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

[Where Is God]

If you think Science did a perfect job in creating this world, why are you complaining?

If you would actually read instead of assuming, you would see that I said "excellent" and not "perfect." If science did a perfect job of creating everything, I wouldn't have to ***** about it so much, would I? :slap:

 

[Penumbra]

I don't know why people seek perfection. That, in and of itself, makes no sense.

There two main issues in this discussion.

-There's the philosophical question, which attempts to show the contradiction of proposing a perfect god alongside an imperfect world.

-There's the practical question. If someone has their kid die from cancer at age 3, or they have some incurable condition that causes a lot of suffering and disability, could they reasonable feel that their god did a good job?

 

[Rakhel]

Like there is that much of a difference. You'd ***** even either way. And besides, science needs improvements as well. Have you not seen the latest on the drugs that were "supposed" to cure all? Half of them are causing more harm than good.

 

[Penumbra]

Like there is that much of a difference. You'd ***** even either way. And besides, science needs improvements as well. Have you not seen the latest on the drugs that were "supposed" to cure all? Half of them are causing more harm than good.

Does this address any of the points at all?

 

[Luminous]

If you think Science did a perfect job in creating this world, why are you complaining?

prabably because science(nature) doesn't say it is all-powerful.

 

[Where Is God]

Like there is that much of a difference. You'd ***** even either way. And besides, science needs improvements as well. Have you not seen the latest on the drugs that were "supposed" to cure all? Half of them are causing more harm than good.

SERIOUSLY? You believe we are anywhere near a cure-all you are crazy. we can't even cure cancer by itself.

Perfect and Excellent and amazingly different actually, Perfect being without flaw, excellent being with many flaws. Our world has a great many flaws. Disease, religion, hate, war, famine, hurricanes, volcanoes, tornadoes, droughts, need I go on? Nature did a great job getting us here, now we just have to fix it's mistakes. :beach:

 

[Luminous]

I don't know why people seek perfection. That, in and of itself, makes no sense.

I don't understand why people choose to wallow in imperfection. That, in and of itself, makes no sense... unless they were tricked by malignant beings, or aren't as reasonable as they pretend to be. [As Johnathan Swift seemed to have thought]

 

[Where Is God]

Does this address any of the points at all?

:troll:

 

[Luminous]

:troll:

He isn't trolling on purpose.


Besides, Ann Coulter's good people .

 

[Where Is God]

Besides, Ann Coulter's good people .

Yeah you're probably right.

 

[Breathe]

Though evolution does not require any need for a God, once life has begun (up until then it is still only hypothesises).

Yeah. I subscribe to "atheistic evolution" anyway (despite being a theist ).

The creator would not have to be perfect, if the creator is your own creator. But most religions presume that god is perfect, if you admit that he isn't then this point can be moved on.

But even still, why would a perfect creator's creation require perfection?

What even is meant "perfection" in this case?

A perfect person can not create anything imperfect,

Why?

because his creation would lead him to be imperfect.

How?

I don't agree. I don't follow your reasoning.

 

[Where Is God]

Yeah. I subscribe to "atheistic evolution" anyway (despite being a theist ).


But even still, why would a perfect creator's creation require perfection?

What even is meant "perfection" in this case?



Why?


How?

I don't agree. I don't follow your reasoning.

If I am a perfect artist and I never mess up my paintings and they all come out perfect(which is impossible because artwork is an opinion it is just my example), then I am perfect. However, if I drop my brush a little and mess up on a line or two, I am no longer perfect.

 

[Penumbra]

But even still, why would a perfect creator's creation require perfection?

It might not require it if there was some perfect reason for causing imperfection.

What even is meant "perfection" in this case?

Applying the concept of perfection to a multi-faceted concept such as "life" or "the universe" is bound to result in a lack of conclusion on the matter.

Probably the best way of thinking about it is, "is the best of all possible worlds I can conceive of?" If not, it's probably not perfect. As a brief start, the best possible world I can conceive of doesn't include brain parasites, flesh eating bacteria, childhood cancer, genetic defects that cause people to be born without arms and legs, an environment that regularly and randomly kills people and other animals, a fairly high complication rate and agony regarding childbirth, and some lesser annoyances like wisdom teeth or vision problems that are so common.

