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

[FDRC2014]

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

We are animals.
Harry potter says there is a secret wizarding world, that no muggle knows about (or discloses).
How can you have any faith in what the bible says, based upon no evidence. Although it is written by many people and is old, this adds no more credibility to it.

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?

What?
Well, you can blame god for a mutation, but that god is just an unfalsifiable being, as even if you find a cause, say UV light, god could have just caused that. It seems an utterly pointless idea. God is not an answer!

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.

Perhaps platform 9 3/4 was made of jelly.
It makes it no more credible either way. The story of the diseased fruit and talking snake. It seems more like a moral, much like in many stories, rather than fact. Anyway, again, the lack of evidence is just overwhelming.

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.

Fluff around with their words, or is that you just dont understand the scientific method. At least what they write can be understood for what it is. Rather than the bible which is meant to be 'interpreted in your own way, metaphorical or literal' (which begs the question what's the point of it?).
Anyway the fact we are here, with pure evidence held in our genes and soil, proves evolution, but the fact there are no other hypothesis.
You cant disprove something when there is no falsifying evidence, or alternative hypothesis.

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

Skeptical is ok, this is not a creationist. A creationist believes a supernatural being put all the different species on earth. You can have some sceptic in elements of evolution, for example, did birds evolve from dinosaurs. But this is not disproving the original theory!

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.

I never said what man was doing was good, or we weren't overpopulated. But thats just man.

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

I want to believe what the science points to. I have no feeling either way, just which ever way is true for the evidence. I don't have an issue if i am evolved from an ape, apes are very complex, and the biology is just as beautiful. It seems like something a child would do, wishing (although not true) the world was actually a fairy-tail.

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.

WHAT!
Well, you insult your own bible there at least.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Comparing it to quoting (citing) the bible is just ignorant to the whole scientific principle.
An example of how ludicrous what you are stating is, would be me quoting the film Shrek. It's inner stories are written by many authors, over various time scales (for example prince charming). There are many copies of this story, no doubt it has also been translated. It was thought up by many people, and produced by even more (just watch the end credits). Although all these people were involved, in a few hundred years time, for someone to think it true would be insane. I think scientology has this idea, and any religion is just the same.

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".

Again, you don't understand probability.
I don't believe in luck as such, but someone still wins the lottery.
I would be lucky if i won, but not unscientifically lucky.
We could be saying this from anyway in our humongous universe. Or even another universe. Out of all the possibilities, it would be unlucky if life didn't arise somewhere. Just like someone wins the lottery most weeks.

 

[PolyHedral]

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".

You are a puddle saying "Look how perfect this hole is for me!"

 

[gnomon]

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.

This of course assumes that a perfect designer/creator/god would desire to make his creations perfect.

Of course, the ID'ers and Creationists who often makes this assumption make that very claim but from a broader theological perspective there is no reason to assume that a perfect designer would choose to make a perfect creation.

edit: So don't mind me because I just added nothing. +1 posts.

 

[lew0049]

A perfect person can not create anything imperfect, because his creation would lead him to be imperfect. So anyone who believes that God is perfect, must believe that everything about this world is perfect, even the killing, sexism, racism, fascism, and all the other isms.

You're jumping to conclusions and you're assuming that mankind has no role - free will to make decisions. Can you not create something perfect but other variables not make it as perfect as it originally was?

 

[bhaktajan]

"If God is beyond the Laws & Physics of Duality; the how can I get free of the world, Laws & Physics of Duality I'm in?" ---bhaktajan

 

[Wombat]

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".

Hmmmmmm.....Written from "rural NSW"...well.....that explains the "...majestic planet that could not have arisen by chance..." cosmology.

 

[PolyHedral]

You're jumping to conclusions and you're assuming that mankind has no role - free will to make decisions. Can you not create something perfect but other variables not make it as perfect as it originally was?

No, because if they did, it wouldn't be perfect in the first place.

 

[Quagmire]

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...


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.


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.


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.)


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.


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?


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

I love it.


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.

I think that's he problem (and also the beauty) of conversations like this one: when you're talking about the foundational principles of reality you always reach a point where all definitions apply and none of them matter.

 

[Wombat]

“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.” Willamena

I’m taking a tangent via- Polyhedral #242
“You are a puddle saying "Look how perfect this hole is for me!" ..”

