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

[PolyHedral]

Isn't evolution part of the master design??? Can judgment calls really be made without having all the information. So much information is not known by mankind or science. Why isn't everything the same with the plants and such?? Isn't diversity an important piece of the puzzle. It gives us a much bigger view than if we only had one view to see. There is genius behind everything. One only has to look.

We have looked very hard indeed and found innumerable "design" flaws. Some things are incredibly inefficient for no apparent reason.

For instance, a man releases 100 million sperm into a woman during intercourse. Only 50 or so of these even reach the egg. Any engineer would spit at a machine with a efficiency of 0.00005%

 

[Willamena]

What specifically do you mean when you say virtue is inherent? How, in your opinion, does one recognize it?

Inherent here, in regards to us humans, means an original part of "God's creation." We thought-constructs are the thinking part of creation. The thought-construct, in its turn, by virtue of its being, has made and introduced thoughts into the world. "Virtue" is primary thoughts --innocence, sincerity, inhibition --that have no impact on the world. They are us in harmony with nature. Secondary thoughts shape, and sometimes warp, the world. They are things like "responsibility," "guilt" and "suffering."

You said happiness and fulfillment doesn't come from the environment.

What could a person be in need for?

It doesn't matter what they're in need of. Why should it? I'm not following you here.

 

[Paraprakrti]

-An example of scientifically inaccurate theodicy is the assertion that the universe was perfect, but that humans ruined it. Some assert, for instance, that the universe was perfect until humans ate from an apple. An understanding of how old life on this planet is, how the universe functions in general, and how humans are a fairly recent addition to the world refutes this explanation. Mass extinction events occurred before humans were ever around, suffering existed, and so forth.

I see. However, it seems to me that any scientific inaccuracies of the specifics of a theodicy are secondary to the logical/philosophical problems it might have. I guess I've only ever looked at theodicies from a philosophical perspective and only ever asked myself, "Does this solve the problem of evil?" If the above explanation solves the PoE, then we have a possible explanation reconciling omni-God with evil-universe. After making that assessment, I would look at possible scientific inaccuracies in the specific incarnation overlaying the fundamental components of the theodicy. Of course, since I have no vested interest in the above apple explanation, this sort of discerning is easy for me to do.

-An example of a fairly non-falsifiable theodicy is that each human has a "higher self", which is a much more consciously aware and expanded version of what we currently perceive ourselves to be (individual descriptions vary). Some might go further to suggest that everyone's "higher self" is the same thing- a panentheistic god basically. In theodicies of this sort, our current lives are basically experiences that our higher self wishes to have.

Again, since the above is being touted as a theodicy, I am more interested in its function as such. Non-falsifiable as it might be, if it works then it succeeds as far as I am concerned. After all, we are discussing within a hypothetical scenario that includes, at the very least, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. Certainly, if the PoE were to be solved, that wouldn't prove the existence of God. Is God falsifiable anyway? Isn't it ironic that the function of a theodicy is to aid in decreasing God's falsifiability? Given suffering, one can potentially assess whether this sort of God (omnipotent, omnibenevolent) exists. But theodicies aim to remove this form of falsifiability. So, what is it really to have a non-falsifiable theodicy? Does it make any real difference?

 

[Penumbra]

I disagree: if the worst thing that could happen to a person would be to stub their toe, then the person who stubs their toe is currently experiencing the worst thing that can happen to a person, therefore the argument wouldn't be weak at all by the standards of those beings. It would only be weak by our standards, and like I said: in that world, our standards wouldn't apply.

You still haven't defended the notion that sensibilities would change based on a different world. It's a speculative position. Besides, couldn't a perfect god avoid that problem even if it were a problem?

The magnitude would be strictly different, assuming the same human bodies. Stubbing a toe would only be agony if the body were substantially different. What I said still stands- the PoE put forth in that world would be exceptionally weak, whereas the PoE put forth in this world is significantly stronger. And the PoE put forth in your hellish realm example below would be the strongest.