 

[SLAMH]

There two main issues in this discussion.

-There's the philosophical question, which attempts to show the contradiction of proposing a perfect god alongside an imperfect world.

-There's the practical question. If someone has their kid die from cancer at age 3, or they have some incurable condition that causes a lot of suffering and disability, could they reasonable feel that their god did a good job?

But the discussion neglects the religious philosophy on the issue, according to religions God created the world to test people and evaluate their deeds at different circumstances, so let's say if God did the other way around and create perfect world, perfect people, so what to test ..... which means we will agree on everything because we are simply perfect. there is no good ,bad , evil or whatever, even the concept of sins will be eliminated which is the purpose for which God created us, from religion's point of view that is, the purpose will not be workable.

 

[Penumbra]

But the discussion neglects the religious philosophy on the issue, according to religions God created the world to test people and evaluate their deeds at different circumstances, so let's say if God did the other way around and create perfect world, perfect people, so what to test ..... which means we will agree on everything because we are simply perfect. there is no good ,bad , evil or whatever, even the concept of sins will be eliminated which is the purpose for which God created us, from religion's point of view that is, the purpose will not be workable.

First of all, it's not according to "religions" that god created the world to test people. That's a belief in only a subset of religions. Other religions have very different explanations.

Secondly, I observe that this explanation has numerous shortcomings:

-Nature and nurture leads to different brain states among people. Things like the ability to think with empathy are dependent on functioning of certain parts of the brain. Testing a variety of healthy and flawed brains, which is part of the imperfection itself, doesn't seem very fruitful at all. And this is why the concept of religious judgment isn't very sound either. Brains have differing abilities to think critically, think compassionately, understand external phenomena, and so forth.

-In the billions of years where there existed life including birth, death, pleasure, and suffering, but not sapience on this planet, what was being tested?

-The explanation assumes god is limited by spacetime. Testing is only applicable when we don't already know the result.

 

[Breathe]

If I am a perfect artist and I never mess up my paintings and they all come out perfect(which is impossible because artwork is an opinion it is just my example), then I am perfect. However, if I drop my brush a little and mess up on a line or two, I am no longer perfect.

But art is subjective as you have said. What if this creators creations were perfect even if not perfect in its mind (however odd to us that may be)? Perhaps even these could be, to that creator's mind, its own choice for whatever reason? To us they would appear malevolent, but who is to say they would be for that entity? Not saying I believe it, mind you, as I don't believe in a God-who-makes-stuff or guides stuff.

As a brief start, the best possible world I can conceive of doesn't include brain parasites, flesh eating bacteria, childhood cancer, genetic defects that cause people to be born without arms and legs, an environment that regularly and randomly kills people and other animals, a fairly high complication rate and agony regarding childbirth, and some lesser annoyances like wisdom teeth or vision problems that are so common.

But of course, doesn't this presuppose that this creator is concerned with our welfare? Would doing things it saw fit without concern for one of its creation render it imperfect, or is that just human-centric thought being projected onto this hypothetical creator?

 

[SLAMH]

First of all, it's not according to "religions" that god created the world to test people. That's a belief in only a subset of religions. Other religions have very different explanations.

Ok, would you mind if you give some examples to different explanations.

Secondly, I observe that this explanation has numerous shortcomings:

-Nature and nurture leads to different brain states among people. Things like the ability to think with empathy are dependent on functioning of certain parts of the brain.

Testing a variety of healthy and flawed brains, which is part of the imperfection itself, doesn't seem very fruitful at all. And this is why the concept of religious judgment isn't very sound either. Brains have differing abilities to think critically, think compassionately, understand external phenomena, and so forth.

First define flawed brains ?

Second, you talked about brain abilities and how it differs, Ok I don't see how this would be relevant. If you would assume that is because of different brain abilities that we have ,then the test is invalid, then how would you explain the variety of personality characteristics, traits of the followers of one faith. if that is the case a group A with certain qualities would follow religion 1 which is not true in practice.

