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?

[ttruscott]

It is all very well saying man brought sin and destruction but he didn't build tectonic plates.

No but the earth was created in accord with the evil free will decisions of the sinful people who must live here, to be a stage for their evil lives that speaks to or graphically points out we do not get a peaceful world because we did not deserve a perfectly benign world but as sinners we get a world of suffering and death!

Do you mean that your god knew that he would create sinful people and therefore created an imperfect earth for them from the start?

I will say it again: HE created the earth AFTER some of HIS creation CHOSE BY THEIR FREE WILL to become evil. HE did not create them evil. They chose to be evil. HE created the earth to reflect their evil and to be a part of HIS judgement of the reprobate and the painful discipline of HIS sinful elect.

[Donray]

It is all very well saying man brought sin and destruction but he didn't build tectonic plates.

No but the earth was created in accord with the evil free will decisions of the sinful people who must live here, to be a stage for their evil lives that speaks to or graphically points out we do not get a peaceful world because we did not deserve a perfectly benign world but as sinners we get a world of suffering and death!

Do you mean that your god knew that he would create sinful people and therefore created an imperfect earth for them from the start?

I will say it again: HE created the earth AFTER some of HIS creation CHOSE BY THEIR FREE WILL to become evil. HE did not create them evil. They chose to be evil. HE created the earth to reflect their evil and to be a part of HIS judgement of the reprobate and the painful discipline of HIS sinful elect.

Does your god know anything about the future? I have heard that God does and has plans for things involve the future. Therefore your god created evil.

You are implying that evil people where created before he created the Earth. The Earth was created imperfect before your god decided to put people on the Earth. Animals, which your god did not create with intelligence and therefore free will lived on that imperfect Earth million of years before man. So I ask you how did some furfure evil cause your god to crate an Earth with plates that move and cause disastrous earthquakes before this so called evil?

Also, why the asteroid belt that cause animals species to be wiped out on Earth? Your god created animals that want extent long before man did any evil.

Christians want to use this free will thing to cover up all of gods mistakes and yet at he same time say that god his a plan for them. Free Will and a god plan are incompatible. Either god has determined a plan for you or you have free will and no plan.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to Donray]

The question is illogical.

If something is perfect: immune, immutable, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist.

[JLB32168]

Why do depend on atheists for your science info? Why not the your god?

Theology is the study of God and what God did. Science explains how God did what He did. The two aren’t inimical with one another for all of us Christians, and not all scientists are atheists.

You make statement then refuse to discuss them like your god lived in a place that had no time or space.

I don’t discuss things when I have little working information on them.

What do you do when you've little knowledge of a topic?

What do you do when you don’t have information on a topic?

My position is that God exists and is perfect and I’ve defined what theological perfection is. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be justifying.

Aside from that, your comments on my credibility (more accurately my alleged lack of it) are inappropriate comments of a personal nature, that is, they are attempts at character assassination. Such comments also presuppose that I care what someone else thinks about my credibility and I assure you that I could not possibly care less w/o being comatose or dead. Kinds of insults like that also presuppose that the person who comments on my lack of credibility has credibility him/herself, which might not be the case. Indeed s/he might be in possession of no credibility whatsoever so perhaps it’s best to refrain from commenting on another poster’s credibility or lack thereof. [smile]

Since I know nothing of my god, as you suggest, I can’t discuss said god, so I read no further than your word “topic� and will no longer engage in conversation with someone who can no longer articulate a thought w/o retreating into the haven of insult.

Now you go and have a great day. [more smiles]

[JLB32168]

I will say it again: [God] created the earth AFTER some of HIS creation CHOSE BY THEIR FREE WILL to become evil.

If I may offer my thoughts on this, TT, and of course everything after this presupposes that God actually exists (we must apparently always preface every post with that provision, which I think is stupid, but it seems necessary) . . .

The OT isn’t clear on the “when� the immaterial creation was . . . well . . . created. If we allow that science is right in this area – that God’s creation of light was the explosion of the singularity (certainly such an event would be somewhat bright [*giggle*]) then there was no before (since space/time wouldn’t have existed) then a gap occurred and perhaps then is when the immaterial creation came into existence.