Of course they can: If we were to envision a world that was proportionally worse than this world (in the same proportion to ours compared to the toe stubbing world) then we could come up with a world where, say, every moment of existence involved feeling the sensation of being burned alive.

Compared to that world just about anything you can use as an example of suffering from our world would be a relatively weak example.

The arguments you put forth in this debate would apply to this hell world as well. If you lived in the hellish world, if between screams of agony you could articulate a thought about whether the PoE is valid or not, all that you have said here would apply to that world.

Then what is your position?

To me, it seems like you're disclaiming the POE so that you can advocate the basic premise of the POE without having to defend it.

My position is that the existence of many forms of grievous suffering and agony is very strong evidence against the existence of any god that could reasonably be considered perfect.

-Not that all suffering is bad, or that an omnipotent omnibenevolent god would exclude all suffering.
-Not that god is a falsifiable concept.

The problem with this comparison is that if you're talking about 2 children who occupy the same planet, then each would be at least roughly aware of the possibility of something worse or better in their own world.

What I mean is the child in your first example would be aware of children who are worse off then they are, the child in the second example would be aware of people who were better off.

On the other hand, if you're talking about 2 completely different worlds: one where everyone's life is on par with the child in your first example, then that child wouldn't feel particularly fortune, happy, or fulfilled.

By the same token if the child in your second example were living in a world where all the things you listed were happening to everyone, that child wouldn't feel particularly unfortunate.

The problem with your example is that it ignores all the grades of life-quality in between.

Are you arguing that the level of suffering and satisfaction of these children would be completely equal if not for their vague knowledge of each other? A child that is literally starving to death with no parents would be equally happy and fulfilled as a child that is in a loving and abundant environment, if only there was no knowledge of a spectrum of improvement?

What if I use a non-human animal as an example? Suppose I take two newborn puppies from the same group, and I place one in a tiny cage and isolate it, and give it daily beatings. I take another puppy, and put it in a loving environment where it is spoiled and given affection. Would the dogs be of equal well-being and contenement, or would one have significantly higher well-being than the other?

Experiments like this one have unfortunately already been done. Harry Harlow was a psychologist that took rhesus monkeys and did various horrible experiments with them. He did partial isolation, where he would take infant monkeys and put them in a cage where they can see other monkeys but not interact with them. And he also took monkeys and put them in complete isolation from birth. The monkeys went insane, and had self-mutilation episodes, or starved their selves, or had all sorts of destructive behavior, or blankly starred and barely moved, etc.

 

[Penumbra]

Inherent here, in regards to us humans, means an original part of "God's creation." We thought-constructs are the thinking part of creation. The thought-construct, in its turn, by virtue of its being, has made and introduced thoughts into the world. "Virtue" is primary thoughts --innocence, sincerity, inhibition --that have no impact on the world. They are us in harmony with nature. Secondary thoughts shape, and sometimes warp, the world. They are things like "responsibility," "guilt" and "suffering."

It doesn't matter what they're in need of. Why should it? I'm not following you here.

You said people in need are, and to help them is virtuous.

The point is, if happiness and fulfillment are not dependent on the environment, then what needs could anyone have? Why should charity exist in this worldview- wouldn't it be irrelevant?

 

[tarekabdo12]

Life on Earth was designed to be a kind of exam 4 people , however it's not the end nor the real life. So God designed it perfect but according to it's function. The designed so called " defects" themselves are functional in this world. God gave humans right to choose either to be good or bad so there must be good and bad on earth, it's not a fault but a functional design. In the afterlife, God will design people in a way that enables them to live without death nor sleep as he designed them in a very complicated and functional way on earth. If there was no diseases, there would be no exam. Healthy people are examined to thank God's gifts and Sick ones are examined to be patient and peg God for cure. If the prey was designed in a totally perfect way-as may be seen by some people- it'd never be caught by it's hunter. This means that it's number will increase massively to eat the whole available resources on earth and eventually to whole life will end and the prey itself will perish from surface of earth due to lack of food. And if the hunter was designed in a totally perfect way, this means that no prey'd escape and thus all preys will eventually become extinct and the hunter will find no food. The defects themselves are part of the great design. If there was no diseases, the humans and other creatures will increase in number massively in an amount that the earth can't tolerate. Sometimes death supports life, and without illness we'd never know the meaning of illness to thank for health. There'd be no choice for humans if everything was
totally perfect. We choose because we differ. Some have and some don't have. And from this point struggle arises and choices operate 2 show who deserves heave and how will feed hell.