I once attended a comic discourse on the ‘Importance of nothing’...the speaker began by articulating the number and variety of essential ‘nothings’...the hole in the doughnut...the nothing there that makes the bowl and the cup useful....it took twenty minutes to articulate with ever increasing fervour the value and importance of ‘nothing’ and concluded with the impassioned question- “Is nothing sacred”?

I give the question a resounding YES! And "Look how perfect this hole is for me!"

Please...do not let nothing be "excluded"

 

[lunamoth]

Please...do not let nothing be "excluded"

Especially since God is no-thing.

 

[Penumbra]

OK, I'm going to start over.

If we accept for the sake of argument the proposition that the term "perfect" applies to God, and agree that "Omniscient, Omni-present, Omni-beneficent, and infinite" is an acceptable definition of perfection when applied to God we can leave that aspect of the question alone and move onto the second part, "why isn't the world perfect".

Yes, that's a reasonable definition for the sake of argument.

My answer: because the concept of perfection is incompatable with the idea of infinity. Perfection suggests that which could never be improved upon. In order to achieve a world that couldnt be improved upon we would have to put limits on potential, and specifically in human imagination: a perfect world would have to be one for which nothing better could be imagined.

Again: this would require limits on A) the potential for good in the universe and B) the ability for the human imagination to think beyond it's present state (at which point it ceases to be imagination).

These limits could themselves be considered flaws and thus "perfection" is a logical impossibility.

I do agree that the very concept of a perfect world is problematic, and that room for improvement is arguably necessary.

This is why, when I discuss PoE with theists, I focus on that which is absolutely terrible as my source of criticism for why this world and a perfect god are at odds. I focus on the "why isn't the world better" argument, which you address below.

If, as has been suggested more than once in this thread, we substitute some version of 'better" for "perfect", and ask "Why didn't God create a better world?", the answer is because in this usage of the word better it's being applied to a hypothetical, and the argument can be made that since God's thoughts create the world, it would be a logical impossibility for God to think hypothetically. Even if God were to tweak logic for us and go ahead and create a hypothetical world, His hypothetical worlds wouldn't do us anymore good than our own hypothetical ones, since they'd merely be hypothetical.

If we use the world as it is as our starting point and conceive of a "better" world, that world is only a better world until it becomes actualized, at which point it is no longer a "better" world, it's just the world.

The only way to maintain that new and improved version of the world's status as a "better" world, would be to continue to compare it to the world we just came from (this one) in which case, if "better" is the agreed upon operative definition for 'perfect", it would indeed be a better world.

But, if we decided that this was an acceptable method of achieving perfection---by comparing one world to another, inferior one---, it could easily be pointed out that via this method, we would also have to consider the world we presently exist in as perfect too, since we can conceive of worse worlds and in comparison to those, and using "better" as the operative definition of 'perfect", since this world is better from our perspective than, say, a world where 5000lb radio-active spiders were the apex predator, by our agreed upon method of determining perfection, the answer to the question "why didn't God create a perfect world" would have to be "He did".

This argument is problematic in the sense that no matter what type of world exists, this argument applies to it and proposes that it is perfect. If we were in the world with 5000lb radio-active spiders, assuming we were able to escape for a minute to discuss philosophy, you could argue that this spider-world was perfect, since you can conceive of a worse world (for instance, where 10,000lb radio-active scorpions with lasers were the apex predator).

So your argument labels almost all possible worlds as perfect. It could be a world where 90% of children die unpleasantly from cancer, but this argument would apply (since we could conceive of a worse world where 95% of all children die unpleasantly from cancer).

For the most part, we can conceive of both better and worse hypothetical worlds than this one.

 

[Quagmire]

Yes, that's a reasonable definition for the sake of argument.

I do agree that the very concept of a perfect world is problematic, and that room for improvement is arguably necessary.

This is why, when I discuss PoE with theists, I focus on that which is absolutely terrible as my source of criticism for why this world and a perfect god are at odds. I focus on the "why isn't the world better" argument, which you address below.

This argument is problematic in the sense that no matter what type of world exists, this argument applies to it and proposes that it is perfect. If we were in the world with 5000lb radio-active spiders, assuming we were able to escape for a minute to discuss philosophy, you could argue that this spider-world was perfect, since you can conceive of a worse world (for instance, where 10,000lb radio-active scorpions with lasers were the apex predator).

So your argument labels almost all possible worlds as perfect. It could be a world where 90% of children die unpleasantly from cancer, but this argument would apply (since we could conceive of a worse world where 95% of all children die unpleasantly from cancer).

For the most part, we can conceive of both better and worse hypothetical worlds than this one.

