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

[Sum1sGruj]

which brings me to question the process of conception...and perfection
if life was perfect why the need for so many sperm?

For the same reason we have two eyes to perceive depth, it's just necessary. God most likely knew that free will could 'go south' so to speak, so He made us in a way that if certain things happen, man would still be able to perform in an imperfect world.

Free will also explains why God becomes angry and grieves throughout parts of the Bible. Maybe the product of free will cannot be initially conceived even to an all-knowing being.

 

[Quagmire]

I edited something onto my post without having realized you've already responded. I'll post it here.

"I'm not saying that you or your deity necessarily do. But my observation is that when it comes to the related problems of evil/suffering/imperfection, the majority of theists would naturally prefer to debate or comment on the lighter or more general aspects of it rather than to tackle the hard questions of grievous suffering or despair."To add onto it further, explanations like yours tend to be appropriate in a rational discussion (such as this is, roughly speaking) but not in most real-world examples. For instance, if someone's kid brother Mark dies painfully from some bodily defect, most people wouldn't suggest it has to do with god having a sense of humor. Instead, exceedingly vague non-explanations such as "it's all part of a plan" may be given, or answers that don't address the question itself such as "he's in a better place now" are given as a bit of a deflection (and of course as part of general well-wishing out of good intent).

What is the question itself then, specifically?

The question in the OP... "If life had a designer, and the designer was perfect, why isn't all life perfect?"...can't be answered definitively because it's predicated on an ambiguous concept.

What is perfection? If we want to use the relativistic definitions of perfection, "that which attains an ideal" for instance, then we'd have to establish what that ideal is.

If having a genetic defect or a brain tumor is the definition of an imperfect condition, then we would have to accept a life without either of these as being the ideal, in which case most people's lives would be considered perfect.

Even if you expanded on this and came up with a definition of imperfection that cataloged every possible ill imaginable, the opposite, a life that didn't involve any of these conditions would have to be accepted as the definition of perfection, and in that case, it's still a relativistic definition.

Problem with that is that for that definition to hold we would have to put some sort of limitation on human imagination. As soon as someone imagines a life that would be an improvement over this ideal, it's no longer the ideal and our definition of perfect no longer applies. We're right back to an imperfect world.

 

[lunamoth]

We're right back to an imperfect world.

Right. Or a static world.

 

[Quagmire]

Right. Or a static world.

Yup, which is a condition that runs completely counter to one of the fundamental principles of reality, change, and one of the most basic needs of the human psyche, challenge.

In order for God to create a perfect world in any absolute or infinitely endurable sense, He'd have to recreate us first.

 

[Penumbra]

What is the question itself then, specifically?

The question in the OP... "If life had a designer, and the designer was perfect, why isn't all life perfect?"...can't be answered definitively because it's predicated on an ambiguous concept.

What is perfection? If we want to use the relativistic definitions of perfection, "that which attains an ideal" for instance, then we'd have to establish what that ideal is.

If having a genetic defect or a brain tumor is the definition of an imperfect condition, then we would have to accept a life without either of these as being the ideal, in which case most people's lives would be considered perfect.

Even if you expanded on this and came up with a definition of imperfection that cataloged every possible ill imaginable, the opposite, a life that didn't involve any of these conditions would have to be accepted as the definition of perfection, and in that case, it's still a relativistic definition.

Problem with that is that for that definition to hold we would have to put some sort of limitation on human imagination. As soon as someone imagines a life that would be an improvement over this ideal, it's no longer the ideal and our definition of perfect no longer applies. We're right back to an imperfect world.

When it comes to the question of whether a system is perfect, I utilize the Socratic Method, and basically ask questions until I show the fragility and incorrectness of the position of those that defend the idea that this universe is perfect (or until they show how their position is defended, but I haven't seen that happen yet).

It's usually a rather enormous assumption on the part of a significant subset of theists that there exists a perfect god.

Therefore, bringing up points such as why the human body has obvious flaws that result in suffering, or why the universe regularly causes animals to suffer, or why grievous suffering or despair can coexist with a perfect god or a perfect universe.

So rather than trying to define a perfect world, which I agree would be somewhat relative, the more appropriate path I think is to demonstrate the inverse- that this world is imperfect. And basically my question ends up being more of a challenge- I challenge theists to present a coherent model of why the most grievous suffering and despair necessarily must exist in a so-called perfect world.

So the explanation would have to somehow convincingly answer a whole host of questions, such as:
-Why would animals suffer in a perfect system?
-Why are mass-extinction events part of a perfect system?
-Why is disease included in a perfect system? Are microscopic torture and killing devices really needed in a perfect world?
-Why are there mental disorders in a perfect system, like diseases that cause people and other animals to go insane and/or hurt others, or like chemical imbalances that can cause depression, or diseases that make the mind slowly decay in old age?
-Why would a perfect system include genetic defects?
-Why would a large percentage of lifeforms miscarry?