To clarify, I don’t hold a slavishly literal interpretation of Genesis. I follow many ancient Church Fathers who taught the same thing – a non-literal interpretation (when certainly a slavishly literal interpretation would have been perfectly acceptable since there was no evidence against it.)

HE did not create them evil.

I agree, but I would clarify that evil isn’t a thing that can be created; although, we use the word, which is an abstract description of the consequences of actions, as though it is a created thing.

The best way to create sentient creatures that think is to create them with the ability to choose to do good since automatons can’t be called good since they’re robots – we don’t praise accurate calculators for their honesty because they return correct numbers. That being the case, the ability to choose to do good is superior to doing good by compulsion, which of course isn’t morally good. On the other end, tanks shoot explosive ordinance with the intention of killing people – preferably lots of them. We don’t say that the tanks are evil murderers; they’re just doing what they’re designed to do. Hence, creating creatures with the ability to deliberate between good and evil is superior to creating automatics. The down side is that they can actually choose evil, but as we have seen, people are indeed capable of great good and simply not creating because some would be evil means that evil triumphs, which certainly isn’t good and cannot be an attribute of God.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 80 by ttruscott]

You can't say my assertion is unsupported and meaningless, when that is my assertion about your post!

You used non-sequitur words to make an assertion. You need to explain.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 87 by JLB32168]




[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Is it an opinion or a claim?
Part Ten: The ambiguous end of the claim in Post 4.. maybe ( or not ) [/center]

But you seem to deny our problem. I'm dismayed, but not shocked. I'm quite used to religiously motivated denialism.

I’ve explained how inanimate objects can lack/need something and cannot explain it any simpler.

Well, sorry, but in my opinion, you have TRIED to.. I don't think, that in my case, you have succeeded. But I'm happy to let you off the hook.

No use beating a dead horse, right?
I think that we should move on.

If someone else understood it quite simply “as evidenced by ‘liking’ the post� then I’m at a loss for how to remedy the problem.

And so, our misunderstanding remains.
I think you really did your best.

Lava needs heat to remain molten. It lacks the ability to remain molten on its own.

Now you understand what a need/lack is.

But those are not my words, they are your own.
Sorry, your equivocal use of "need" still exists.

The needs or inanimate things are different from animate things, but both still have needs that make up for some lack (i.e. a)staying hot to remain molten or b)needing the sun to obtain food. If that’s confusing then I’m sorry and can’t explain it further

Yes, I think we really got to the bottom of this issue of "needs".
You can't explain it further.

And as it stands, I am confused by your language.

TO ME, It almost seems as if the perfect "God" suddenly discovered that it needed to create something.

Okay. I understand you want to speculate on why God did what God did. I don’t so we’ll move along.

That's fine, but the we were discussing NEEDS.. and I was asking if God NEEDED to create, or if he had any reason at all... You brought up the concept of "need" into the discussion. But, now, you don't want to discuss it.

The questions about your ambiguous use of the word "need" are left unanswered.
Time to move on, you say.

I agree..
20 or more longwinded discussion about the use of very simple words ...
And we still have not come to the bottom of it...

If you abandon trying to explain what you mean, it' really really time to move on!
In your defense, I would say that preachers teach their students how to think about their particular religion.. and that, in my opinion, is very poorly indeed.

That's basically why I couldn't stomach their preaching.
Whenever I looked at it CAREFULLY.. it never made a lick of sense..

I was flabbergasted.. but I still have not really found a preacher that does.. amazing, isn't it? So, you are not alone in your particular reasoning trouble.. if you find that "safety in numbers" is a comfort.

Blastcat is more concerned about figuring things out for HIMSELF, than relying on the authority of others. That's why, for example, I don't have many OPINIONS about the OPINIONS of Hawking, great mind that he most certainly must be.

I try my best to stay current with Hawking's books.. I have to admit, I have to take his word on it. I am THAT ignorant of the topics he wants to explain to me. I'd ask HIM very very many questions, TOO!!

I would LIKE to understand.
Asking questions is a good way.

But.. if my communication partner stops explaining.. or admits that he or she cannot explain something .. my CONFUSION about what was said REMAINS.

Some people give up at that point.
I wouldn't.

I'd go learn more about what I was talking about.. and try to get FACTS.. sources.. EVIDENCE.. in the hopes that I could convince my partner that my point has any merit, OR I would have to take BACK my claim, and make a much more modest one, that I COULD possibly explain.