 

[Penumbra]

I see. However, it seems to me that any scientific inaccuracies of the specifics of a theodicy are secondary to the logical/philosophical problems it might have. I guess I've only ever looked at theodicies from a philosophical perspective and only ever asked myself, "Does this solve the problem of evil?" If the above explanation solves the PoE, then we have a possible explanation reconciling omni-God with evil-universe. After making that assessment, I would look at possible scientific inaccuracies in the specific incarnation overlaying the fundamental components of the theodicy. Of course, since I have no vested interest in the above apple explanation, this sort of discerning is easy for me to do.

Most or all theodicies I've seen that are scientifically inaccurate are also logically inconsistent and don't put forth a solution to the problem of evil. Showing that they are false can involve a number of methods, ranging from pointing out how they are logically false, or how they scientifically inaccurate.

Again, since the above is being touted as a theodicy, I am more interested in its function as such. Non-falsifiable as it might be, if it works then it succeeds as far as I am concerned. After all, we are discussing within a hypothetical scenario that includes, at the very least, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. Certainly, if the PoE were to be solved, that wouldn't prove the existence of God. Is God falsifiable anyway? Isn't it ironic that the function of a theodicy is to aid in decreasing God's falsifiability? Given suffering, one can potentially assess whether this sort of God (omnipotent, omnibenevolent) exists. But theodicies aim to remove this form of falsifiability. So, what is it really to have a non-falsifiable theodicy? Does it make any real difference?

Well, I've already granted that god is not falsifiable. A non-falsifiable theodicy doesn't address the position much.

But so far I haven't seen a theodicy that seems to logically answer the problem of evil in its entirety to begin with, let alone being plausible, scientifically accurate, or evidenced. But some theodices are more interesting, much more substantial and harder to initially dismiss than others, and worthy of contemplation.

I've already had a lengthy debate where I defended the notion that PoE does not outright refute a perfect god, and used theodices to explain why.

I try to be precise with things, so I disclaim the assertion that the PoE renders an omni god logically impossible (appropriately falsified), or that all suffering is bad. Rather, I argue that specific forms of suffering are completely unanswered and are at odds with the existence of an omni god, and therefore are strong evidence against the existence of one.

 

[Willamena]

You said people in need are, and to help them is virtuous.

The point is, if happiness and fulfillment are not dependent on the environment, then what needs could anyone have? Why should charity exist in this worldview- wouldn't it be irrelevant?

To help them "without hesitation," without a thought for what you're doing, is virtuous. When helping is a natural act, it's good, it's virtuous.

Happiness and fulfillment are a life lived in virtue, whatever the environment. How this is supposed to equate to no needs, I don't know. Have you had that moment when things were calm and you had no worries, and you were happy just for no reason?

 

[Penumbra]

To help them "without hesitation," without a thought for what you're doing, is virtuous. When helping is a natural act, it's good, it's virtuous.

Happiness and fulfillment are a life lived in virtue, whatever the environment. How this is supposed to equate to no needs, I don't know. Have you had that moment when things were calm and you had no worries, and you were happy just for no reason?

How would it be virtuous to give people things they don't need?

Are you disclaiming the notion that people don't have needs? Earlier, you put forth the statement that happiness and fulfillment are not dependent on the environment.

 

[Quagmire]

You still haven't defended the notion that sensibilities would change based on a different world. It's a speculative position.

Oh goodie: now I get to search through my posts again to (try to) show you where I already did, because wasting my breath one time isn't enough.

Besides, couldn't a perfect god avoid that problem even if it were a problem?