What it comes down to usually is that when the concept of a perfect god is removed, none of these questions are problematic anymore. They're sad, of course, but not problematic for a worldview. But when a perfect god is brought into the equation, one would expect a coherent system to be able to answer these things.

 

[waitasec]

For the same reason we have two eyes to perceive depth, it's just necessary.

well then, there is no intent involved ... unless you think it was the will of a particular sperm to reach the egg

God most likely knew that free will could 'go south' so to speak, so He made us in a way that if certain things happen, man would still be able to perform in an imperfect world.

i think that's called natural selection ...

Free will also explains why God becomes angry and grieves throughout parts of the Bible.

so god is able to be surprised?

Maybe the product of free will cannot be initially conceived even to an all-knowing being.

i agree.

 

[Quagmire]

When it comes to the question of whether a system is perfect, I utilize the Socratic Method, and basically ask questions until I show the fragility and incorrectness of the position of those that defend the idea that this universe is perfect (or until they show how their position is defended, but I haven't seen that happen yet).

It's usually a rather enormous assumption on the part of a significant subset of theists that there exists a perfect god.

Even when applied to ideas about God the concept of Perfection is problematic: If we use the relativistic definition of perfection what are we going to relate it to?

If we use the absolute definitions of perfection: that of which nothing better or greater could be conceived, it's kind of pointless to try and apply it to a concept that's already beyond our imagination's ability to conceive of.

What I'm saying is that I don't think a term like "perfect" applies. In it's absolute sense, I don't think the concept of perfection is applicable to anything, actual or abstract.

Not just saying that I don't believe anything can achieve perfection, but that the idea of absolute perfection is itself a logical contradiction:

For instance if we use this definition: Perfection: that which completely fulfills it's potential. It's a contradiction, or at least a paradox in that anything that's fulfilled it's potential must logically have had limited potential in the first place, which in itself could be considered an imperfection.

Therefore, bringing up points such as why the human body has obvious flaws that result in suffering, or why the universe regularly causes animals to suffer, or why grievous suffering or despair can coexist with a perfect god or a perfect universe.

In order for this to indicate imperfection, we would have to establish why suffering, in and of itself, aside from the way we feel about it, is negative.

So rather than trying to define a perfect world, which I agree would be somewhat relative, the more appropriate path I think is to demonstrate the inverse- that this world is imperfect.

Without a concrete definition of perfection, what are we going to base our ideas of imperfection on?

And basically my question ends up being more of a challenge- I challenge theists to present a coherent model of why the most grievous suffering and despair necessarily must exist in a so-called perfect world.

Who says it must? The fact that it does merely suggests, from the theistic standpoint, that it fulfills some purpose. This purpose may have been, or may be, acheivable by some other means.

Of course the next logical question would be "Why pain then?"

The answer, Why not pain? (other than the fact that it hurts).

What I'm saying is: once we strip the argument of emotion and preference, there's no logical reason for pain not to exist.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

well then, there is no intent involved ... unless you think it was the will of a particular sperm to reach the egg

I don't see how that's relevant. Existence was only able to act because it was at a zero point. For it to act now, the proper ingredients have to be mixed aka sentient beings.

See, because at the zero-point all was one. The 10th-dimensional singularity had not yet expanded within itself (of which we are).

Like I said, cause and will are a duality. If there was no cause and it happened of it's own accord, then it is ^^like so.

We created the universe in this sense. What a thought.

i think that's called natural selection ...

Maybe so. Doesn't mean it's been around for 3 billion years though

so god is able to be surprised?

Of course. There are a number of times he becomes angry, grieves, and even at times proud of good doings.
The way I see it, He is all-knowing., limitless in weighing probabilities, infinite eyes everywhere and able to be everywhere at once.
But free will is the catch.

 

[Penumbra]

Even when applied to ideas about God the concept of Perfection is problematic: If we use the relativistic definition of perfection what are we going to relate it to?

If we use the absolute definitions of perfection: that of which nothing better or greater could be conceived, it's kind of pointless to try and apply it to a concept that's already beyond our imagination's ability to conceive of.

What I'm saying is that I don't think a term like "perfect" applies. In it's absolute sense, I don't think the concept of perfection is applicable to anything, actual or abstract.