It isn't my argument, it's yours. I was just taking it to it's logical conclusion to show you why it doesn't work.

 

[Penumbra]

It isn't my argument, it's yours. I was just taking it to it's logical conclusion to show you why it doesn't work.

In what way?

If there existed a world without any absolutely horrible stuff in it, how would that not be better than this one?

 

[Quagmire]

In what way?

If you go back several posts (probably pages by now) you'll see that you were the one who suggested substituting some version of "better" for the concept of perfection. What I was dong in my example was showing you that if we agreed to take that approach, this world would qualify for "perfect" as readily as any other.

If there existed a world without any absolutely horrible stuff in it, how would that not be better than this one?

Not saying it wouldn't be better, just trying to show you what happens when we try to use "better" in place of "perfect".

My position is that by this or any other definition "perfect" is a logical impossibility.

 

[Penumbra]

If you go back several posts (probably pages by now) you'll see that you were the one who suggested substituting some version of "better" for the concept of perfection. What I was dong in my example was showing you that if we agreed to take that approach, this world would qualify for "perfect" as readily as any other.

This world wouldn't quality as perfect just because we can think of a worse one.

Not saying it wouldn't be better, just trying to show you what happens when we try to use "better" in place of "perfect".

My position is that by this or any other definition "perfect" is a logical impossibility.

But this isn't the logical conclusion of what happens when we use better instead of perfect.

My reason for using better is to show that, although "perfect" is a fairly arbitrary concept for something that's so multi-faceted, it's not unreasonable to say that the really, really terrible stuff in this world doesn't have to exist and is at odds with an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god.

 

[Quagmire]

This world wouldn't quality as perfect just because we can think of a worse one.

According to your prescription it would have to.

But this isn't the logical conclusion of what happens when we use better instead of perfect.

Yes it is. If you set a standard for something then you have to abide by that standard in all it's applications.

If "better" is a functional substitute for "perfect", than anything that "better" could be applied to would also have to be considered perfect.

My reason for using better is to show that, although "perfect" is a fairly arbitrary concept for something that's so multi-faceted, it's not unreasonable to say that the really, really terrible stuff in this world doesn't have to exist and is at odds with an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god.

"Really, really terrible stuff" is a really, really subjective term.

From what I can see I've already demonstrated that perfection is a logical impossibility, and that "better" isn't any better.

So how would you go about improving the world? I mean to the point that no one in that world could come up with any basis for making a thread like this one?

 

[Penumbra]

According to your prescription it would have to.

Yes it is. If you set a standard for something then you have to abide by that standard in all it's applications.

If "better" is a functional substitute for "perfect", than anything that "better" could be applied to would also have to be considered perfect.

I don't recall making the argument that better is a functional substitute for perfect. If I made something similar, like when I said I prefer to show imperfection by pointing out a conceivably better world, then this argument you're putting forth doesn't apply to it.

"Really, really terrible stuff" is a really, really subjective term.

From what I can see I've already demonstrated that perfection is a logical impossibility, and that "better" isn't any better.

Really, really terrible stuff is indeed a subjective term, but we have pretty useful axioms to use. I really slow extremely suffering death is one such example. Does the world really need those? Wouldn't removing those be a good improvement?

So how would you go about improving the world? I mean to the point that no one in that world could come up with any basis for making a thread like this one?

This is a bit of a trap question- I could write a 500 page book on the subject and it wouldn't be enough. Let alone in a single post.

A lot of what you're saying now seems to reference an earlier post of mine, where I said this:

So rather than trying to define a perfect world, which I agree would be somewhat relative, the more appropriate path I think is to demonstrate the inverse- that this world is imperfect. And basically my question ends up being more of a challenge- I challenge theists to present a coherent model of why the most grievous suffering and despair necessarily must exist in a so-called perfect world.

So the explanation would have to somehow convincingly answer a whole host of questions, such as:
-Why would animals suffer in a perfect system?
-Why are mass-extinction events part of a perfect system?
-Why is disease included in a perfect system? Are microscopic torture and killing devices really needed in a perfect world?
-Why are there mental disorders in a perfect system, like diseases that cause people and other animals to go insane and/or hurt others, or like chemical imbalances that can cause depression, or diseases that make the mind slowly decay in old age?
-Why would a perfect system include genetic defects?
-Why would a large percentage of lifeforms miscarry?

So I think a good starting point would be to not have those things.

