Is the Universe perfect or imperfect?

[The Sum of Awe]

When is purple? Why does Thursday?

But those don't work because they're incomplete.

When is (adjective)? Why does (noun)?

They're sloppy

 

[Sha'irullah]

So let's agree on a term. I consider perfection to be whole and unblemished. How about you?

I believe in such thing as perfect, I believe it is incomprehensible and impossible to objective. It is a pipe dream. Perfect is something that can only be declared by the creator not the created.

Like an artist who makes his masterpiece. The art does not determine if it is perfect the artist does.
The universe is perfect in its design and plan in accordance to the creator, god obviously has required no intervention so obviously it is perfect.
It is not a matter of me viewing it as perfect it is a matter of how and for what purpose it was meant to be created.

Your statement earlier excludes us from the universe.

it is meant for everything within it

I did not exclude humanity, I obviously included it. I recommend you read again

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I was taking note of some videos by Hassanain Rajabali and he said one of the most truthful comments I have ever heard.

"There is no imperfection in God's creation and that which we see as imperfect is of our ignorance and not int he system itself"

In what respect does this claim strike you as truthful?

In any case, those who've pointed out that "perfection" is a hopelessly ambiguous and subjective term are on the right track; perfection refers to suitability to a given goal or purpose. Thus, something which is perfect for one thing will be very imperfect for another; a perfect day for snowmobiling would be a very imperfect day for going to the beach.

Given that perfection is defined with respect to some specific goal or purpose, perfection has a fairly limited domain- nothing can just be perfect in general, or perfect in itself; this is undefined and unintelligible. Moreover, the more general the term "perfect" is predicated of, the less clear the meaning- if I speak of a perfect tackhammer, this is certainly meaningful, but a "perfect hammer" is not, since the various types of hammer are intended for different purpose. And the universe itself is about as general as can be, and thus speaking of the "perfection" or "imperfection" of the universe as a whole is nothing more than verbal masturbation.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That's easy enough. Perfect is that which matches the ontological picture.

Um... What? Needless to say, that is NOT what "perfect" means in this context...

Maybe if you said- "'perfect' is what matches our picture of perfection", it would at least be true, if tautological and uninformative... As it is, your comment is hopelessly confused.

 

[Sha'irullah]

In what respect does this claim strike you as truthful?

If there is an omnipotent God you would have to realize that perfection would simply be the purpose of the creation. If it created something with intent then the only perfection that would be noticeable is the creations fulfillment of purpose for its existence.

For a personal like myself, everything is perfect because it exists. If God required to fix his creation in any shape or form he would but he has given it laws, properties and attributes that according to mankind have not changed. The laws of Physics have never ceased and stars have never altered their existence, they burn and they die.

So if god has never stopped into our universe to "fix" something then obviously he does not require it to do anything else but exist. Thus it is perfect in purpose.

 

[idea]

Is the universe truly perfect or non-perfect?

The universe is not currently perfect - God is cleaning up a mess He did not create, and is not yet done cleaning it all up.


from: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/5_creator.html

[SIZE=+1]Child Root (Branches of the Tree)[/SIZE]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia] Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for. [/FONT]

The Bible does not actually teach that God "created" everything... it teaches that He is transforming everything, and doing so without taking away anyone's free will.... it's a translational error - the word "create" does not mean to make something from nothing, it means to transform what eternally exists - everything has eternally existed.

We say an artist "created" it...

Did the artist make the rock? no, the artist did not really "create" it, a better word would be, the artist transformed it... and "transform" is a better word to describe what God is doing too.... I suppose you could still use the word create - people do say things like create a statue, or create a document etc. etc. and of coarse, in any application other than religious ones, create does not mean "ex-nihlo" make something... how the incorrect "ex-Nihlo" idea came about, I'm not sure, but it is not scriptural.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If there is an omnipotent God you would have to realize that perfection would simply be the purpose of the creation.

Why would that be so? Why would an omnipotent god be obligated to create a world with the purpose of perfection? Perhaps he was simply bored and wanted to see what an imperfect world would look like, as an experiment?