Not just saying that I don't believe anything can achieve perfection, but that the idea of absolute perfection is itself a logical contradiction:

For instance if we use this definition: Perfection: that which completely fulfills it's potential. It's a contradiction, or at least a paradox in that anything that's fulfilled it's potential must logically have had limited potential in the first place, which in itself could be considered an imperfection.

I agree to an extent. The concept of perfection, in order to be used concisely, requires quantifiable points. A perfect circle is a perfect circle, mathematically. When the definition is agreed upon, nobody can argue that a perfect circle is not a perfect circle. They could, however, argue whether a circle is the perfect shape, which is not a quantifiable argument.

Fortunately, theists typically provide more material to work with.

Rather than describing god as some entity that likes to create universes in order to look at the pretty stars and planets (and doesn't care about, or isn't even aware of, all those squishy little lifeforms that sometimes get smashed between all of these pretty things), theists usually describe gods as having certain life-oriented characteristics. For instance, many theists describe a god as perfectly benevolent or loving, or perfectly intelligent, or perfectly capable, or perfectly fulfilling, etc. Theists, depending on their particular theology, typically offer a host of characteristics to work with, so the concept of "perfection" can be discarded in favor of more concise terms, like powerful, benevolent, or wise.

In order for this to indicate imperfection, we would have to establish why suffering, in and of itself, aside from the way we feel about it, is negative.

It would depend what kind of suffering you're talking about.

When I debate the problems of imperfection/evil/suffering, I focus specifically on certain types of suffering rather than all of suffering.

Certain types of suffering help a being grow and learn and become more powerful and knowledgeable. Other types of suffering tear down and leave only desolation and ruin. It is the latter that I point out as being in conflict with the concept of a perfect or positive god (and more specifically, the variety of more concise terms such as benevolent or personal or caring, etc.)

Examples can include, but are not limited to:
-The uncountably large number of creatures on this planet that lived and died (and sometimes suffered) on this planet before humans even existed, and the creatures that continue to do so.
-Diseases that have ravaged humanity for long periods or during certain times when defenses were not around, like the Black Death that wiped out a third of Europe's population in the fourteenth century by means of a fairly slow and agonizing death.
-The potential for levels of pain and agony that exceed any useful purpose.
-Clinical depression that ends in suicide.
-Tens of thousands of children starving to death each day.

Without a concrete definition of perfection, what are we going to base our ideas of imperfection on?

Reasonable discourse.

It would depend on the material provided by the theist. If the theist assumes or promotes the idea that god favors life, then I'd suggest the definition of perfection would be that which maximizes eudaimonia for all intelligent beings, and that doesn't harm less intelligent beings.

It seems to me that many theists suggest that this topic of the problem of imperfection/suffering/evil isn't even debatable, and are willing to utilize non-falsifiable methods to put the debate aside, such as "god is mysterious" and such. But the same type of reasoning can be used in this sort of debate as we'd use anywhere else.

If I hand you a guitar that's broken beyond repair, and tell you that it's something magnificent and valuable, you'd naturally question my truthfulness or sanity. You could rightly point out that this thing can't play music at all, and I could just kind of smile knowingly and say "who says that it's purpose is to play music? " And you could ask if someone famous played it, and I say no (but even if someone did, a smashed guitar wouldn't be worth much). You could analyze its materials to see if it's actually made out of or filled with gold or something, and find out it's not.

In other words, you could keep doing checks and eventually reasonably conclude that, despite being unable to prove me wrong that it's magnificent and valuable, you just don't find the proposition well-supported or probable at all, and that the most likely scenario is that I'm incorrect regarding my claim.

Who says it must?

By means of deductive reasoning, anyone who agrees with both of these statements:
A) This is a perfect world.
B) Grievous suffering and despair exists.

The fact that it does merely suggests, from the theistic standpoint, that it fulfills some purpose. This purpose may have been, or may be, acheivable by some other means.

But if those other means are more optimal for the purpose, then this world isn't perfect.

The only thing I'll grant on this point is that there could conceivably be any number of equally optimal methods, and so grievous suffering and despair may have been optional but are equally comparable to other optional inclusions.

Of course the next logical question would be "Why pain then?"

The answer, Why not pain? (other than the fact that it hurts).

What I'm saying is: once we strip the argument of emotion and preference, there's no logical reason for pain not to exist.

It would depend on the type of pain.

If, for instance, I skin my knee, pain tells me I have a problem and need to stop what I'm doing and fix it. If I do martial arts, pain presents an extra degree of difficulty that makes the experience more involved than playing Street Fighter 4 on my xbox. If someone climbs a mountain, the pain in their body makes their achievement all the more impressive if they get to the top. But, if, say, a malevolent sadist captures someone and begins slowly peeling their skin off in agony, then pain is not longer serving a very good purpose (unless you'd care to present one).

