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

[Willamena]

The number of limits would, but whatever you're applying those limits to wouldn't be.

We're talking past each other, and I'm sorry for that. I'm saying that if infinite is "for example" a number of things, then...

But potential is itself a thing.

That's my point. The "thing potential" is not "the thing". They are two different things. I am potentially a rocket engineer. But I'm not a rocket engineer.

Then again existence can't be without potential otherwise it isn't infinite.

That's why I said, "Potential exists." It's within the set of all things. "Existence" isn't actually the set, if the set exists --the set is all things. However, to label it "existence" is common language, and understood. Literally, existence can't be potential --it can't be anything --it is being. So the set winds up being nothing more than that set of "all things" (a 'thing' being).

Technically, we can't even talk about existence. That's why we have things to talk about instead.

Including potential, as well as infinity. Since they can't both exist, and yet they must both exist, we're kind of stuck with a paradox.

Oh, I didn't see what you were saying before: that something can't be infinite and potential. But existence isn't a thing, so everything's okay. (Literally. )

Now if you're saying that the set of all things can't be infinite and potential, I'd ask the same question I asked Poly. If you 'add a thing' to the set of all things, you still have the set of all things --it hasn't changed. It's not fixed in size, because the measurement "size" is a thing. It's not fixed in location, because spacial "location" is a thing. It doesn't have any attribute, because attributes are things. If it includes it's own potential, it's still complete. So is there really a problem?
(...with magic in the world. I think not.)

Which is a limited definition. You're excluding all that can be.

I'm excluding nothing (literally) ...except, of course, that "nothing" is by definition "not a thing," so fortunately it doesn't exist to be excluded.

Potentiality, as well as anything that could potentially exist, would have to be included in order for "infinite" to apply.

Where have I excluded potential? I'm missing something. I see "potential" in contrast to "actual," but existence isn't limited to "actual" (except by poor definition). Potential and actual describe conditions --both the potential and the actual exist.

Is that where we differ?

You're asking that we take into consideration the "content" of nothing and you don't realize that the conversation has already ceased to make sense?

That's the beauty (the poetry) of talking about paradoxes like "nothing".

I love it.

And potentiality is a thing, even though it's just a concept. Why should we exclude concepts?

For potentiality to exist, we can't have completion. For completion to exist, potentiality must have been fulfilled in which case there is no more potential.

For infinity to exist, we have to have both, so once again we have a paradox.

I'm not excluding concepts. Are you? It's simply a paradox, and paradoxes do exist.

When we're talking about the set of all things --that necessarily has no limits, because limits exist --it can exclude no thing. I suspect, though, that (as I've had cause to say often lately) some people's universes are a whole lot bigger than others.

I see that you're equating completion and actuality. I can see that image, but I can also see potential being complete unto itself.

 

[PolyHedral]

Is the ability to add something more to it characteristic of a set? If not, what's the problem?

You can normally add things to a set, but we started with the set of all things. How does it make sense to add something to "all things"? Anything we could possibly add should already be there.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

What if everything is perfect? Only your thinking makes it otherwise. Perfect is a word, created by man. And most of the things that are 'imperfect' are the things that us humans have had a hand in....this place is our play ground, to stretch our own creative wings.....the only 'imperfection' is in us...and it's not imperfection, it's just that we aren't done yet.

 

[Willamena]

You can normally add things to a set, but we started with the set of all things. How does it make sense to add something to "all things"? Anything we could possibly add should already be there.

Just so. But it's not necessary to add things to a set.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Willamena,

Technically, we can't even talk about existence. That's why we have things to talk about instead.

Well said; only in Silence can one merge with existence and the way is MEDITATION and not discussion. Discussions can only help as steps of a ladder but finally silence within has to be reached to realise one's buddha nature which is the potential everyone in form is born with.

Love & rgds

 

[idea]

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

God did not create everything - actually, the word "create" has been mis-translated. see:

Hebrew Word Studies
"The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for. "


bara - translated as create - actually means "transform"...

this:
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
(Old Testament | Isaiah 45:7)

should be this:
7 I form the light, and transform darkness: I make peace, and transform evil: I the LORD do all these things.


we are actually as old as God - we have no beginning... God found us, saw our potential, and adopted us...


(New Testament | Romans 8:15)...ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

adoption is where someone takes care of another they did not create...