If it created something with intent then the only perfection that would be noticeable is the creations fulfillment of purpose for its existence.

One could only "notice" this perfection if one was aware of what the goal/purpose was in the first place. As I said, the attribution of perfection is meaningless without specifying some goal or end- in order to evaluate a thing's perfection, one must know what it is supposed to be for. (and so to ask about the perfection of the universe is to assume that it was created, for some purpose or goal)

 

[idea]

...perfection would simply be the purpose of the creation....

the ultimate purpose is not to be perfect -

2 Nephi 2:25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

the ultimate purpose, is to have a fullness of joy.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

the ultimate purpose is not to be perfect -

2 Nephi 2:25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

the ultimate purpose, is to have a fullness of joy.

And yet, despite a purportedly omnipotent god, the world is not ideal for this purpose of attaining joy (in other words, it is not perfect, i.e. for attaining its goal).

 

[Sha'irullah]

Why would that be so? Why would an omnipotent god be obligated to create a world with the purpose of perfection? Perhaps he was simply bored and wanted to see what an imperfect world would look like, as an experiment?

You missed my point entirely. I never said he created a world with perfection I said no such thing.

I said the world is perfect because God sees no reason to change it, it suits its purpose which is why it is perfect. The purpose is unknown and is the variable not the known.

Demiurge < Purpose < Existence

The reality is that purpose is unknown, UNLESS you take into fact that such a being like God would have no free will so every variable of existence exist simply because it can. An omniscient force would see the past and future so all known actions are decided for.

One could only "notice" this perfection if one was aware of what the goal/purpose was in the first place. As I said, the attribution of perfection is meaningless without specifying some goal or end- in order to evaluate a thing's perfection, one must know what it is supposed to be for. (and so to ask about the perfection of the universe is to assume that it was created, for some purpose or goal)

What I am referring to as purpose is worded poorly perhaps. But as I explained before, everything exist to the the variances of existences. Because something can exist, it does exists and this goes back into the Multiverse Theory by the way. The variable laws of physics for each universe and mass multiplicity is the result of the fact that their variance is required to exist for an omniscient being.
All power is used by will. Omniscience and omnipotence simply mean that god is a perpetual demiurge. All it does is create because these things can be created.

0 is always present because of 1. Everything must existence almost out of need

 

[idea]

And yet, despite a purportedly omnipotent god, the world is not ideal for this purpose of attaining joy (in other words, it is not perfect, i.e. for attaining its goal).

Here's a parable for you...

Say you are sitting at home, watching TV, just a lazy Saturday, and someone brings you a glass of water... you might be confused, "what's the water for?", or you might say thanks - it might just sit on the table, or you might actually sip a little of it... then let's say you just ran the "Sahara run"

read about this run:Running the Sahara: About the Run

now - same friend, same glass of water, only now this water makes you extremely happy... appreciation comes through pain. No up without down, no big without small, no joy without sorrow - it's the theory of relativity, joy is a relative term, and does not exist except in comparison to it's opposite.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 2:11 - 18)

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first–born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.
17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.
[FONT=&quot]18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

no pain, no gain... life's most basic law.[/FONT]

 

[The Sum of Awe]

no pain, no gain... life's most basic law.

Like my grandpa always said - you can't go down the big hill until you go all of the way up it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Like my grandpa always said - you can't go down the big hill until you go all of the way up it.

This common piece of folk wisdom has no applicability to omnipotent beings; for such a being, there is pain without gain, and one can make an omelet without breaking any eggs. Any logically possible state of affairs is attainable by an omnipotent being, by definition, and a world less hostile to human life, and less rife with suffering, certainly falls under the umbrella of logical possibility.

Here's a parable for you...

Say you are sitting at home, watching TV, just a lazy Saturday, and someone brings you a glass of water... you might be confused, "what's the water for?", or you might say thanks - it might just sit on the table, or you might actually sip a little of it... then let's say you just ran the "Sahara run"

read about this run:Running the Sahara: About the Run

now - same friend, same glass of water, only now this water makes you extremely happy... appreciation comes through pain. No up without down, no big without small, no joy without sorrow - it's the theory of relativity, joy is a relative term, and does not exist except in comparison to it's opposite.