There are some types of suffering that serve a useful purpose, and other types of suffering that tear down usefulness and value.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

By means of deductive reasoning, anyone who agrees with both of these statements:
A) This is a perfect world.
B) Grievous suffering and despair exists.

You speak of perfection as balance. This is exemplified by your perfect circle argument, as I guess as being completely equal measure all around from the center.

Good and evil, grace and suffering- all have to exist in a perfect world.

I'm very good at pointing out paradoxes

 

[Penumbra]

You speak of perfection as balance. This is exemplified by your perfect circle argument, as I guess as being completely equal measure all around from the center.

Good and evil, grace and suffering- all have to exist in a perfect world.

I'm very good at pointing out paradoxes

Why would balance constitute a necessary requirement in a perfect world?

If god is perfect, should it mean that its level of power is balanced somewhere between omnipotent and completely impotent, so that it has a sort of mediocre level of power?

 

[Quagmire]

I agree to an extent. The concept of perfection, in order to be used concisely, requires quantifiable points. A perfect circle is a perfect circle, mathematically. When the definition is agreed upon, nobody can argue that a perfect circle is not a perfect circle. They could, however, argue whether a circle is the perfect shape, which is not a quantifiable argument.

Fortunately, theists typically provide more material to work with.

Rather than describing god as some entity that likes to create universes in order to look at the pretty stars and planets (and doesn't care about, or isn't even aware of, all those squishy little lifeforms that sometimes get smashed between all of these pretty things), theists usually describe gods as having certain life-oriented characteristics. For instance, many theists describe a god as perfectly benevolent or loving, or perfectly intelligent, or perfectly capable, or perfectly fulfilling, etc. Theists, depending on their particular theology, typically offer a host of characteristics to work with, so the concept of "perfection" can be discarded in favor of more concise terms, like powerful, benevolent, or wise.

The typical theistic ideas about the nature of God are a moot point for the purposes of this discussion. We're not really discussing theology here, we're discussing what the OP presents as a seemingly logical problem, not a theological one, otherwise theological answers---"because Adam and Eve ate the apple" (Judao/Christian), "Kharma" (Hinduism). "Desire" (Buddhism)---would be acceptable.

Since the OP is asking for some logical resolution to a logical problem, theology, and theological perspectives about the nature of God, wont help.

What I'm trying to argue, theism aside, is that logically speaking the existence of what we perceive as imperfection in the world isn't necessarily any indication about the nature or perfection of God one way or the other.

It would depend what kind of suffering you're talking about.

When I debate the problems of imperfection/evil/suffering, I focus specifically on certain types of suffering rather than all of suffering.

Certain types of suffering help a being grow and learn and become more powerful and knowledgeable. Other types of suffering tear down and leave only desolation and ruin. It is the latter that I point out as being in conflict with the concept of a perfect or positive god (and more specifically, the variety of more concise terms such as benevolent or personal or caring, etc.)

Examples can include, but are not limited to:
-The uncountably large number of creatures on this planet that lived and died (and sometimes suffered) on this planet before humans even existed, and the creatures that continue to do so.

Again: you would have to demonstrate why suffering, in and of itself, aside from our natural revulsion to it, should be considered an imperfection.

-Diseases that have ravaged humanity for long periods or during certain times when defenses were not around, like the Black Death that wiped out a third of Europe's population in the fourteenth century by means of a fairly slow and agonizing death.

At the same time, a good argument could be made that if there had been no Black Death, there would have been no Renaissance.

This is still a matter of perspective. If a plague developed at some point that completely wiped out the human race, anyone who saw it coming would no doubt label it a catastrophe.

On the other hand, it would be really good news for just about every other species on the planet (except maybe pigeons, **** roaches, and rats).

-The potential for levels of pain and agony that exceed any useful purpose.
-Clinical depression that ends in suicide.
-Tens of thousands of children starving to death each day.

Any useful purpose that we can see. Again: our perspective is limited.

Reasonable discourse.

It would depend on the material provided by the theist. If the theist assumes or promotes the idea that god favors life, then I'd suggest the definition of perfection would be that which maximizes eudaimonia for all intelligent beings, and that doesn't harm less intelligent beings.

This is still vague. what would that look like? What I'm saying is we're still talking about degrees here: obviously you're suggesting a scenario where intelligent beings would have it better than we do, and at the cost of fewer casualties among the lower species, but I don't think this approximates to any workable definition of "perfection".

It sounds a lot more like you're talking about improvement rather than perfection, and I would say that it's fairly certain that any intelligent beings living in the best case scenario; one that, as you suggested, "maximizes eudaimonia for all intelligent beings, and that doesn't harm less intelligent beings" probably wouldn't consider their world perfect (not unless these beings completely lacked the ability to imagine).