 

[Quagmire]

I don't recall making the argument that better is a functional substitute for perfect. If I made something similar, like when I said I prefer to show imperfection by pointing out a conceivably better world, then this argument you're putting forth doesn't apply to it.

Of course it does. To label something "imperfect" is to imply that you think it could be improved upon, ie., it could be "better".

You have to come up with some idea of "perfect" before "imperfect" has any meaning.

Really, really terrible stuff is indeed a subjective term, but we have pretty useful axioms to use.

And if we found ourselves in a new and improved world where those things didn't exist, we have a completely different set of axioms. What I'm getting at from a relativistic standpoint, we'd be in exactly the same boat we're in now.

I really slow extremely suffering death is one such example. Does the world really need those? Wouldn't removing those be a good improvement?

Whether it would be a good improvement or not isn't the point. It would have to be a final and all inclusive improvement in order for "perfect" to apply. Unless we're going back to "better" again.

This is a bit of a trap question- I could write a 500 page book on the subject and it wouldn't be enough. Let alone in a single post.

A lot of what you're saying now seems to reference an earlier post of mine, where I said this:

So I think a good starting point would be to not have those things.

-Why would animals suffer in a perfect system?
-Why are mass-extinction events part of a perfect system?
-Why is disease included in a perfect system? Are microscopic torture and killing devices really needed in a perfect world?
-Why are there mental disorders in a perfect system, like diseases that cause people and other animals to go insane and/or hurt others, or like chemical imbalances that can cause depression, or diseases that make the mind slowly decay in old age?
-Why would a perfect system include genetic defects?
-Why would a large percentage of lifeforms miscarry?

OK then, lets say all that goes away. Now we're in a world where none of the above exist.

There's no suffering,
no disease
no mental disorders
no genetic defects
no miscarriages.

OK, this is "better". So, are we going to use better as an operational equivalent of perfect?

 

[Penumbra]

Of course it does. To label something "imperfect" is to imply that you think it could be improved upon, ie., it could be "better".

You have to come up with some idea of "perfect" before "imperfect" has any meaning.

And if we found ourselves in a new and improved world where those things didn't exist, we have a completely different set of axioms. What I'm getting at from a relativistic standpoint, we'd be in exactly the same boat we're in now.

Whether it would be a good improvement or not isn't the point. It would have to be a final and all inclusive improvement in order for "perfect" to apply. Unless we're going back to "better" again.

OK then, lets say all that goes away. Now we're in a world where none of the above exist.

There's no suffering, (note: I don't recall saying "no suffering")
no disease
no mental disorders
no genetic defects
no miscarriages.

OK, this is "better". So, are we going to use better as an operational equivalent of perfect?

No, because it's imprecise to use better as an operational equivalent of perfect. It's a straw man, albeit probably not a deliberate one, to continue with that route.

Focusing on what you said here:
"You have to come up with some idea of "perfect" before "imperfect" has any meaning."

This isn't true. For example, my job at work is to make systems better all the time. I don't have to know what is perfect to realize that they are imperfect and to make them better. All I have to do is identify individual problems and begin correcting them, or to initially realize a large set of problems, and then design a more elegant solution to reduce or eliminate a lot of those problems.

 

[Quagmire]

No, because it's imprecise to use better as an operational equivalent of perfect. It's a straw man, albeit probably not a deliberate one, to continue with that route.

But this is exactly what you're doing. You propose a world that's better than this one as an alternative to having to define perfect. If you've changed your mind (again) and want to go back to "perfect", then you'll have to address my proposition that perfection is a logical impossibility.

Focusing on what you said here:
"You have to come up with some idea of "perfect" before "imperfect" has any meaning."

This isn't true. For example, my job at work is to make systems better all the time. I don't have to know what is perfect to realize that they are imperfect and to make them better.

Yes, you make them better. They're only better in relation to their former state, that's my point.

Also, obviously the use of "imperfect" in this case is in comparison to some standard that you have in mind. what I'm trying to get you to do is to explain what standard you have in mind when you class the world as "imperfect".

To say that a system is "imperfect" is redundant, since no system is perfect.

All you're saying is that it could be made "better", which puts us right back where we were.

All I have to do is identify individual problems and begin correcting them, or to initially realize a large set of problems, and then design a more elegant solution to reduce or eliminate a lot of those problems.

Yes, which is what you seem to have been suggesting with the list you offered. what I'm trying to show you is that this new and improved world you're proposing via this list is only new and improved until it becomes actualized, at which point it isn't a better world, it's just the world.

And the POE could just as easily be brought up in that world as in this one.