Of course: by creating something other than us.

The magnitude would be strictly different, assuming the same human bodies. Stubbing a toe would only be agony if the body were substantially different. What I said still stands-

Only if you completely ignore every response I've made to it so far, which seems to be the tactic you've decided upon.

the PoE put forth in that world would be exceptionally weak, whereas the PoE put forth in this world is significantly stronger. And the PoE put forth in your hellish realm example below would be the strongest.

And, once again, applying an objective standard in order to rate subjective experience.

The arguments you put forth in this debate would apply to this hell world as well. If you lived in the hellish world, if between screams of agony you could articulate a thought about whether the PoE is valid or not, all that you have said here would apply to that world.

Yes it would.

My position is that the existence of many forms of grievous suffering and agony is very strong evidence against the existence of any god that could reasonably be considered perfect.

Yes, this is the POE.

-Not that all suffering is bad, or that an omnipotent omnibenevolent god would exclude all suffering.

This is not.

-Not that god is a falsifiable concept.

Are you arguing that the level of suffering and satisfaction of these children would be completely equal if not for their vague knowledge of each other? A child that is literally starving to death with no parents would be equally happy and fulfilled as a child that is in a loving and abundant environment, if only there was no knowledge of a spectrum of improvement?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
(wtf?)

What if I use a non-human animal as an example? Suppose I take two newborn puppies from the same group, and I place one in a tiny cage and isolate it, and give it daily beatings. I take another puppy, and put it in a loving environment where it is spoiled and given affection. Would the dogs be of equal well-being and contenement, or would one have significantly higher well-being than the other?

Experiments like this one have unfortunately already been done. Harry Harlow was a psychologist that took rhesus monkeys and did various horrible experiments with them. He did partial isolation, where he would take infant monkeys and put them in a cage where they can see other monkeys but not interact with them. And he also took monkeys and put them in complete isolation from birth. The monkeys went insane, and had self-mutilation episodes, or starved their selves, or had all sorts of destructive behavior, or blankly starred and barely moved, etc.

Well duh: these monkeys aren't actually from different worlds, are they? They all had the same inherent social instincts.

 

[Quagmire]

He obviously didn't; I can imagine a better one.

Better for who?

 

[Willamena]

Are you disclaiming the notion that people don't have needs?

It seems more like you are.

How would it be virtuous to give people things they don't need?

People in need are.

 

[Koldo]

Inherent here, in regards to us humans, means an original part of "God's creation." We thought-constructs are the thinking part of creation. The thought-construct, in its turn, by virtue of its being, has made and introduced thoughts into the world. "Virtue" is primary thoughts --innocence, sincerity, inhibition --that have no impact on the world. They are us in harmony with nature. Secondary thoughts shape, and sometimes warp, the world. They are things like "responsibility," "guilt" and "suffering."

Do you mean all that is understood by 'suffering' or just the psychological part?

 

[Koldo]

Better for who?

Better as in less suffering.
Better for the beings who wouldn't go through such suffering.

 

[Quagmire]

Better as in less suffering.
Better for the beings who wouldn't go through such suffering.

OK, so give me an example of a world like that.

What I'm saying is: if you were God, what would the world look like?

 

[Penumbra]

It seems more like you are.

Of course I am.

People in need are.

So they "are", but you're not saying they are in need?

I ask again- do you think there is any good reason at all to give to charities or help people if happiness and fulfillment are not dependent on the environment?

 

[Quagmire]

I understood part of your argument.

Some things are still left unclear, let me go over them.

1) Why would it be a logical impossibility for God to think hypothetically?

It would be completely unnecessary. If God already knows everything, there wouldn't be any point to His considering alternatives.

Basically, like I said in that post: if God creates reality with his thoughts, then there could be no such thing as a hypothetical thought by God.

and even if, as I've already said, for whatever reason He decided to go ahead and think up a hypothetical world for us, what good would it do us? We can't live in a hypothetical world, we can only live in an actual world.