8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
(Old Testament | Isaiah 64:8)

the potter did not make the clay... he transforms what allows itslef to be transformed...

 

[newhope101]

If life had a designer, and the designer was perfect, why isn't all life perfect?
Why is our trachea ventral (infront) of our oesophagus, (posing the risk of choking, meaning we have to have an epiglottis).
Why are our retinas inverted (i.e. the rods and cones point the wrong way round).

Why do biological proteins not always work efficient, e.g. RUBISCO has an oxygenase activity (an evolutionary accident).
And following from that, why are not all plants the more efficient C4 (or CAM) plants (most are C3).
Why didn't god just make them all the more efficient C4?

There are many more examples of imperfections in life...

All of the above can be explained by evolution, but why would a designer do this.

Your concern relates to the lack of scientific knowledge known today.

Much the same as the big question not so long ago was ...why did God make Junk DNA? This is of course untill these bright ones finally realised that junk DNA has important functions and is not junk at all.

Mankind fell from favour, that explains our imperfections.

Really what is going on here is that your researchers do not have a clue what is perfect and what is not.. they just like to think they do!

 

[newhope101]

Your concern relates to the lack of scientific knowledge known today.

Much the same as the big question not so long ago was ...why did God make Junk DNA? This is of course untill these bright ones finally realised that junk DNA has important functions and is not junk at all.

Mankind fell from favour, that explains our imperfections.

Really what is going on here is that your researchers do not have a clue what is perfect and what is not.. they just like to think they do!

..and it is mankind that has stuffed and polluted the planet, don't blame Gods design for not coping with our polutants. Rather, what is illustrated is that mankind is unable to nor are they competent in, caring for this planet.

 

[blackout]

No, that God is.

Thus the ... and the :flirt:

(I did have a feeling I'd be the only one who understood my response. )

 

[blackout]

My world should be perfect for me.

Your world should be perfect for you.

Is this possible? Considering we live in the same world.

 

[newhope101]

Despite slow catalysis and confused substrate specificity, all ribulose bisphosphate carboxylases may be nearly perfectly optimized

The cornerstone of autotrophy, the CO2-fixing enzyme, d-ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco), is hamstrung by slow catalysis and confusion between CO2 and O2 as substrates, an “abominably perplexing” puzzle, in Darwin's parlance.

We assert that all Rubiscos may be nearly perfectly adapted to the differing CO2, O2, and thermal conditions in their subcellular environments, optimizing this compromise between CO2/O2 specificity and the maximum rate of catalytic turnover.

Despite slow catalysis and confused substrate specificity, all ribulose bisphosphate carboxylases may be nearly perfectly optimized



Rubiscos is as I said, made perfectly..........

 

[FDRC2014]

Despite slow catalysis and confused substrate specificity, all ribulose bisphosphate carboxylases may be nearly perfectly optimized

The cornerstone of autotrophy, the CO2-fixing enzyme, d-ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco), is hamstrung by slow catalysis and confusion between CO2 and O2 as substrates, an “abominably perplexing” puzzle, in Darwin's parlance.

We assert that all Rubiscos may be nearly perfectly adapted to the differing CO2, O2, and thermal conditions in their subcellular environments, optimizing this compromise between CO2/O2 specificity and the maximum rate of catalytic turnover.

Despite slow catalysis and confused substrate specificity, all ribulose bisphosphate carboxylases may be nearly perfectly optimized



Rubiscos is as I said, made perfectly..........

Interesting.
I could rephrase the question then, why did god create a world that requires rubisco to act this way?

 

[FDRC2014]

Why are we not all lactose tolerant?
Evolution explains this well, and in fact it is an aspect in which humans are evolving right now. But how does creationism handle this?

 

[waitasec]

Why are we not all lactose tolerant?
Evolution explains this well, and in fact it is an aspect in which humans are evolving right now. But how does creationism handle this?

i am lactose intolerant...so is my dad and all my siblings...

 

[FDRC2014]

i am lactose intolerant...so is my dad and all my siblings...

Precisely.
This is evolution in action, especially in africa and asia.

