Why didn't a god create perfection?

[Donray]

Why didn't a god create perfection?

One of the arguments for a god creator is that the universe is perfect. A matter of fact, everything a perfect god creates should be perfect.

the problem is that the universe is not perfect, Earth is not perfect, animals are not perfect, etc.

For example: what is purpose of black holes, why create galaxies that collide with each other, why is our galaxy on a collision course with another galaxy? Why create an Earth with plates that move and cause earthquakes and massive destruction? Why create virus? What is the purpose of the asteroid belt that cause destruction on Earth? Why cerate a brain what goes haywire?

There is not very much perfection why if a perfect god created it?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 49 by JLB32168]



[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Is it an opinion or a claim?
Part Two: Evidence for ONE presented as evidence for MOST.[/center]

Is it an opinion or a claim?

Its a claim easily verifiable by a rudimentary internet search. I found it the first try the second hit: Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite, said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

You don't say where your rudimentary internet search demonstrates that Saurya Das is speaking about most scientists, but about "our theory".

It's too bad that you didn't see fit to give us a link to your source.
That's usually seen as a common courtesy in here.

It's even considered one of the rules of the Forum.

Your claim from post 4 of this thread ( because you now have called it a claim, and not just an opinion that we can safely ignore ) is : "just as most scientists teach that the singularity most likely wasnt created but always was."

Saurya Das isn't "most scientists" but ONE scientist, so that does NOTHING to prove your claim about MOST scientists.

And I question that he is TEACHING eternal existence of the universe as a FACT..

Some people have a lot of trouble with the concepts "Fact, fiction, hypothesis, theory". I'm beginning to think that you do as well.

That's not very good for your case.

If it's just an opinion that you don't care to back up, we can safely ignore it.

Ignoring evidence does seem to be quite common here.

I agree.
Let's not do that.
That's why I keep asking people to back up their claims with some evidence.

___________

Questions:

• 1. Does Saurya Das represent MOST scientists?
  2. Could you please provide links when you quote something off the internet?
  3. Is Saurya Das actually TEACHING that the universe is eternal?
  4. Does all evidence provided for a claim instantly become convincing just because some is presented?
  5. Are you accusing your opponents of disregarding your evidence?
  6. Was I writing about ignoring EVIDENCE or OPINIONS that aren't backed up with evidence?

___________

[JLB32168]

Part Two:[/b] Evidence for ONE presented as evidence for MOST.

It was the second hit on the first page. Im quite willing to let others decide for themselves if her theory " that the universe is of infinite age and has no beginning " represents the belief of most scientists.

Scientists announced Thursday that they've pretty much figured out the universe, unlocking potential clues to mysterious "dark energy;" bolstering theories that the universe is flat, eternal, and infinite; and mapping 1.3 million galaxies down to about 1 percent accuracy.

In addition to this universe and every quant, which by different phase transitions disperses old formations which decay and new ones are born, that means that new universe is born in the old Universe like every other formations that is explanation also for infinite and eternal universe.

I could look up more if I wanted to but wed be digressing too far from the subject of why a god didnt create perfection. Reject my assertion if you want. It's not really that important to me.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 51 by JLB32168]




[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Is it an opinion or a claim?
Part Three: Evidence provided that is irrelevant to the claim.[/center]

It was the second hit on the first page.

Good counting !

Im quite willing to let others decide for themselves if her theory " that the universe is of infinite age and has no beginning " represents the belief of most scientists.

I'm just as willing.
Present your evidence and let us decide if your claim has any merit.
I for one, do not think so YET.

Scientists announced Thursday that they've pretty much figured out the universe, unlocking potential clues to mysterious "dark energy;" bolstering theories that the universe is flat, eternal, and infinite; and mapping 1.3 million galaxies down to about 1 percent accuracy.

The above is written like a quote.
It may be from an actual scientist.. who knows, right?

In addition to this universe and every quant, which by different phase transitions disperses old formations which decay and new ones are born, that means that new universe is born in the old Universe like every other formations that is explanation also for infinite and eternal universe.

You know what I don't see in that quote? I don't see where it says that MOST scientists teach this stuff. That's what I don't see in your quote.

I could look up more if I wanted to but wed be digressing too far from the subject of why a god didnt create perfection. Reject my assertion if you want. It's not really that important to me.

Right, you make claims that aren't too important to you...
I find it fascinating that I find what you write more important than you do yourself.

Maybe if it's not really that important you will now PUBLICLY take back the astounding claim?

We shall see just HOW important this claim is to you.. won't we?
Support it or drop it.. you decide.

Be honorable and do so on the record, or just pretend this conversation never happened. Up to you.

You DO seem to be not so interested in your claim for some reason... You seemed very interested in it before. I wonder what changed your mind?

I did a little internet search on this post to see if I could find the word "MOST" in your so called "evidence". I didn't. So all of that "evidence" doesn't demonstrate claim. I have to wonder why you bothered presenting it.

Your evidence isn't at all relevant ... you didn't demonstrate that "most" scientists think one way or another about the eternity of the universe. Your claim STILL stands unevidenced.

Try to remember that your CLAIM was that MOST scientists TEACH that the universe is eternal and non beginning...

IF you ever DO decide to look up sources for your astounding claim, let us know.
As it stands, the only thing that you have demonstrated is that you have an opinion.. and THAT, my friend, can be safely ignored, as I don't take you for the spokesman for MOST scientists. Not even close, my friend.

People are free to have any opinion that they like.
If you don't have any facts to back up your claim, do the honorable thing: drop it. IN PUBLIC, and for the record.

If you did one or the other, it would greatly increase your credibility in my eyes.. and perhaps, to others as well.. Others are of course free to judge your credibility in these debates.