But that's me.

And we know this because.....?

I defer to men such as Hawking regarding when and if the laws of physics came into existence if they did indeed come into existence. Appeals to authority are valid when the authority is an expert in the field – this case being an expert in the field of theoretical physics.

I agree.. I also defer to authority when appropriate.

I'm just questioning if what you present about the origins of the universe are facts.
Because you see to be doing that.. I have to wonder if you think that Hawking presents his theories the way that you seem to.

I don't for example, take you for an AUTHORITY on Hawking's theories.
I would take HAWKING himself as the authority on that.

So, if you have QUOTES.. or some other kind of evidence to BACK UP your assertion... A quote from say.. HAWKING himself, where we can plainly and simply see that you quoted him ACCURATELY, then fine. You will have made your case about Hawking.

BUT NOT BEFORE.

Your opinion of what Hawking means is NOT evidence for your opinion of what Hawking means.

Debating 101, friend.

I thought that "God's" plans were a bit of a deal with Christians?

They are. I just don’t have interest in speculating on them presently.

So, in your opinion, "God" DID have a plan in mind for creation before he created.

I suppose I could play on the meaning of the word "need" here, and say that, for the plan to come about, "God" needed to create a universe.

"God" also needed a plan for the universe.

"God" also needed the universe for his plan to work, and in fact, I think that for "God's" plan to work, he really needed HUMANS. From where I stand, we could easily say that "God" was very needy indeed.

It's fun to play around with the word "need" like that.
So many English words can be played with like that ... hence.. jokes that use or focus on ambiguity. I think that perhaps, you just aren't "getting the joke" about the word "need".

Not that I'm laughing very much.
Language difficulties cause grief to a lot of people.

Sometimes, a little humor can help expose problems.. and can potentially make us think better. When I try my dry wit in here.. I can get into hot water with the mods.. so I usually put on my "serious" face.

You can't define the word "need"?

I did. Ttruscott understood. You didn’t – even after I used dictionaries – two in fact.

Oh, I see.. you did "once upon a time" ... great.
But you seem to rather tell us that you did, than.. ( perish the thought ) do it again.
Oh well..

That's not going to help me understand what you mean by "need".
I think that's the whole issue here..

One word.

And you seem to think that just because someone might have understood you, that everyone should.. Hmmm

Ok, there are three parts here that I find troubling with the way you present your case:

• 1. Bad reasoning
  2. Ambiguous use of language
  3. Unsupported claims.

If it weren't for those three little problems.. your case might succeed.

Like cakes?

I said that the singularity possessed everything. Logically that would mean that everything that now exists came from the singularity.

Logically it would ... hmmm.

Your ambiguous use of the word "possess" presents to me a language difficulty.

You are changing what you mean from "the singularity possessed everything" ( presumably, the word "everything" includes CAKES ) to.. "everything that now exists came from the singularity" ( presumably, cakes COME FROM the singularity ) , the singularity doesn't actually POSSESS cakes, or does it?

But you say that "singularity" possesses everything.. ( sounds like it possesses cakes ) But.. that it doesn't mean that the singularity possesses everything ( like cakes ) ... hard to tell, really. How you worded that explanation .. was ambiguous, I'm afraid.

Your argument is full of these kinds of difficulties.. Sometimes, when you explain what you mean, your meaning gets MORE ambiguous, not less.

And that's where we are right now.
I can't make heads or tails of this mess.

And friend, to me, it's a right mess.
Predominantly a language mess, in my opinion.

What an interesting admission! I'm not convinced that you really mean that.

Oh well

I wonder what "oh well" is supposed to mean?

_________________

Some possible meanings of "Oh well" :

• "Oh well, you are perfectly right"
  "Oh well, I don't really care to back up my claims"
  "Oh well, you are just wrong"
  "Oh well, some people just can't GIT IT"
  "Oh well, I CONCEDE and Blasctat wins this round"
  "Oh well, Blastcat is probably pretending again"
  "Oh well, atheists can't be trusted"
  "Oh well, Since I tried my best, therefore, I am right and Blastcat is wrong"
  "Oh well, if TS gets it, then it can't be my fault if Blastcat doesn't understand me"
  "Oh well, I'm the best communicator there is.. whatayagonna do if others don't have great reading comprehension"
  "Oh well, some people just don't accept that whatever I say is TRUE"
  "Oh well, whatever the problem is, it can't possibly be my fault"
  "Oh well, I lost but I just can't admit it"
  "Oh well, I didn't really care about my initial claim anyway"

_________________

As you can see.. I could go on and on and on ... ad nauseum, quite frankly.
I just started on the possible meanings of your "Oh well" reply.

