linked to lifestyle, while others are not the fault of the individual.

I find a certain amount of irony in the position that things like domestication caused these problems and that this constitutes a defense. Human life expectancy was somewhere around the mid-twenties to mid-thirties back when our species were hunter-gatherers, and things like starvation and other problems were the primary threat rather than disease. The work has led to trading one problem for another, albeit with the assumption that the second problem isn't as bad as the first (based on life expectancy, and the overall movement of society towards knowledge of our world).

Animals don't generally suffer in the wild. Any circumstance that's liable to cause suffering in any animal---starvation, dehydration, injury, being eaten by predators-- is almost certainly going to be fatal either immediately or at least after a very short amount of time. The time spent suffering over the course of an individuals lifetime is usually brief, and in most cases, singular events

Not from what I've seen. A lot of animals tend to have pretty hard lives, having to fight for dominance to mate, having a constant struggle to get enough food, etc. And on what basis are you saying that things like starvation, dehydration, and injury aren't suffering, or that this counts as a short death?

Only if that hypothesis includes certain assumptions about god, as well as a whole range of assumptions about reality.

And in this thread, the assumption is perfection (which is clearly only put forth based on the commonality of this claim). The OP made it clear in post four that if a theist admits their god isn't perfect, this can be moved on. It would become inapplicable.

And the same thing can be expanded to other assumptions. That's why it's often good to tailor this to a particular person and their faith. If someone believes in a perfect god, or a loving god, or a personal god, or a god with any number of attributes, then arguments like these apply to them. If, on the other hand, someone believes in a callous god, or a god that is imperfect, or a god that is distant and unconcerned with individual lifeforms, or something like that, then the problems of imperfection/suffering/evil, are not of their concern, and they need not concern themselves with these sorts of threads.

 

[Meow Mix]

I've seen a lot of good points on a lot of different sides of a lot of different issues here. It's difficult to keep up when I'm only on sporadically, so I'm just going to through out a few piecemeal points.

I've seen talk of perfection being a comparison; something that couldn't be asserted without varying degrees of imperfection. This is true, but I think it's a good point that it seems like there is a little too much imperfection. A world that allows for leukemia kids is obviously far worse than one in which the worst that could happen to you is a stubbed toe, for instance.

Someone could argue, "But in a world where you could only stub your toe, you'd be complaining about that being such a terrible thing that exists." I could see their point here, but at the same time it seems obvious that the extent of physical suffering in this world exceeds some difficult-to-define limit. I don't know when to start calling a pile of sand a pile of sand (assuming I start with one grain and add a grain at a time) but I know a pile when I see one.

So, it seems a fair question to me to ask why such things exist if the creator has certain attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience.

 

[lunamoth]

I've seen a lot of good points on a lot of different sides of a lot of different issues here. It's difficult to keep up when I'm only on sporadically, so I'm just going to through out a few piecemeal points.

I've seen talk of perfection being a comparison; something that couldn't be asserted without varying degrees of imperfection. This is true, but I think it's a good point that it seems like there is a little too much imperfection. A world that allows for leukemia kids is obviously far worse than one in which the worst that could happen to you is a stubbed toe, for instance.

Someone could argue, "But in a world where you could only stub your toe, you'd be complaining about that being such a terrible thing that exists." I could see their point here, but at the same time it seems obvious that the extent of physical suffering in this world exceeds some difficult-to-define limit. I don't know when to start calling a pile of sand a pile of sand (assuming I start with one grain and add a grain at a time) but I know a pile when I see one.

So, it seems a fair question to me to ask why such things exist if the creator has certain attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience.

This is like saying that theists are obligated to defend their position with rigorous logic, but those questioning theism need only refer to common sense or what seems right to them.

 

[Meow Mix]

This is like saying that theists are obligated to defend their position with rigorous logic, but those questioning theism need only refer to common sense or what seems right to them.

That's a fair retort, though on the same hand I'm sure even theists would agree with me that a world in which a stubbed toe is the worst that could happen to you is better than a world in which some of the awful things that exist in this one could happen to you.

In order to take advantage of such a counterpoint, the theist would have to insist that they hold no such opinion -- something I find extremely unlikely.

