The same one we use to judge imperfection.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If God created everything why didn't he create it perfect?
- Thread starter FDRC2014
- Start date
St Giordano Bruno
Well-Known Member
The nearest thing to perfection is the infinitely compacted singularity of space and time immediately prior the big bang called "nothingness" for its perfect symmetry, but that would be unsustainable because as soon as you throw in a dimension such as the arrow of time it becomes destabilized because its perfect symmetry would break in one peculiar direction. This is why I believe the universe is something rather than nothing because there was simply nothing to prevent everything from happening anyway; not even God.
FDRC2014
WHY?
FDRC2014
WHY?
I have some more questions...
These are really Darwin's questions, he raises the points in his book, The Origin of Species by Natural Selection.
The question is about rudimentary organs. Why did god put them there?
One example he uses is a calf which has teeth that never cut through the gums. Or beetles with wings that cannot fly.
I'm not going to just repeat Darwin's work, you can read it (here, for free, on google.
But here is an abstract of interest:
Why did god make a dolphin a mammal not a fish?
These are really Darwin's questions, he raises the points in his book, The Origin of Species by Natural Selection.
The question is about rudimentary organs. Why did god put them there?
One example he uses is a calf which has teeth that never cut through the gums. Or beetles with wings that cannot fly.
I'm not going to just repeat Darwin's work, you can read it (here, for free, on google.
But here is an abstract of interest:
The fact, as we have seen, that all past and present organic beings constitute one grand natural system, with group subordinate to group, and with extinct groups often falling in between recent groups, is intelligible on the theory of natural selection with its contingencies of extinction and divergence of character. On these same principles we see how it is, that the mutual affinities of the species and genera within each class are so complex and circuitous. We see why certain characters are far more serviceable than others for classification;—why adaptive characters, though of paramount importance to the being, are of hardly any importance in classification; why characters derived from rudimentary parts, though of no service to the being, are often of high classificatory value; and why embryological characters are the most valuable of all. The real affinities of all organic beings are due to inheritance or community of descent. The natural system is a genealogical arrangement, in which we have to discover the lines of descent by the most permanent characters, however slight their vital importance may be.
The framework of bones being similar in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of the porpoise, and leg of the horse,—the same number of vertebrae forming the neck of the giraffe and of the elephant,—and innumerable other such facts, at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with slow and slight successive modifications. The similarity of pattern in the wing and leg of a bat, though used for such different purpose,—in the jaws and legs of a crab,—in the petals, stamens, and pistils of a flower, is likewise intelligible on the view of the gradual modification of parts or organs, which were alike in the early progenitor of each class. On the principle of successive variations not always supervening at an early age, and being inherited at a corresponding not early period of life, we can clearly see why the embryos of mammals, birds, reptiles, and fishes should be so closely alike, and should be so unlike the adult forms. We may cease marvelling at the embryo of an airbreathing mammal or bird having branchial slits and arteries running in loops, like those in a fish which has to breathe the air dissolved in water by the aid of well developed branchiae.
Disuse, aided sometimes by natural selection, will often tend to reduce an organ, when it has become useless by changed habits or under changed conditions of life; and we can clearly understand on this view the meaning of rudimentary organs. But disuse and selection will generally act on each creature, when it has come to maturity and has to play its full part in the struggle for existence, and will thus have little power of acting on an organ during early life; hence the organ will not be much reduced or rendered rudimentary at this early age. The calf, for instance, has inherited teeth, which never cut through the gums of the upper jaw, from an early progenitor having well-developed teeth; and we may believe, that the teeth in the mature animal were reduced, during successive generations, by disuse or by the tongue and palate, or lips, having become better fitted by natural selection to browse without their aid; whereas in the calf, the teeth have been left untouched by selection or disuse, and on the principle of inheritance at corresponding ages have been inherited from a remote period to the present day. On the view of each organic being and each separate organ having been specially created, how utterly inexplicable it is that parts, like the teeth in the embryonic calf or like the shrivelled wings under the soldered wing-covers of some beetles, should thus so frequently bear the plain stamp of inutility! Nature may be said to have taken pains to reveal, by rudimentary organs and by homologous structures, her scheme of modification, which it seems that we wilfully will not understand.