Our capacity to feel joy may be relative to certain conditions, but the mere state of feeling joy is not itself relative to anything else (although it may well be contingent upon other things- it is not itself defined in relation to these things). It's just a particular cognitive state which people often find themselves in (and almost universally prefer).

 

[Sculelos]

And this is how God showed us what Love is, that he layed his life down for his friends so that we might not only live but live in the richness and joy that comes from doing the things God wants us to, so that we will be his children that call him Daddy as a little child does and so that we may live in richness, in love and perfect harmony. Enjoying that which we are given with thankfullness and gratitude in remembering the torture that was placed on us in our earthly lifetime so that our sin melted away by the grace and forgiveness of Jesus Christ, the one and only human manifestation of the Invisable God.

 

[George-ananda]

Is the Universe perfect or imperfect?



What would make a universe perfect? A painting perfect? A novel perfect?

There'e no perfect answer to the question.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This common piece of folk wisdom has no applicability to omnipotent beings; for such a being, there is pain without gain, and one can make an omelet without breaking any eggs. Any logically possible state of affairs is attainable by an omnipotent being, by definition, and a world less hostile to human life, and less rife with suffering, certainly falls under the umbrella of logical possibility.



Our capacity to feel joy may be relative to certain conditions, but the mere state of feeling joy is not itself relative to anything else (although it may well be contingent upon other things- it is not itself defined in relation to these things). It's just a particular cognitive state which people often find themselves in (and almost universally prefer).

If the one who designed us or determines all things in accordance to its will begins to control our emotions, there will be no point in existence, we'd have no freewill. Basically God sets out the playground while we get to play on it - and the one thing that we can control is what allows us to play: our emotions.

And, considering that God wouldn't determine our emotions for that reason, we need to feel/create pain for ourselves in order to feel/create satisfaction. We're the ones that create things to be evil by merely calling it evil, in order to create things to be good.

 

[Sculelos]

If the one who designed us or determines all things in accordance to its will begins to control our emotions, there will be no point in existence, we'd have no freewill. Basically God sets out the playground while we get to play on it - and the one thing that we can control is what allows us to play: our emotions.

And, considering that God wouldn't determine our emotions for that reason, we need to feel/create pain for ourselves in order to feel/create satisfaction. We're the ones that create things to be evil by merely calling it evil, in order to create things to be good.

In a way if you think about it God created the World to feel pain and pleasure and Love and to be victorious over the pain, suffering and evil he also created.

Why did he do this: For the Great Joy that was to come after he had done this.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But if there is a perfection to desire, then the picture of perfection supersedes any case of perfect or imperfect desired pictures.

I think you have stepped past the bound of what I have stated. All I am saying is that for something to be considered "perfect" it must first match up against a set of pre-prepared requirements. What are these "requirments" of the universe in order for it to be perfect? Anything can be perfect or imperfect. It all depends on what the end goal is.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If the one who designed us or determines all things in accordance to its will begins to control our emotions, there will be no point in existence, we'd have no freewill.

For one thing, this is non-sequitur; controlling our emotions is not the same as controlling our actions (i.e. taking away free will, which pertains to actions, not emotions). And in any case, God would hardly need to control our emotions to have fashioned a world at least slightly less brutal and inhospitable; and doing so wouldn't obviously require eliminating our ability to exercise free will.

Basically God sets out the playground while we get to play on it - and the one thing that we can control is what allows us to play: our emotions.

Right- only, the playground God has set up for us is full of hazards and threats; it is not up to the highest safety standards, as it were.

Thus, if we are viewing the world as the product of God's design, the obvious conclusion is that God is an imperfect designer.

 

[Sculelos]

Thus, if we are viewing the world as the product of God's design, the obvious conclusion is that God is an imperfect designer.

Unless of course God designed it this way on purpose...