 

[lunamoth]

That's a fair retort, though on the same hand I'm sure even theists would agree with me that a world in which a stubbed toe is the worst that could happen to you is better than a world in which some of the awful things that exist in this one could happen to you.

In order to take advantage of such a counterpoint, the theist would have to insist that they hold no such opinion -- something I find extremely unlikely.

No, that's not necessary. The theist just has to point out that the original premise can't be logically addressed with the information at hand so there is no onus to defend it logically.

 

[Penumbra]

This thread makes me wonder ... can any values statement be axiomatic?

It seems to me that those who wish to bend axioms are only willing to bend them inconsistently.

If I come across someone who seems comfortable with dropping the axiom that grievous suffering is a bad thing, I'd assume that they'd adhere to that axiom pretty strongly in regard to their children or other loved ones grievously suffering but don't mind dropping it to try to support their god hypothesis.

Progression in the world relies on certain axioms like
-knowledge is good, both for its utility and for its own sake
-well-being is preferable to grievous suffering
-logic is useful

If debate opponents wish to discuss axioms, I'm willing to do so, but I'm going to point out inconsistencies as I see them and I'd expect them to do the same.

This is like saying that theists are obligated to defend their position with rigorous logic, but those questioning theism need only refer to common sense or what seems right to them.

Typically, theists are making far more specific claims than their atheist counterparts when it comes to the basis of the cosmos, and therefore have a much narrower hypothesis to defend.

For instance, if a theist has the position that a god exists and created the world, and then goes on to suggest that their god has various attributes like perfection, omnipotence, omniscience, and a personality that surpasses any other being in terms of love, then they're setting their selves up with a pretty specific position to defend.

The attributes can be dropped to widen their hypothesis, and therefore sidestep the whole problem of perfection (simply by letting go of the position that their god is perfect), but even the hypothesis that a god is involved at all is rather specific (but that would be for another debate).

If, rather, we were a scientific circle, and theists were replaced by string theorists, and the atheists were the ones saying that string theory doesn't seem correct, then it would be up to string theorists to show why their hypothesis should be given any scientific legitimacy.

The problem of perfection constitutes a criticism of various theistic positions.

 

[Quagmire]

Basically what you're advocating here is an extreme form of agnosticism, rather than presenting an answer that deals with the real substance of the problem. This is what I mean when I say that what you're presenting is a highly inconsistent level of skepticism. If there's an equation with a zillion legitimate variables, and one of them is a question mark, then we don't throw our hands up and go, "well, we just don't know!".

That's not what I was doing: I was using that as a critique of the POE. My own beliefs or opinions about the existence of God or His nature is something else all together.

Rather, we analyze the quite a bit of material that's available and draw strong conclusions. Not all options remain equally on the table just because people lack omniscience. The search for knowledge in any reasonable setting doesn't work like that, but for theists advocating a perfect god, it's for some reason expected that their position be given special treatment, as though it should be considered a valid position until some future time when we are omniscient and can discredit it.

Nope: again, the issue is the validity of the POE.

The problem of imperfection and the related problems are meant to highlight why this hypothesis of god has much less to stand on than other hypotheses.

Which hypothesis of God? there are several.

You seem to dislike using theologies to deal with this problem, but from what I observe, some of the theologies get a lot further when attempting to deal with this than an extreme form of agnosticism does, because a position built on an extreme form of agnosticism requires inconsistency and special treatment to keep the position viable.

OK, just to make things clearer? I'm not an agnostic. I have my own definite beliefs and these land me pretty squarely in the theist camp.

Thing is: I'm leaving my beliefs out of this debate because they have no bearing on the question. If I wanted to answer the OP in accordance with my own theology, all my posts so far would look completely different.

The OP brought morality into it in post 5.

Only as a response to to what I'm assuming was a tongue in cheek post by someone else.

diseases certainly are linked to lifestyle, while others are not the fault of the individual.

In the big picture, almost all if not all diseases are the result of lifestyle choices: whether we're talking about an individuals choice to smoke tobacco, or our ancestors choice to adopt a settled agrarian existence.

I find a certain amount of irony in the position that things like domestication caused these problems and that this constitutes a defense.

I find a lot of irony in it, but it isn't a defense, it's an indictment.

Human life expectancy was somewhere around the mid-twenties to mid-thirties back when our species were hunter-gatherers,

What is this based on? I know when I was in college my world history prof brought this up, and after class I asked him why this should be so since the early European explorers consistently remarked on the fact that the indigenous, "primitive" people they encountered tended to live relatively long lives and remained viral and active well into what Europeans of that time would have considered advanced old age.

He mumbled something about dental evidence in unearthed human remains and infant mortality and made it clear that he didn't actually know himself.

So anyway, sincere question; what is the idea that our hunter/gather ancestors life expectency was in the range you gave based on?

and things like starvation and other problems were the primary threat rather than disease.

During the ice ages, maybe. I would call that special circumstances.

The work has led to trading one problem for another,

Exactly, and since it's a deal we agreed to the idea that most of our present ills are anyone's responsibility but our own is a bit irresponsible.

albeit with the assumption that the second problem isn't as bad as the first (based on life expectancy, and the overall movement of society towards knowledge of our world).

And that is an assumption.

Not from what I've seen. A lot of animals tend to have pretty hard lives, having to fight for dominance to mate,

How do you know they aren't enjoying this? We seem to.

having a constant struggle to get enough food, etc.

Life is a struggle. Apparently, it's supposed to be. why should we see that as a negative, or assume that any other species does?

And on what basis are you saying that things like starvation, dehydration, and injury aren't suffering, or that this counts as a short death?

I didn't say they aren't cause for suffering. I said that over the course of an individuals lifetime, barring special circumstances (most of which we cause) those periods are going to be few and brief.

As far as \the length of timje it takes to die from any of the examples I gave:

Starvation: 2 months tops. Usually, a lot less time than that since starvation limits an animals ability to defend itself, even from the elements.

Dehydration: 3 days tops.

Injury: depending on what it is, the time will vary, but if it's a disabling injury the animal will die pretty quick just from not being able to cope with it's environment. If it isn't a disabling injury, the animal will either heal from it or adjust to it and it becomes a non-issue.

And in this thread, the assumption is perfection (which is clearly only put forth based on the commonality of this claim). The OP made it clear in post four that if a theist admits their god isn't perfect, this can be moved on. It would become inapplicable.

there's no need to admit that God isn't perfect, unless or until it's been demonstrated conclusively that our perception of imperfection in the world necessitates an imperfect Creator.

And the same thing can be expanded to other assumptions. That's why it's often good to tailor this to a particular person and their faith.

It's easier that way, both sides will either have to agree to disagree or just disagree.

If someone believes in a perfect god, or a loving god, or a personal god, or a god with any number of attributes, then arguments like these apply to them.

the argument is open to anyone who's willing to accept any of those ideas for the sake of argument too.

If, on the other hand, someone believes in a callous god, or a god that is imperfect, or a god that is distant and unconcerned with individual lifeforms, or something like that, then the problems of imperfection/suffering/evil, are not of their concern, and they need not concern themselves with these sorts of threads.

None of that is true: like any other topic that puts forth a premise for the sake of argument, or asks something that could be considered even hypothetically "If there is a God, how could He be perfect and create an imperfect world?" the argument is open to anyone.

again; it's a logical problem, not a theological one.

 

[lunamoth]

It seems to me that those who wish to bend axioms are only willing to bend them inconsistently.

How can one 'bend' an axiom? An axiom is a self-evident truth. Either it is an axiom, or it is not.

If I come across someone who seems comfortable with dropping the axiom that grievous suffering is a bad thing, I'd assume that they'd adhere to that axiom pretty strongly in regard to their children or other loved ones grievously suffering but don't mind dropping it to try to support their god hypothesis.

See, here you have slipped from the language of logic to the realm of subjectivity and opinion, but still want to make it seem like you are using logic.

Progression in the world relies on certain axioms like
-knowledge is good, both for its utility and for its own sake
-well-being is preferable to grievous suffering

These are not axioms.

-logic is useful

This one might be, if you define useful.

If debate opponents wish to discuss axioms, I'm willing to do so, but I'm going to point out inconsistencies as I see them and I'd expect them to do the same.

Fair enough. This discussion has been mired from the start, though, because 'perfect' is a value, not some kind of fact.

Typically, theists are making far more specific claims than their atheist counterparts when it comes to the basis of the cosmos, and therefore have a much narrower hypothesis to defend.

For instance, if a theist has the position that a god exists and created the world, and then goes on to suggest that their god has various attributes like perfection, omnipotence, omniscience, and a personality that surpasses any other being in terms of love, then they're setting their selves up with a pretty specific position to defend.

The attributes can be dropped to widen their hypothesis, and therefore sidestep the whole problem of perfection (simply by letting go of the position that their god is perfect), but even the hypothesis that a god is involved at all is rather specific (but that would be for another debate).

If, rather, we were a scientific circle, and theists were replaced by string theorists, and the atheists were the ones saying that string theory doesn't seem correct, then it would be up to string theorists to show why their hypothesis should be given any scientific legitimacy.

The problem of perfection constitutes a criticism of various theistic positions.

But what would it even mean to say that String theory is perfect?

 

[Penumbra]

How can one 'bend' an axiom? An axiom is a self-evident truth. Either it is an axiom, or it is not.

What I mean is, some people seem willing to question the axioms at certain times, but not at others. But if I see someone questioning the axioms, I'm going to follow the logic where it leads and show them if possible.

See, here you have slipped from the language of logic to the realm of subjectivity and opinion, but still want to make it seem like you are using logic.

At some point if enough axioms are dropped, language becomes useless to the point of a debate not even being possible.

If hypothetically someone were trying to argue that
a) God is loving
b) Grievous suffering isn't a bad thing

Then the debate isn't going to get very far because the second one goes against a nearly universally held human opinion. So if b) is true, doesn't a) become rather useless or irrelevant?

These are not axioms.
This one might be, if you define useful.

In many settings they are. They're not logical axioms, but they are axioms regarding values. For instance, in the field of medicine, there is the axiom that health and well-being is a good thing. Without that axiom, the field of medicine doesn't make sense.

When it comes to behavior, there are certain things that make sense, and like I said, I'm willing to work with debate opponents on them, but I'm going to hold it to consistency as best I can.

To the vast majority of people, they'd prefer being a knowledgeable and happy individual, rather than an ignorant person dying in a gutter somewhere. If someone wants to attack the legitimacy of this popular opinion, then sure I guess they can do that, but the discussion is going to become fairly silly wouldn't you say?

There are near-universals, commonly accepted as just basic axioms of human existence, such as:
-knowledge is good, both for its utility and for its own sake
-well-being is preferable to grievous suffering
-logic is useful

The second one being particularly useful in this debate.

Fair enough. This discussion has been mired from the start, though, because 'perfect' is a value, not some kind of fact.

Granted, but to a certain degree, light is shed on the term as the discussion goes as long as the discussion is roughly Socratic.

For instance, if we start out having no idea what perfection is, but then it's revealed by people that potentially hold the position that god is perfect that:
-it's not a matter of morality
-it's not a matter of creating perfect things
-it's not a matter about caring or loving
-it's not a matter of opinion

So then I'd expect theists that participated in the debate to not consider their god perfect because apparently it's been decided that it's not even applicable. But, as I've stated previously, theists give more to work with than just "perfect". They provide concepts like omnipotent or loving or personal that can be contested in the debate.

But what would it even mean to say that String theory is perfect?

It wouldn't mean anything to say that string theory is perfect. It would mean something to say that string theory is true. It would mean something to say that a perfect god exists, or to narrow it down and say that an omnipotent god exists, or a powerful and loving god exists, or whatever the theist's position happens to be. The problems of imperfection/suffering/evil critique all of these common theistic hypotheses in various ways.

 

[blackout]

Why is it necessary to assume that "God" is/must be a perfectionist?

just thinking out loud.

Well, you're here, aren't you?

Are you implying that I'm a perfectionist? :flirt:

 

[Cordoba]

If life had a designer, and the designer was perfect, why isn't all life perfect?

Here is an answer to the question

God is Perfect; and only He can be Perfect. A human being is a creation of God; and so by default he/she can only be less than God, and so less than perfect. Thus a human is naturally imperfect. This goes for the world too. ...

Imperfect Creation of the Perfect Creator - Islamic Creed - counsels - OnIslam.net