Not that you care about how you present yourself to others.
We know you don't. You've told us often, haven't you?

But who knows.. you might come to change your ideas about that... Some people DO change their minds, you know.

___________

Questions:

• 1. You say that you are quite willing to let others decide if most scientists teach the eternity of the universe or not. Are you willing to allow them their opinions or are you willing to allow them to decide on your evidence?
  2. Could you provide LINKS to your quotes?
  3. If your claim is about MOST scientists, why does your evidence not talk about most scientists?
  4. What evidence do you have that most scientists teach that the universe is eternal?
  5. How do your "quotes" represent what MOST scientists teach, don't they give evidence that SOME of them might?
  6. Do you care about your own claims, or don't you?
  7. Why would you present a claim that you don't think is important?
  8. Is it your goal to be a part of an honorable debate about your claims?
  9. IF you cannot back up your claim, do you consider it the honorable thing to take it back?
  10. Do you understand why credibility is important to the rest of us?
  11. Are you telling us that you just don't CARE about what you write?
  

___________

[marco]

[Replying to post 42 by Donray]


Moderator Warning



It is unacceptable to address people in this uncivil manner. Avoid making personal comments, please.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JLB32168]

I'm just as willing.

I presented evidence enough to my satisfaction that many scientists feel that the universe has no beginning. If it doesnt meet your burden then thats your affair and it isnt really germane to the topic of the thread of if a perfect deity would create a perfect creation.

Your entire post is off topic. You may conclude whatever you want; I cant be bothered and as always, I dont place much stock in a persons opinion of my credibility when that person is utterly bereft of credibility in my eyes. [smile]

[ttruscott]

[p1]If A has need for B then A is incomplete. [p2]That which is incomplete is also imperfect; therefore, [c] A is imperfect.

Don't imperfect and incomplete mean the same thing in English, making this a tautology?

If A is GOD, there is no proof HE needed to created us instead of thinking HE created us for our sakes, a magnanimous act of love. No need was fulfilled by our creation, nothing was completed or perfected.

[ttruscott]

A perfect universe creator makes a perfect universe. If the universe we find ourselves in is not perfect, then if it was created, it creator cannot be perfect.

The fallacy lies in the unproven definition that a perfect GOD cannot produce a creation that is perfectly suitable to the necessity of HIS people to meet with suffering. iow, suffering does not proven an imperfection of GOD.

Is a perfect guillotine perfect when the head falls? IF the need of the age is that HIS sinful church must be painfully punished for sin and the eternally evil ones who are condemned already for their sin, then a universe that reflects that need, that is created as part of the method of inducing sufferings and death, the suffering of judgement, is superior to a garden of Eden universe which has no such implication built into it and is useless to the needs of people.

Any reading of the Bible arrives at the conclusion that this is a place of suffering and death and these will end when the reprobate are removed and we get a new paradiscal universe and earth. Therefore suffering a death are perfectly suited to our needs: Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

[bjs]

[Replying to McCulloch]

Perhaps you could elaborate a little. What make a universe perfect or imperfect?

Is a black hole an imperfection, as the opening post suggests?

Do you mean that there are ways that the universe could conceivable be greater, like being infinite and eternal?

Do you mean that a perfect universe is a place where there is no suffering?

Do you mean moral perfection of the sentient occupants of the universe?

Do you mean something else entirely?

[Donray]

I read your responses any nowhere did you define what you mean by perfect.

Post 4: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:47 pm; Post 15: Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:15 am; Post 33: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:17 am. Apparently you didnt read too closely. I clearly defined what was perfect and what was perfect in every one of those posts.

• Uncreated " Since it doesnt/didnt need anything to be brought into existence, but simply always existed.
  
  Immutable " If it is perfect then it can neither improve upon itself nor become better (since better doesnt exist if it is perfect); neither can it devolve to a lesser state and become imperfect.

. . . which is what I said on multiple occasions.

Reread all the above post and nowhere did I see where you defined the definition of PERFECT. I saw a lot of ypour preaching about a perfect god, but nowhere did you define perfect.

so, could you in one sentence define with the word perfect means? Like a dictionary would a word.

Please tell me the post where you say perfect is defined as ".....".

Is English a second language and you do not understand what a definition of word is?

Can someone that is perfect create things that are not perfect?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 54 by JLB32168]




[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Is it an opinion or a claim?
Part Four: Debating to convince ones self.[/center]

I presented evidence enough to my satisfaction that many scientists feel that the universe has no beginning. If it doesnt meet your burden then thats your affair and it isnt really germane to the topic of the thread of if a perfect deity would create a perfect creation.

Well, that would be great if you were debating yourself.
Unfortunately, when asked for evidence to back up a claim, it would have to be acceptable to others, as well.

Your entire post is off topic.

I fully understand that your claim isn't at all the same as the one presented for discussion in the OP. Unfortunately, you chose to make it. My post, sir, is about your claim.

Here is a claim of mine: Some people make claims, are challenged about them, have trouble backing them up, and then complain that being challenged is "off topic".

___________

Questions:

• 1. You stated that: "I presented evidence enough to my satisfaction", do you consider debates to be about convincing yourself, or about convincing any others?
  2. What is it about your evidence that I don't consider "germane" to your claim?
  3. When someone makes a claim, who has the burden to prove it?
  4. If you truly believe that "most scientists teach that the universe is eternal" is off topic, why did you bring it up in the first place?
  5. In post 51 you stated: "Reject my assertion if you want. It's not really that important to me." Why would you present a claim that you don't think is important?
  6. Are you willing to publicly take back your claim, since it's not important to you, you haven't been able to back it up sufficiently in other people's eyes, and seem set on moving on to some other claim?
  

___________