-In the billions of years where there existed life including birth, death, pleasure, and suffering, but not sapience on this planet, what was being tested?

elaborate on this...

-The explanation assumes god is limited by spacetime. Testing is only applicable when we don't already know the result.

Is it in the case of us or in the case of God, the testing is applicable to us since we don't really know the results so we should try our best to succeed.

 

[Where Is God]

But art is subjective as you have said. What if this creators creations were perfect even if not perfect in its mind (however odd to us that may be)? Perhaps even these could be, to that creator's mind, its own choice for whatever reason? To us they would appear malevolent, but who is to say they would be for that entity? Not saying I believe it, mind you, as I don't believe in a God-who-makes-stuff or guides stuff.

That is pretty much what I said actually. If the creator thinks that our cultures of hate and violence with the ability to precipitate mass death in the blink of an eye is perfect, then he could actually be perfect. If he does not think we are perfect, then he is not. Do you see now?

 

[Penumbra]

But of course, doesn't this presuppose that this creator is concerned with our welfare? Would doing things it saw fit without concern for one of its creation render it imperfect, or is that just human-centric thought being projected onto this hypothetical creator?

It's not human-centric, it's life-centric.

Suffering and imperfection for life have existed on this planet before humans ever got here, and we are merely the ones that can discuss it.

 

[Penumbra]

Ok, would you mind if you give some examples to different explanations.

Well, each religion typically has numerous subsets, so saying any sweeping example doesn't really work for any religion as a whole. But I'll give numerous examples I've seen.

-Hindus, in general, believe that God is panentheistic, meaning that everything is within god. Who would god be testing? Itself? Beings in this sort of worldview are proposed to exist in a state of illusion which causes suffering, and over time they free themselves from the illusions and join or rejoin with god, either partially or completely.

-Buddhists often exclude any notions of deities, especially creator deities. Things aren't a test, they just "are". Suffering is a result of craving.

-I'm not really sure about Jews, but most that I've talked to don't really view life as a test. I'm not really sure about Sikhs or Bahai's either. As far as I've seen, the concept of a test is not a major aspect of their worldviews, if its included at all.

-Christians sometimes include the concept of a test, but for the most part their answer to why suffering or imperfection exists has to do with original sin or Satan, and that things were originally made by god to be good.

-Some various syncretic or new age or pagan religions propose a variety of reasons, such as higher selves wishing to experience all manner of different things on the various spectra of pain and pleasure, suffering and joy, weakness and power, malevolence and benevolence, scarcity and abundance, for spiritual development.

-The ones that I encounter that usually believe life is a test are Muslims and some subsets of other Abrahamic religions.

First define flawed brains ?

A brain that is not ideal. Kind of a broad subject. It can include mental disorder, lack of intelligence, improper connections, genetic problems, chemical imbalances, etc.

Second, you talked about brain abilities and how it differs, Ok I don't see how this would be relevant. If you would assume that is because of different brain abilities that we have ,then the test is invalid, then how would you explain the variety of personality characteristics, traits of the followers of one faith. if that is the case a group A with certain qualities would follow religion 1 which is not true in practice.

It's relevant because what I'm saying is that there isn't any free agent to test. Biologically, the flaws of existence extend to the flaws of human perception, action, thoughts, consciousness, and choices.

elaborate on this...

Life developed on this planet billions of years ago, and complex life has existed for hundreds of millions of years. Humans are a rather recent addition.

Before we even got here, 99% of all species that have ever existed went extinct. Some catastrophic natural events, such as asteroids or massive volcanoes, or ice ages, were responsible for the deaths of the majority of lifeforms on the planet at a given time, and also the natural hardship of the predator/prey model caused death and extinction.

What was being tested during these countless years where there existed imperfection, but no sapient beings?

Is it in the case of us or in the case of God, the testing is applicable to us since we don't really know the results so we should try our best to succeed.

We don't know, but if God is proposed to know, then why bother with the test?