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

[Koldo]

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

An example of a world with less suffering than this one? A world where necrosis does not exist.

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

Impossible to say at this moment.
I would have to be omniscient to answer this question.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Okay.

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

Do you think the attribute of 'perfect' given to God is defined and described?

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

Why is it necessary for it to be infinite?

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

Okay.

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.

I agree. Unless the best possible of all worlds is reached.

 

[Quagmire]

An example of a world with less suffering than this one? A world where necrosis does not exist.


Impossible to say at this moment.
I would have to be omniscient to answer this question.

You would have to be omniscient to know what it is that you're complaining doesn't exist? How can you complain about it then?

 

[Quagmire]

Okay.



Do you think the attribute of 'perfect' given to God is defined and described?

Nope, but your not asking for a perfect God, you're asking for a perfect world. In order to speculate on why something doesn't exist we would have to have some idea about what that something is.

Why is it necessary for it to be infinite?

It isn't, but in your previous post you said:

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?

Just trying to get you to be consistent in your standards and definitions, otherwise we're just going to go around in circles.

Okay.



I agree. Unless the best possible of all worlds is reached.

No, even then.

 

[Quagmire]

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

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

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.

Not to mention ridiculously out of context.

Sorry, but I've had to make a new rule for myself since debating with you, Penumbra: I'm only going to defend and/or explain arguments that I've actually made. I'm not responsible for any misconceptions or misinterpretations you might make in regards to them. Otherwise it's just a lot of frustration to no good purpose.

 

[Penumbra]

Not to mention ridiculously out of context.

Sorry, but I've had to make a new rule for myself since debating with you, Penumbra: I'm only going to defend and/or explain arguments that I've actually made. I'm not responsible for any misconceptions or misinterpretations you might make in regards to them. Otherwise it's just a lot of frustration to no good purpose.

I even said the argument back to you to make sure that you were saying what you wrote, and you responded with something like "YES!!!! (wtf)"

In what way do you believe I took any of your statements out of context, and which argument do you feel I'm attacking that you haven't made and won't defend?

You've been debating for pages now that the sensibilities of beings naturally match their environment. I've been arguing that a world without grievous suffering and despair is better than this one, but you've been saying that even in a world where the worst thing that can happen is a stubbed toe, our sensibilities would correspond equally.

 

[Willamena]

Of course I am.


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

If people in need are, then in need is what they are. (This was a trick question, right?)

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?

In my opinion, there's always good reason to give to charity, whether or not you see happiness as dependent on the environment. Even though I see it as not dependent on the environment, we've still the capacity to find reasons, for everything. I still don't see what this has to do with what I said.

 

[Penumbra]

If people in need are, then in need is what they are. (This was a trick question, right?)

No, it wasn't a trick question. I was just making sure it was saying what it seemed to say.

In my opinion, there's always good reason to give to charity, whether or not you see happiness as dependent on the environment. Even though I see it as not dependent on the environment, we've still the capacity to find reasons, for everything. I still don't see what this has to do with what I said.

What would be a good reason to give to charity if happiness is not dependent on the environment?

It has to do with what you said because, so far, I don't find your position to be logically consistent. You agree people are in need, you consider giving to charity a good thing, and you also stated that happiness and fulfillment are not dependent on the environment.

 

[Koldo]

You would have to be omniscient to know what it is that you're complaining doesn't exist? How can you complain about it then?

The world i would create would be the 'best', but what i meant in the last post is that it would be complicated to describe how this 'best' world would be like, because at this moment all i can think of are 'better' worlds.

It is pretty simple: as long as there is something better it isn't the best.
'Best' is the utmost 'better', because there is no 'better' after the 'best'.

 

[Koldo]

Nope, but your not asking for a perfect God, you're asking for a perfect world. In order to speculate on why something doesn't exist we would have to have some idea about what that something is.

I don't get it.
For this debate we accept that an infinite and perfect being exists, which is God. If such is accepted without further evaluation on what is meant by 'perfect', why don't you accept the possibility of an 'infinite' and 'perfect' world?

Why are you applying different standards?

It isn't, but in your previous post you said:

Just trying to get you to be consistent in your standards and definitions, otherwise we're just going to go around in circles.

I don't understand what you mean by 'standards and definitions' here.
Your argument in a former post was direct towards an infinite and perfect world. So rather than solely trying to oppose your argument, i decided to explore a new possiblity : a finite world.

 

[Quagmire]

The world i would create would be the 'best', but what i meant in the last post is that it would be complicated to describe how this 'best' world would be like, because at this moment all i can think of are 'better' worlds.

It is pretty simple: as long as there is something better it isn't the best.
'Best' is the utmost 'better', because there is no 'better' after the 'best'.

Yes, I'm aware of what "best" means. What I'm saying is that if you can't come up with some sort of example of what "best" would look like, then complaining about the non-existence of that "best" of all worlds is pointless.

 

[leedan]

Wow, you guys are amazing. In our present stage of evolution this is the is got to be the best it gets. It is the here and now, the natural progression. It is perfect. If there is a god, he is patiently awaiting a new friend.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, I'm aware of what "best" means. What I'm saying is that if you can't come up with some sort of example of what "best" would look like, then complaining about the non-existence of that "best" of all worlds is pointless.

Why pointless?

 

[Quagmire]

I don't get it.
For this debate we accept that an infinite and perfect being exists, which is God. If such is accepted without further evaluation on what is meant by 'perfect', why don't you accept the possibility of an 'infinite' and 'perfect' world?

I'm not rejecting the possibility of an infinite and perfect world on those grounds. What I'm saying is that if we've already agreed to accept the existence of a perfect God for the sake of argument without having to define the nature of that perfection, then there's no need to reevaluate the status or nature of his perfection.

On the other hand if you'd like to establish some standard for rating the perfection of God before we assign that characteristic to Him, feel free and we can go from there.

Why are you applying different standards?



I don't understand what you mean by 'standards and definitions' here.
Your argument in a former post was direct towards an infinite and perfect world.
So rather than solely trying to oppose your argument, i decided to explore a new possiblity : a finite world.

[/quote]

Sorry, not sure which post your talking about. Can you show me that so I have a better idea of what you're saying?

 

[Quagmire]

I even said the argument back to you to make sure that you were saying what you wrote, and you responded with something like "YES!!!! (wtf)"

In what way do you believe I took any of your statements out of context, and which argument do you feel I'm attacking that you haven't made and won't defend?

You've been debating for pages now that the sensibilities of beings naturally match their environment. I've been arguing that a world without grievous suffering and despair is better than this one, but you've been saying that even in a world where the worst thing that can happen is a stubbed toe, our sensibilities would correspond equally.

Sorry, but like I said from now on I'm only going to explain something once.

Think whatever you like. :yes:

 

[Quagmire]

Why pointless?

Because you're saying "I want a perfect world, but I don't know what that is".

See the problem?

 

[Koldo]

I'm not rejecting the possibility of an infinite and perfect world on those grounds. What I'm saying is that if we've already agreed to accept the existence of a perfect God for the sake of argument without having to define the nature of that perfection, then there's no need to reevaluate the status or nature of his perfection.

On the other hand if you'd like to establish some standard for rating the perfection of God before we assign that characteristic to Him, feel free and we can go from there.

You said in a former post: "the concept of perfection is incompatable with the idea of infinity.". (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2463999-post213.html)

Now you are saying that you don't reject the possibility of an infinite and perfect world. I am lost...

Sorry, not sure which post your talking about. Can you show me that so I have a better idea of what you're saying?

In the same link above you are talking about the logical impossiblity of an infinite and perfect world. So i am talking about these arguments, and also trying a different approach with the possibility of a finite world.

 

[Quagmire]

You said in a former post: "the concept of perfection is incompatable with the idea of infinity.". (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2463999-post213.html)

Ah, OK, now I get what you're asking. In that case, the answer to your question:

I don't get it.
For this debate we accept that an infinite and perfect being exists, which is God. If such is accepted without further evaluation on what is meant by 'perfect', why don't you accept the possibility of an 'infinite' and 'perfect' world?

I was accepting the idea of a "perfect + infinite" God solely for the sake of argument. If you'll go back before that you'll see that I was arguing that the term "perfect" couldn't logically apply to God either. Not saying that God is imperfect, just that the term perfect has no meaning when applied to something that's assumed to be infinite.

Now you are saying that you don't reject the possibility of an infinite and perfect world.

I was saying that I wasn't rejecting it on the grounds that you were suggesting I was rejecting it on.

I am lost...

I know.

In the same link above you are talking about the logical impossiblity of an infinite and perfect world. So i am talking about these arguments, and also trying a different approach with the possibility of a finite world.

Can we discount temporality as an imperfection? I mean if something is temporal, obviously it lacks something (in this case immortality).

 

[Willamena]

What would be a good reason to give to charity if happiness is not dependent on the environment?

Because it helps people?

It has to do with what you said because, so far, I don't find your position to be logically consistent.

Fair enough.

Edit: I didn't deny that we could be happy because of environment, if that's what you're thinking. Just said it's not dependent on environment.

 

[Koldo]

Because you're saying "I want a perfect world, but I don't know what that is".

See the problem?

I want a perfect world, and albeit i don't know what that is exactly, i do know what it is not like.