Darwin, Charles. (1861). On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street.pp. 512-514
The framework of bones being similar in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of the porpoise, and leg of the horse,—the same number of vertebrae forming the neck of the giraffe and of the elephant,—and innumerable other such facts, at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with slow and slight successive modifications. The similarity of pattern in the wing and leg of a bat, though used for such different purpose,—in the jaws and legs of a crab,—in the petals, stamens, and pistils of a flower, is likewise intelligible on the view of the gradual modification of parts or organs, which were alike in the early progenitor of each class. On the principle of successive variations not always supervening at an early age, and being inherited at a corresponding not early period of life, we can clearly see why the embryos of mammals, birds, reptiles, and fishes should be so closely alike, and should be so unlike the adult forms. We may cease marvelling at the embryo of an airbreathing mammal or bird having branchial slits and arteries running in loops, like those in a fish which has to breathe the air dissolved in water by the aid of well developed branchiae.
Disuse, aided sometimes by natural selection, will often tend to reduce an organ, when it has become useless by changed habits or under changed conditions of life; and we can clearly understand on this view the meaning of rudimentary organs. But disuse and selection will generally act on each creature, when it has come to maturity and has to play its full part in the struggle for existence, and will thus have little power of acting on an organ during early life; hence the organ will not be much reduced or rendered rudimentary at this early age. The calf, for instance, has inherited teeth, which never cut through the gums of the upper jaw, from an early progenitor having well-developed teeth; and we may believe, that the teeth in the mature animal were reduced, during successive generations, by disuse or by the tongue and palate, or lips, having become better fitted by natural selection to browse without their aid; whereas in the calf, the teeth have been left untouched by selection or disuse, and on the principle of inheritance at corresponding ages have been inherited from a remote period to the present day. On the view of each organic being and each separate organ having been specially created, how utterly inexplicable it is that parts, like the teeth in the embryonic calf or like the shrivelled wings under the soldered wing-covers of some beetles, should thus so frequently bear the plain stamp of inutility! Nature may be said to have taken pains to reveal, by rudimentary organs and by homologous structures, her scheme of modification, which it seems that we wilfully will not understand.
Darwin, Charles. (1861). On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street.pp. 512-514
Why did god make a dolphin a mammal not a fish?
Last edited:
Forever-C-King
New Member
God, being perfect, could not create anything imperfect. So in his perfect design he provided a way from our first parents to choose to 'fall', thus providing an imperfect world in which we can only think of one thing at a time, experience sadness, happyness and the pandemonium in between, so that we can learn for ourselves and grow bit by bit
McBell
Unbound
This is based on what, exactly?
This sounds like nothing more than double talk.
Imperfection breeds suffering, which doesn't seem like a very nice thing to inflict for someone who could do otherwise. Suppose I could magic a human being into existence and I did so -- but deliberately allowed them to have Huntington's Disease where I could have made it otherwise. Yes, I've given the gift of life, but don't I have a little bit of a mean streak if I do so?
KittensAngel
Boldly Proudly Not PC
Well, an atheist could answer because a designer, much less a perfect one, didn't create anything at all. Which explains everything being messed up.
Another question to add to your rational list is, why did a certain creator create humans to fail and then judge them for what omniscience orchestrated to occur?
(It didn't, as this atheist would say about that too. I think some humans simply need to believe we're lousy living as us, so we have to atone for being human. And then beg to change and give thanks to something never proven to exist, for making us so damned bad so we can live all our life trying to overcome what we are as people. )
strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
He did.
search the scriptures
Member
"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."
God created a perfect creation origionally. The perfect man became imperfect when he broke the only commandment. this man and this perfect world were made imperfect as punishment for disobeying God. This man's curse was in his blood, ready to be passed down to all humanity. God is just. The law was broke. consequences.