It seems to me that many theists suggest that this topic of the problem of imperfection/suffering/evil isn't even debatable, and are willing to utilize non-falsifiable methods to put the debate aside, such as "god is mysterious"

At the same time, since it's generally agreed upon by theists as well as non-theists that God or the concept of God is, just by definition, beyond our comprehension, '"god is mysterious" should be taken into consideration if for no other reason then to identify assumptions on both sides of the argument.

and such. But the same type of reasoning can be used in this sort of debate as we'd use anywhere else.

If I hand you a guitar that's broken beyond repair, and tell you that it's something magnificent and valuable, you'd naturally question my truthfulness or sanity. You could rightly point out that this thing can't play music at all, and I could just kind of smile knowingly and say "who says that it's purpose is to play music? " And you could ask if someone famous played it, and I say no (but even if someone did, a smashed guitar wouldn't be worth much). You could analyze its materials to see if it's actually made out of or filled with gold or something, and find out it's not.

In other words, you could keep doing checks and eventually reasonably conclude that, despite being unable to prove me wrong that it's magnificent and valuable, you just don't find the proposition well-supported or probable at all, and that the most likely scenario is that I'm incorrect regarding my claim.

If you handed me a broken guitar and told me it was magnificent and valuable, and your pupils weren't especially dilated, I would assume that it had some special meaning or worth that made it so for you.

If you asked me to acknowledge that it was objectively magnificent and valuable, you would have to explain to me why you saw it as so.

If you couldn't do that, I would just conclude that whatever it was that made it valuable for you was something that you couldn't demonstrate or put into words.

But, unless you were actually trying to sell me the guitar , I wouldn't see any reason to doubt that you were sincere about your claims.

.By means of deductive reasoning, anyone who agrees with both of these statements:
A) This is a perfect world.
B) Grievous suffering and despair exists.

Even then, this doesn't establish that pain and suffering were unavoidably necessary, just that they were the method chosen.

But if those other means are more optimal for the purpose, then this world isn't perfect.

Didn't say more optimal, just possibly optional.

And the argument isn't whether or not the world is perfect, it's whether our perception of imperfection in the world negates the possibility or contradicts the assumption of a "perfect" God.

The only thing I'll grant on this point is that there could conceivably be any number of equally optimal methods, and so grievous suffering and despair may have been optional but are equally comparable to other optional inclusions.

It would depend on the type of pain.

If, for instance, I skin my knee, pain tells me I have a problem and need to stop what I'm doing and fix it. If I do martial arts, pain presents an extra degree of difficulty that makes the experience more involved than playing Street Fighter 4 on my xbox. If someone climbs a mountain, the pain in their body makes their achievement all the more impressive if they get to the top. But, if, say, a malevolent sadist captures someone and begins slowly peeling their skin off in agony, then pain is not longer serving a very good purpose (unless you'd care to present one).

There are some types of suffering that serve a useful purpose, and other types of suffering that tear down usefulness and value.

I would suggest that there are some types of suffering whose purpose we can see and understand and that there are others we can't.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Why would balance constitute a necessary requirement in a perfect world?

If god is perfect, should it mean that its level of power is balanced somewhere between omnipotent and completely impotent, so that it has a sort of mediocre level of power?

That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. If perfection is gauged by balance, then reality is perfect. This creates a paradox.

A very big one, actually. The balance of infinite is zero.
So reality cannot be perfect and exist at the same time.

 

[Penumbra]

The typical theistic ideas about the nature of God are a moot point for the purposes of this discussion. We're not really discussing theology here, we're discussing what the OP presents as a seemingly logical problem, not a theological one, otherwise theological answers---"because Adam and Eve ate the apple" (Judao/Christian), "Kharma" (Hinduism). "Desire" (Buddhism)---would be acceptable.

Since the OP is asking for some logical resolution to a logical problem, theology, and theological perspectives about the nature of God, wont help.

The OP doesn't exist in a vacuum, though. It's a logical problem, and one that, at least conceivably, the correct theology could address.

What I'm trying to argue, theism aside, is that logically speaking the existence of what we perceive as imperfection in the world isn't necessarily any indication about the nature or perfection of God one way or the other.

I would say it is.

If we were told about this supposedly amazing artist, who is gifted beyond comprehension, but she's only known to have created one piece of artwork, and that piece of artwork is this one:

Then both of us would have some serious and reasonable doubts that this artist is, in fact, inconceivably gifted. Such an artist would be dismissed until putting forth better artwork.

-Paintings show the level of skill of the artist.
-Poems show the skill of the poet.
-Systems show the level of skill of the engineer.
-Living rooms show the level of skill of an interior decorator.
-Skyscrapers show the level of skill of the architect and building team.
-Universes created by gods show the level of skill of those gods.

Sure, some things can possibly go misunderstood. If some extremely skilled alien engineer left us with what seemed like a broken piece of furniture, but was actually a completely operational intergalactic transporter, we might conclude that our original assessments were wrong.

But thousands of years have gone by, and this problem of imperfection/evil/suffering is still around in the same way it was in the days of Epicurus and earlier.

Again: you would have to demonstrate why suffering, in and of itself, aside from our natural revulsion to it, should be considered an imperfection.

Because as an axiom, it's inherently undesirable to conscious beings, unless some greater benefit comes along with it.

Now, if god were to be described as "perfectly callous", then suffering wouldn't reduce its perfection. If a god were described as "perfectly malevolent", then a lack of suffering would be an indication of a lack of perfection in this quality.

At the same time, a good argument could be made that if there had been no Black Death, there would have been no Renaissance.

This is still a matter of perspective. If a plague developed at some point that completely wiped out the human race, anyone who saw it coming would no doubt label it a catastrophe.

On the other hand, it would be really good news for just about every other species on the planet (except maybe pigeons, **** roaches, and rats).

An imperfect engineer with a limited set of tools has to make trade-offs and compromises in her design. She'd like to do it one way, but is constrained by X, and therefore has to have some sort of middle ground. So if I design something, and my manager goes, "Lyn! Why on earth does this solution cost $20k?" and I say, "Well, I can do it for $10k, but it won't have functions A, B, and C, so I added them at a cost of another $10k", he may or may not like my argument.

Now if I was a universe-design engineer with an infinite set of resources, and my manager came to me and said, "Lyn! Why on earth are you agonizingly killing tens and hundreds of millions of people with festering diseases?", would an acceptable response be, "It's my best solution in order for the renaissance to happen?" Probably not.

In hindsight, a historian could conceivably make the argument that one led to another, but for a perfect controller with a perfect system, there must undoubtedly have been a better way.

Any useful purpose that we can see. Again: our perspective is limited.

That's a way of keeping the problem non-falsifiable, but doesn't constitute a strong defense.

This is still vague. what would that look like? What I'm saying is we're still talking about degrees here: obviously you're suggesting a scenario where intelligent beings would have it better than we do, and at the cost of fewer casualties among the lower species, but I don't think this approximates to any workable definition of "perfection".

It sounds a lot more like you're talking about improvement rather than perfection, and I would say that it's fairly certain that any intelligent beings living in the best case scenario; one that, as you suggested, "maximizes eudaimonia for all intelligent beings, and that doesn't harm less intelligent beings" probably wouldn't consider their world perfect (not unless these beings completely lacked the ability to imagine).

I've already granted, and have already accepted previous to this debate, that perfection when it comes to a multi-faceted concept such as "existence", is likely an inevitably partially relative concept. So yes, I'd say these things constitute major improvements.

Again, it comes down to deduction. If a system can be demonstrated to be conceivably improvable, then it logically leads to the fact that the system is not currently perfect.

At the same time, since it's generally agreed upon by theists as well as non-theists that God or the concept of God is, just by definition, beyond our comprehension, '"god is mysterious" should be taken into consideration if for no other reason then to identify assumptions on both sides of the argument.

And that's fine and all, but has never constituted a reasonable defense. All it does is keep the claims non-falsifiable.

If you handed me a broken guitar and told me it was magnificent and valuable, and your pupils weren't especially dilated, I would assume that it had some special meaning or worth that made it so for you.

If you asked me to acknowledge that it was objectively magnificent and valuable, you would have to explain to me why you saw it as so.

If you couldn't do that, I would just conclude that whatever it was that made it valuable for you was something that you couldn't demonstrate or put into words.

But, unless you were actually trying to sell me the guitar , I wouldn't see any reason to doubt that you were sincere about your claims.

And what if I was trying to sell you the guitar, or if I was claiming that based on what it is, it is magnificent and valuable to everyone?

You say I'd have to explain why I saw it as so. Would you accept explanations about how it's mysterious and you just have to take my word on it? Or what if I asked you, "does a shattered guitar imply an imperfect guitar?", would that be a valid question? There are certain reasonable axioms that you would base your assessment on. The point is, religion doesn't get a free pass when it comes to skepticism and debate, and yet for some reason, a large subset of theists are seemingly willing to drop axioms and drop assessment and just kind of let it pass.

Even then, this doesn't establish that pain and suffering were unavoidably necessary, just that they were the method chosen.

Didn't say more optimal, just possibly optional.

If a system is not the optimal solution, then it would pretty universally be understood to lack perfection, almost by definition.

And the argument isn't whether or not the world is perfect, it's whether our perception of imperfection in the world negates the possibility or contradicts the assumption of a "perfect" God.

I would suggest that there are some types of suffering whose purpose we can see and understand and that there are others we can't.

I have not said it negates the possibility. In fact, I'm pretty sure that on this forum, the debate I had with another member on this topic where I specifically argued that the PoE does not constitute 100% proof of an omni deity was probably the most words I've ever put into a single thread.

But my position is that the problems of imperfection/evil/suffering/etc constitute major blows to the proposition of a perfect god, and I have yet to see a vigorous defense without any major flaws.

 

[waitasec]

I don't see how that's relevant.

well you claim the universe is sentient, right?
if the universe was aware, what the need for so many sperm instead of one?

Of course. There are a number of times he becomes angry, grieves, and even at times proud of good doings.

says who?

The way I see it, He is all-knowing., limitless in weighing probabilities, infinite eyes everywhere and able to be everywhere at once.
But free will is the catch.

here is a quandary...if he is all knowing, how can he be surprised...or react to situations as though it was a linear experience?

 

[Quagmire]

The OP doesn't exist in a vacuum, though. It's a logical problem, and one that, at least conceivably, the correct theology could address.

Assuming there is a "correct" theology.

I would say it is.

If we were told about this supposedly amazing artist, who is gifted beyond comprehension, but she's only known to have created one piece of artwork, and that piece of artwork is this one:

Then both of us would have some serious and reasonable doubts that this artist is, in fact, inconceivably gifted. Such an artist would be dismissed until putting forth better artwork.

Or until it was disclosed that the artist was 6 months old and blind.

-Paintings show the level of skill of the artist.
-Poems show the skill of the poet.
-Systems show the level of skill of the engineer.
-Living rooms show the level of skill of an interior decorator.
-Skyscrapers show the level of skill of the architect and building team.
-Universes created by gods show the level of skill of those gods.

Sure, some things can possibly go misunderstood. If some extremely skilled alien engineer left us with what seemed like a broken piece of furniture, but was actually a completely operational intergalactic transporter, we might conclude that our original assessments were wrong.

But thousands of years have gone by, and this problem of imperfection/evil/suffering is still around in the same way it was in the days of Epicurus and earlier.

Because the argument was predicated on presumptions to begin with.

Because as an axiom, it's inherently undesirable to conscious beings, unless some greater benefit comes along with it.

The fact that it's undesirable doesn't confirm anything except that it's undesirable. And I would offer that it is actually desirable more often than not, otherwise we wouldn't indulge in it the way we do.

Now, if god were to be described as "perfectly callous", then suffering wouldn't reduce its perfection. If a god were described as "perfectly malevolent", then a lack of suffering would be an indication of a lack of perfection in this quality.

An imperfect engineer with a limited set of tools has to make trade-offs and compromises in her design. She'd like to do it one way, but is constrained by X, and therefore has to have some sort of middle ground. So if I design something, and my manager goes, "Lyn! Why on earth does this solution cost $20k?" and I say, "Well, I can do it for $10k, but it won't have functions A, B, and C, so I added them at a cost of another $10k", he may or may not like my argument. Now if I was a universe-design engineer with an infinite set of resources, and my manager came to me and said, "Lyn! Why on earth are you agonizingly killing tens and hundreds of millions of people with festering diseases?", would an acceptable response be, "It's my best solution in order for the renaissance to happen?" Probably not.

Which identifies a big part of the problem right there: we think we're God's boss.

In hindsight, a historian could conceivably make the argument that one led to another, but for a perfect controller with a perfect system, there must undoubtedly have been a better way.

Better for who? The victims? Wherever they are, I'm sure they aren't worried about it anymore.

That's a way of keeping the problem non-falsifiable, but doesn't constitute a strong defense.

It isn't supposed to be a defense, just a tool for keeping a few things in perspective.

I've already granted, and have already accepted previous to this debate, that perfection when it comes to a multi-faceted concept such as "existence", is likely an inevitably partially relative concept. So yes, I'd say these things constitute major improvements.

Again, it comes down to deduction. If a system can be demonstrated to be conceivably improvable, then it logically leads to the fact that the system is not currently perfect.

That's what I'm saying: relative to perfection, the scenario that you're offering isn't any less imperfect than our own reality.

It would merely be an improvement, but unless there were no conceivable way to improve on that, then it isn't a viable definition or example of perfection.

And that's fine and all, but has never constituted a reasonable defense. All it does is keep the claims non-falsifiable.

I'm not making any positive claims here and I didn't put forth any ascertains so I don't need a defense.

Again, just as with any debate concerning any version of the Problem of Evil, the onus is on the advocate of the POE to demonstrate how the fact of imperfection equates to evidence of lack of perfection in God.

The whole idea is predicated on the assumption that pain/suffering, in and of itself, should be considered a systemic imperfection, rather than just a feature.

And what if I was trying to sell you the guitar,

Then you would have to offer me a really, really good deal.

or if I was claiming that based on what it is, it is magnificent and valuable to everyone?

I might even take your word for that, but I probably still wouldn't give you any $ for it.

You say I'd have to explain why I saw it as so. Would you accept explanations about how it's mysterious and you just have to take my word on it?

Again: it would depend on whether or not you were trying to get me to buy the thing. If you were just telling me about it because you were excited to have it and it was making you happy for the moment, sure, I wouldn't necessarily have to know why it was effecting you that way in order to be happy for you.

Or what if I asked you, "does a shattered guitar imply an imperfect guitar?", would that be a valid question?

Of course. All guitars are imperfect, shattered or not.

There are certain reasonable axioms that you would base your assessment on. The point is, religion doesn't get a free pass when it comes to skepticism and debate,

Religion has nothing to do with it. Like I said: if this were a theological debate, then theological answers would be acceptable.

Since it's a logical debate---were not discussing any claimed attributes for God, we're trying to determine whether the fact of what we perceive as imperfections in the world logically rules out any possible attributes for god.

All that needs to be demonstrated is whether or not the fact of imperfection in our world logically rules out the possibility of a perfect creator of this world.

and yet for some reason, a large subset of theists are seemingly willing to drop axioms and drop assessment and just kind of let it pass.

Like I said: the only thing that needs to be assessed here is the validity of the idea that an imperfect world (as we perceive it to be) somehow suggests imperfection in god.

If a system is not the optimal solution, then it would pretty universally be understood to lack perfection, almost by definition.

Which is why I didn't say more optimal. One may be as good as another.

I have not said it negates the possibility. In fact, I'm pretty sure that on this forum, the debate I had with another member on this topic where I specifically argued that the PoE does not constitute 100% proof of an omni deity was probably the most words I've ever put into a single thread.

But my position is that the problems of imperfection/evil/suffering/etc constitute major blows to the proposition of a perfect god, and I have yet to see a vigorous defense without any major flaws.

And I've never seen a decent rebuttal to my suggestion that the POE is predicated on an assumption.

Until that's done, the POE carries zero weight, and the whole argument goes out the window.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

well you claim the universe is sentient, right?
if the universe was aware, what the need for so many sperm instead of one?

The universe doesn't have to be sentient to have will, but the universe has to be sentient to act on it. In the beginning, it was sentient as all was one. All still is one, just not at the zero-point, which therefore only sentient beings act.

says who?

..the Bible.

here is a quandary...if he is all knowing, how can he be surprised...or react to situations as though it was a linear experience?

What I gather is He is able to know everything that is going on at all times. There are billions of people in the world, and God can tend to each one individually and personally. He has the power and knowledge of everything.
Free will is the kicker. See, He likely is limitless weighing probabilities. But even someone who is 95% likely to be evil and wicked may just turn around and become a saint. And vice versa.

 

[blackout]

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

Why is it necessary to assume that "God" is/must be a perfectionist?

just thinking out loud.

 

[waitasec]

The universe doesn't have to be sentient to have will, but the universe has to be sentient to act on it.

will is a verb...it is an act....
if it is the will of the universe to create life, why so many sperm for 1 egg?

..the Bible.

what makes the bible speak the truth about reality?
why not other teachings...like hinduism, which was around long before the teachings of the abrahamic god.

What I gather is He is able to know everything that is going on at all times.

which voids the element of surprise no less.

There are billions of people in the world, and God can tend to each one individually and personally. He has the power and knowledge of everything.

again no surprises...

Free will is the kicker.

free will of what exactly, of our predispositions?
remember it took only 1 sperm out of millions to reach the egg...how is that free will?

See, He likely is limitless weighing probabilities. But even someone who is 95% likely to be evil and wicked may just turn around and become a saint. And vice versa.

this then means he knows only of probabilities not everything...

you don't detect a contradiction here?

He is able to know everything that is going on at all times.

and

He likely is limitless weighing probabilities

 

[Sum1sGruj]

You keep holding on to those same 'contridictions' that can so easily be accounted for, most which I have already answered. So you can either *think* or be ignored. I'm not going to keep hand feeding every little detail, especially in such uneeded repetition.