We were all lactose intolerant, we are only meant to drink milk from birth to about 4, when the lactase gene is switched off.
A mutation in the gene that switches off this gene occurred in scandinavia (apparently other locations as well, as co-evolution occurred). Providing lactose tolerance into later life. This is an advantage to people throughout the world, especially in africa and asia where they drink a lot of milk. Though in asia, there is still ≈85% lactose intolerance.
The gene is evolving into asia and Africa, as it provides increased fitness.

But my question is, why didn't god just give us all lactose tolerance, why did he design us to be intolerant?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

But my question is, why didn't god just give us all lactose tolerance, why did he design us to be intolerant?

Why did God endow me with such umm girth?

How many questions does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

Infinite God means infinite questions... Are we that bored?

Why yes, yes we are... Which is why I continue to ramble on this very thread.

 

[FDRC2014]

This thread has become a circular argument (like most religious debates).
It appears that, there are two main reasons why God made us/the world the way it is.
1. We are in fact perfect (which I have argued that we are not), as stated above. And simple we havern't found the reason for certain things. This is an ok argument, but again, evolution explains this will less assumptions (well, the assumption of a creator), and gives answers to say, why men have nipples, which would make less sense in gods eyes (unless they comform the the argument above, and have an unknown use, better than any alternative).

2. The second argument is that the reason why god makes us imperfect (and the world) is to punish us for a 'perfect' man and woman, being convinced by a talking snake to eat a magical apple. This obviously was presented by the more indoctrinated people out there. Anyway, it still begs the question, if adam and eve were perfect, why did adam have nipples?

I can conclude that i have more belief in evolution, since it explains many of the imperfections in life, using a logical approach.

 

[newhope101]

Mathew, the bible does not say that animals were given eternal life. Only mankind appears to have been offered this promise.

If you look to the crazy research out there much of what this lot speak to as genomic differences relates to diseases and cancers. What they are looking at is what God did to our genetic makeup to bring on aging and death. Evo researchers are trying to look for how to slow or stop this process. They must believe it can be tinkered with. Why can't an all powerfull God?

It is very very real that God woud not have had to do much to change our make up to bring on death. Perhaps the fruit was diseased, radioactive, who knows. Whether this was done by miraculous means or a contolled solar burst or many other phenomenon is unknown.

Evo researchers fluff around with their words. They do not know what is perfect or not. For all their words and theory, here we are today alive and reasoning, and able to ponder thoughts of the hereafter.

If I were an evolutionist I would likely follow Margulis. I only know a little of her work. However she is well credentialed and also thinks that common thinking and theories are insufficient to explain the process of evolution. She has recently asserted that creationists are right to be skeptical, not because she thinks evolution did not happen but because common thinking is insufficient to explain it.
Lynn Margulis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As an evo I would say that the evolutionary process has done nothing more than created a super virus in mankind. One that is spreading like cancer over the earth sucking the life out of the planet. Hence mankind must be nothing more than a viral ape. The last phase of a process where the natural world finally devolved back to a viral state, only larger and more capable of worldwide domination and destruction.

Do you really want to believe you are nothing more than an ape or a virus? I do not.

Do you really want to base your beliefs on the reasoning of man that use their reasonings as support for myth which has no more value than quoting the bible, anyway.

We are here, and so far we are alone on a majestic planet that could not have arisen by chance, unless you are a believer in luck, which is even less scientific than saying probably "God did it".

.

 

[newhope101]

Why are we not all lactose tolerant?
Evolution explains this well, and in fact it is an aspect in which humans are evolving right now. But how does creationism handle this?

You appear to be getting desperate.Animals never had eternal life. Humans have fallen. This thread is a bit of a nonsense in that your reseachers have no idea what imperfect means, in the grand scheme of things. They fluff around with their experiments to produce flavour of the month that will have ample research to refute or question it.

Your question and resulting answers have nothing to do with an ape becoming human. Lactose intollerance is only a recent phenomenon. 10,000 years ago humans were humans. I think we are both agreed on that!

Genetic studies suggest that the oldest mutations associated with lactase persistence only reached appreciable levels in human populations in the last ten thousand years.[47][48] Therefore lactase persistence is often cited as an example of both recent human evolution[49][50] and, as lactase persistence is a genetic trait but animal husbandry a cultural trait, gene-culture coevolution.[51]
Lactose intolerance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PolyHedral]

10,000 years ago humans were humans. I think we are both agreed on that!

True, but the article you just quoted almost explicitly says that, 11,000 years ago, they weren't.