2) If we accept that God is infinite and perfect, why would it be impossible for a world ( a reality ) to be infinite and perfect?

"Perfect" would still need to be defined and described.

3) Why is it a flaw to have a limit on the potential good on the universe ? Couldn't God have created a finite universe?

Well then it wouldn't be infinite and perfect, would it?

4) You have been using the word 'better' as the operative definition of 'perfect'. That doesn't work. It has to be the 'best possible'.

Yes, I was using "better" to show why "better" doesn't work.

5) Those imaginary improvements are imaginary until they are actualized. Not?

Yes, exactly. And like I said: once those imaginary improvements are actualized, they're no longer improvements unless you compare them to the former state of reality.

In other words: a new and improved world is only a new and improved world until it becomes actualized. Once it does, it isn't a new and improved wold, it's just the world.

 

[Penumbra]

Oh goodie: now I get to search through my posts again to (try to) show you where I already did, because wasting my breath one time isn't enough.

You defended it as something that you consider reasonable to speculate.

Of course: by creating something other than us.

That, or by keeping us exactly the same, but in another world.

Only if you completely ignore every response I've made to it so far, which seems to be the tactic you've decided upon.

And, once again, applying an objective standard in order to rate subjective experience.

I haven't ignored your responses, I just don't think they make sense and I've explained why. I think that proposing that a starving child and a child in a loving home would otherwise experience the same level of contentment if only they didn't know of each other's existence is a rather bold, incorrect, and I'd argue somewhat dangerous notion. I think in these cases, concepts of idealism can actually cause harm.

We might be nearing the end of this discussion if you're proposing a non-falsifiable and yet non-evidenced (and I've demonstrated contrary evidence) position that regardless of what an omnipotent god could do, it can't help but have the same exact scale of grievous suffering and happiness as this realm, or that beings will naturally adapt equally to any potential realm, or how you don't recognize that all of your arguments that you've used on this world apply equally to the hellish realm you've described.

Yes it would.

Yes, this is the POE.

This is not.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
(wtf?)

I'm just making sure. In our other debate, you put out ideas that you didn't want to personally endorse as true.

Well duh: these monkeys aren't actually from different worlds, are they? They all had the same inherent social instincts.

Firstly, this statement contradicts your statement about the children, and how their levels of suffering would be the same if not for the fact that they have vague knowledge of each other. In this example, the monkeys can't possibly have knowledge of another world, and yet they suffer differently, and so you use a different argument- inherent social instincts.

Secondly, arguments of this variety seem to not be thinking out of the box. If we can conceive of better worlds, we can conceive of ones where evolution was not the method for developing creatures, or we can imagine how it was the method, but various aspects of it were substantially different.

 

[PolyHedral]

OK, so give me an example of a world like that.

What I'm saying is: if you were God, what would the world look like?

Oh, that one's easy. Pandora, at the minimum. Probably better still. Would you like to hear some of my ideas?

 

[Penumbra]

It would be completely unnecessary. If God already knows everything, there wouldn't be any point to His considering alternatives.

Basically, like I said in that post: if God creates reality with his thoughts, then there could be no such thing as a hypothetical thought by God.

and even if, as I've already said, for whatever reason He decided to go ahead and think up a hypothetical world for us, what good would it do us? We can't live in a hypothetical world, we can only live in an actual world.

I didn't address this earlier when you originally put forth the idea, but it's circular reasoning.

Arguing that hypothetical worlds are inherently not as good as this real world misses the point of the discussion, which is to say that we can conceive of better worlds that, if they were real, would be better than this one. Arguing that this world is the best world because it's the real world, as I've said before, applies to any world we could potentially live in. No matter what the real world is, or how good or bad it is, this logic could be put forth.

Person A: This is the best of all possible worlds. God is perfect.
Person B: I can think of a world that is better- here's why ___. Therefore, there probably isn't a perfect god.
Person A: Yes but that world is hypothetical, and therefore it isn't useful. That is an imaginary improvement, and therefore not an improvement. Since god is perfect and this is the world that exists, it must be the best possible world.