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."
God created a perfect creation origionally. The perfect man became imperfect when he broke the only commandment. this man and this perfect world were made imperfect as punishment for disobeying God. This man's curse was in his blood, ready to be passed down to all humanity. God is just. The law was broke. consequences.
McBell
Unbound
So basically god is punishing all of mankind for the sins of one or two?
Wow.
And to think that some people honestly believe that it is just, ethical, and moral to punish people for things they had absolutely nothing to do with.
search the scriptures
Member
"So basically god is punishing all of mankind for the sins of one or two?
Wow.
And to think that some people honestly believe that it is just, ethical, and moral to punish people for things they had absolutely nothing to do with."
you can avoid punishment by being perfect. would you rather God have stopped adam from sinning?.... would u like God to stop you from sinning? would that be fun? would u want that? would you choose that? would u wanna be a robot forced to obey, or a man with a choice?
choices have consequences... God determines them.
choose to trust jesus and you are forgiven and blameless by grace as a gift accepted from God.
great mercy from the judge..
Wow.
And to think that some people honestly believe that it is just, ethical, and moral to punish people for things they had absolutely nothing to do with."
you can avoid punishment by being perfect. would you rather God have stopped adam from sinning?.... would u like God to stop you from sinning? would that be fun? would u want that? would you choose that? would u wanna be a robot forced to obey, or a man with a choice?
choices have consequences... God determines them.
choose to trust jesus and you are forgiven and blameless by grace as a gift accepted from God.
great mercy from the judge..
McBell
Unbound
*yawn*
**woders if you will address my point**
*still waiting*
*yawns again*
**still waiting**
Your blatant hypocrisy is comical.
Sorry, but the "god" you describe is not good enough for me.
Nice sermon though.
Last edited by a moderator:
search the scriptures
Member
(great mercy from the judge..)
"Sorry, but the "god" you describe is not good enough for me."
understandable
ask a convicted murderer if he likes his judge
ask him if he would like mercy.
I have accepted mercy, and thus see the judge/God as good.
mercy= not getting what you deserve
grace= not deserving what you get
"Sorry, but the "god" you describe is not good enough for me."
understandable
ask a convicted murderer if he likes his judge
ask him if he would like mercy.
I have accepted mercy, and thus see the judge/God as good.
mercy= not getting what you deserve
grace= not deserving what you get
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
And you are free to believe whatever tickles your fancy.
I just so happen to not be in your choir.
I do notice that you have STILL not addressed my point.
Seems you are more interested in preaching than having an actual discussion.
search the scriptures
Member
"And you are free to believe whatever tickles your fancy.
I just so happen to not be in your choir."
remeber if im wrong o well
if your wrong o hell
I just so happen to not be in your choir."
remeber if im wrong o well
if your wrong o hell
McBell
Unbound
Pascal's Wager does not impress me.
In fact, it merely shows how desperate and dishonest you are.
Add that to the fact that you have STILL not addressed the point...
search the scriptures
Member
"Pascal's Wager does not impress me.
In fact, it merely shows how desperate and dishonest you are."
I beleive you are deceived..
you are free to believe whatever tickles your fancy.
I just so happen to not be in your choir.
In fact, it merely shows how desperate and dishonest you are."
I beleive you are deceived..
you are free to believe whatever tickles your fancy.
I just so happen to not be in your choir.
McBell
Unbound
Again, feel free to believe whatever you like.
I mean it isn't like you are wiling to actually address the point I made about your god punishing people for the sins of others.
perhaps when you get done with your dishonest sermon you will have time to actually address the point?
search the scriptures
Member
"I mean it isn't like you are wiling to actually address the point I made about your god punishing people for the sins of others."
when we all take on our own guilt? what does the bible say: according to YOUR works
with an offer to escape punishment for free.
rather we are disadvantaged by other peoples sin.
when we all take on our own guilt? what does the bible say: according to YOUR works
with an offer to escape punishment for free.
rather we are disadvantaged by other peoples sin.
Last edited: