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

[Koldo]

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

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.

Okay.

Consider this world is pretty much static, what then would you say about the concept of a dynamic world?

Imagine a ruler that keeps spanning through the infinite. Imagine also that the biggest number on the ruler at any given moment is the best world possible. Now, if we use the biggest number in this ruler at any time to create a world then it will surely end up getting left behind. But what if rather than creating a world based in a single number i decide to create a world based on simply the biggest number forever. This will create an ever changing perfect world.

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

The question is: Is temporality a flaw in a world or not?

 

[PolyHedral]

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

I'd like my English language back. Temporality, i.e. capability to change, is not the same thing as mortality.

 

[Willamena]

I'd like my English language back. Temporality, i.e. capability to change, is not the same thing as mortality.

I supsect he meant temporality in its context of a fleeting time period. Some images of immortality include living forever.

 

[Quagmire]

I'd like my English language back. .

Here ya go then, the advanced version too:

hEnglish - advanced version

temporality
\tem`po*ral"i*ty\ (?), n.; pl.
1. the state or quality of being temporary; -- opposed to perpetuity.
Temporality definition by Babylon's free dictionary


Going to check my spelling next?

 

[Quagmire]

Okay.

The question is: Is temporality a flaw in a world or not?

Yes that is the question. I mean that's the same question I just asked you, you just rephrased it.

 

[Koldo]

Yes that is the question. I mean that's the same question I just asked you, you just rephrased it.

Hmm...yea.

 

[Paraprakrti]

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.

It seems to me that if creation is predicated on the imperfect desires of beings inferior to God (beings who are also themselves eternal) then we have an answer to the problem of evil. Scientific accuracy doesn't really come into play here since this sort of answer lies outside of material science (as does God.)

 

[Penumbra]

It seems to me that if creation is predicated on the imperfect desires of beings inferior to God (beings who are also themselves eternal) then we have an answer to the problem of evil.

Which answer is that?

Scientific accuracy doesn't really come into play here since this sort of answer lies outside of material science (as does God.)

This would be true if it were not for the fact that some theodicies involve material claims. Theodices that rely on incorrect material statements concerning reality rule themselves out.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Which answer is that?

The "problem of evil solved" answer. What else could I have meant?

 

[Penumbra]

The "problem of evil solved" answer. What else could I have meant?

To clarify, what I meant was, in what way is that an answer?

You said:

It seems to me that if creation is predicated on the imperfect desires of beings inferior to God (beings who are also themselves eternal) then we have an answer to the problem of evil.

Can you elaborate on what you mean and how this answers the PoE? Are you implying that beings are responsible for creating the world?

 

[Paraprakrti]

To clarify, what I meant was, in what way is that an answer?

You said:


Can you elaborate on what you mean and how this answers the PoE? Are you implying that beings are responsible for creating the world?

It has occurred to me that there is an underlying assumption in the PoE. That assumption is that God creates on no consideration other than His own. The scenario tends to go like this: God, alone, whimsically decides to create. This very thread implies that scenario when it asks why a perfect God doesn't yield a perfect creation. The alternative is that God creates upon the consideration of others. And if those others have a fallible nature, then it starts to make sense why creation is devoid of perfect bliss and harmony.

 

[PolyHedral]

It has occurred to me that there is an underlying assumption in the PoE. That assumption is that God creates on no consideration other than His own. The scenario tends to go like this: God, alone, whimsically decides to create. This very thread implies that scenario when it asks why a perfect God doesn't yield a perfect creation. The alternative is that God creates upon the consideration of others. And if those others have a fallible nature, then it starts to make sense why creation is devoid of perfect bliss and harmony.

It depends; Who are the others? The inhabitants of the creation?

 

[Paraprakrti]

It depends; Who are the others? The inhabitants of the creation?

Potential inhabitants of the creation, yes, but not, themselves, created. God and these others would be co-eternal; similar in quality but different in quantity, so to speak.

 

[Penumbra]

It has occurred to me that there is an underlying assumption in the PoE. That assumption is that God creates on no consideration other than His own. The scenario tends to go like this: God, alone, whimsically decides to create. This very thread implies that scenario when it asks why a perfect God doesn't yield a perfect creation. The alternative is that God creates upon the consideration of others. And if those others have a fallible nature, then it starts to make sense why creation is devoid of perfect bliss and harmony.

I don't think this is necessarily an assumption, because ultimately responsibility still would lie with an omnipotent being if it existed, either in monotheist or panentheist form.

If god is delegating creation to fallible beings, and this can cause grievous suffering, the question becomes- why would god do that? Why would that be how existence is?

 

[Paraprakrti]

I don't think this is necessarily an assumption, because ultimately responsibility still would lie with an omnipotent being if it existed, either in monotheist or panentheist form.

If god is delegating creation to fallible beings, and this can cause grievous suffering, the question becomes- why would god do that? Why would that be how existence is?

I don't see how such grievous suffering is avoidable. There isn't another practical option aside from God creating according to the whims of lesser beings. If you persist within a dream wherein you bare witness to your own severed head mounted on a wall, and this vision brings you great distress, then what responsibility is it of mine if I arranged for the facility to sleep/dream? You refuse to be awake. What other option do you have? Either you are awake and experience perfect bliss or you are asleep and suffer illusion to some extent or another.

 

[Koldo]

I don't see how such grievous suffering is avoidable. There isn't another practical option aside from God creating according to the whims of lesser beings.

He could have created a separated world for them based on illusions, for example.

If you persist within a dream wherein you bare witness to your own severed head mounted on a wall, and this vision brings you great distress, then what responsibility is it of mine if I arranged for the facility to sleep/dream? You refuse to be awake. What other option do you have? Either you are awake and experience perfect bliss or you are asleep and suffer illusion to some extent or another.

I don't understand this part.
You are making an analogy but i don't understand what it is supposed to mean.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't see how such grievous suffering is avoidable. There isn't another practical option aside from God creating according to the whims of lesser beings. If you persist within a dream wherein you bare witness to your own severed head mounted on a wall, and this vision brings you great distress, then what responsibility is it of mine if I arranged for the facility to sleep/dream? You refuse to be awake. What other option do you have? Either you are awake and experience perfect bliss or you are asleep and suffer illusion to some extent or another.

If I was a principle at a school, and decided that I'd let the students completely run the school instead of me, and it turns out that this led to students burning the whole school down, or severely hurting or killing some of the students or something, would it be acceptable to suggest that it was not my responsibility?

Refusing to be awake is a concept that never made sense to me. There are a quite large number of people suffering rather grievously right now and they're not "refusing" anything.

 

[Paraprakrti]

If I was a principle at a school, and decided that I'd let the students completely run the school instead of me, and it turns out that this led to students burning the whole school down, or severely hurting or killing some of the students or something, would it be acceptable to suggest that it was not my responsibility?

But what I am saying is that if the beings we're calling "students" didn't have the propensity to be students in the first place, then there would be no need for the school. And if there is no need for the school, then the whole scenario never comes about. Keeping with your analogy, there does not exist the option for a school where the principle keeps everyone in line. The whole reason for this school, in the first place, is so that it might be overrun by its students. Removing the analogy, the whole reason for creation, in the first place, is so the conditioned souls can try and lord it over the material nature. Being able to attempt this necessitates at least the illusion of an absent God. What your argument demands is that God create a world wherein He appears absent and not absent at the same time and in the same sense. That is clearly problematic. The conditioned souls suffer because they have given up the association of the reservoir of bliss itself, God. That dissociation from God is the defining characteristic of creation, and creation is the only option for conditioned souls if they are to 1) be given the facility to try and fulfill their desires and 2) be given the means by which they can eventually escape their predicament.

Refusing to be awake is a concept that never made sense to me. There are a quite large number of people suffering rather grievously right now and they're not "refusing" anything.

Again, the creation is characterized by desire constituting an apparent lack of God. We're like little Jesus-impersonators accepting the karmic results of our actions upon ourselves. Taking shelter of our own desire for the fruits of our actions, we naturally suffer the consequences of those actions. What it boils down to is, we can't have it both ways. We can't take shelter of the material nature and then expect a world free of suffering. It is a logical impossibility. The best one might be able to get away with is to argue that there shouldn't be as much suffering as there is. However, even that is a shortsighted argument since we really lack the scope of vision to understand the intricate web of karmic reactions. One could also argue that we ought to be suffering more than we are.

 

[Penumbra]

But what I am saying is that if the beings we're calling "students" didn't have the propensity to be students in the first place, then there would be no need for the school. And if there is no need for the school, then the whole scenario never comes about. Keeping with your analogy, there does not exist the option for a school where the principle keeps everyone in line. The whole reason for this school, in the first place, is so that it might be overrun by its students. Removing the analogy, the whole reason for creation, in the first place, is so the conditioned souls can try and lord it over the material nature. Being able to attempt this necessitates at least the illusion of an absent God. What your argument demands is that God create a world wherein He appears absent and not absent at the same time and in the same sense. That is clearly problematic. The conditioned souls suffer because they have given up the association of the reservoir of bliss itself, God. That dissociation from God is the defining characteristic of creation, and creation is the only option for conditioned souls if they are to 1) be given the facility to try and fulfill their desires and 2) be given the means by which they can eventually escape their predicament.

Why would there be predicaments in the first place if the world was perfect?

Again, the creation is characterized by desire constituting an apparent lack of God. We're like little Jesus-impersonators accepting the karmic results of our actions upon ourselves. Taking shelter of our own desire for the fruits of our actions, we naturally suffer the consequences of those actions. What it boils down to is, we can't have it both ways. We can't take shelter of the material nature and then expect a world free of suffering. It is a logical impossibility. The best one might be able to get away with is to argue that there shouldn't be as much suffering as there is. However, even that is a shortsighted argument since we really lack the scope of vision to understand the intricate web of karmic reactions. One could also argue that we ought to be suffering more than we are.

I would wager that those that suggest we can't take shelter in the material nature, or those have have said similar things in this thread, are themselves well-fed. People take shelter in a material nature because they exist in a material world, with material hunger and material health.

 

[Paraprakrti]

He could have created a separated world for them based on illusions, for example.

The only problem is, that illusion is characterized by you accepting responsibility for your actions by dint of your attachment to their fruits. This is the unspoken contract of material attachment. God is simply providing the facility.

I don't understand this part.
You are making an analogy but i don't understand what it is supposed to mean.

I am comparing the state of suffering to a dream in which there is a sense of suffering that, to a waking man, seems absurd. What does it mean to see one's own severed head mounted on a wall? If you are seeing it, then it isn't your head. So your distress in the dream is unfounded. We're currently in a situation likened to this dream analogy. Our suffering is real, so far as it persists. However, it only persists because we insist on it by identifying self with the material world and accepting the reactions of our actions as our own.