Ambiguity like that does not make a case.
It rather destroys it. You completely leave yourself open to speculations about what you might really mean. TS, for all I know is merely speculating, too.

I showed you how I can speculate, by way of the "Oh well" examples above.
Your comment was perfectly USELESS as a clarification.

I can see why you would want to abandon backing up your claim in post 4.
Remember the comment?

That's the word of the day, folks.. "ambiguously".

I don't STILL know if you really meant it that way. You seem to give up, and you seem content to leave your ambiguity as it stands.

So much for your initial claim, though.

Good. So, you ARE trying to explain yourself to me. Another red herring gone.

I explained everything in as simplest a way that I could and can’t break it down any further. Oh well.

I COULD take this " oh well" as a concession. You seem ready to give up the fight. You can't seem to really explain your reasoning in a way that I can understand.

And.. I'm not convinced right now, that you care at all about my "understanding".
Well, FYI, in my understanding, your ideas don't have very much MERIT, my friend.

In my opinion, it's the language that's tripping you up. But logic 101 isn't far behind trying to stick your wheels.

I suggest that you read up on "equivocation" ... that's one of the main culprits here.
( and a good place to start learning about critical thinking, by the way )

Does creation interest you or not?

Yes.

Thank you.. that IS quite unambiguous, in my opinion!
However, concerning with the origins of the universe, you wrote previously that : "It doesn’t interest me enough to discuss. "

Can you not see how confusing a statement like that is?
You say that you aren't interested in the origins of the universe, but yet, bring up the subject of the origins of the universe.

Then, I HAD TO ASK YOU...
Because, sir, I was baffled by your comment.

I'm happy that you clarified.. but really, you make yourself very confusing to a careful reader of your posts. Back and forth like that? VERY CONFUSING, my friend.

And that's how we get longs lists of questions at the end of some of my posts. We can actually COUNT how many times I get confused .. by the number of questions.

I wont ask you any below here, as I am quite happy to accept your resignation.. But, believe me when I say that if you have NOT abdicated, there will be VERY many to come. And I suspect, those would be many MORE than you would care to answer. ( that's been your technique so far )

It seems as if you are quite done trying to explain yourself concerning your initial claim way back in Post 4, but I can't really TELL.. due to your ambiguity.

I am not getting my hopes up, by the way.

THE TOPIC? I didn't ASK what the topic was.. I know what it is, and if I forget, I can always go back to POST 1.

Okay, then that’s what we’ll be discussing.

Right, we won't be discussing your claims about the origins of the universe any longer.
So, about your initial claim in Post way back when.. ( 4, to be precise ) :

_______________

FOR THE RECORD:

We won't be discussing your quite astonishing claim that: "... – just as most scientists teach that the singularity most likely wasn’t created but always was. "
_______________


I think you did a fine job of trying to make your case about most scientists and what they "teach". You can be happy that at least, maybe someone out there agrees that you made your case, and indeed, made it quite clearly.

That someone would not be the Blastcat.

Ok, I lied a bit.. I wrote above that there wouldn't be any questions, but I'm have just a WEE bit of trouble keeping that rather hasty promise, so I am breaking it below:

___________

Question:

• 1. Isn't it great not having a long list of questions to stare at?
  

___________

[ttruscott]

I will say it again: HE created the earth AFTER some of HIS creation CHOSE BY THEIR FREE WILL to become evil. HE did not create them evil. They chose to be evil. HE created the earth to reflect their evil and to be a part of HIS judgement of the reprobate and the painful discipline of HIS sinful elect.

Does your god know anything about the future? I have heard that God does and has plans for things involve the future. Therefore your god created evil.

By rejecting the pagan definition of omniscience that has brought so much blasphemy into the church I now accept the Bible's definition of HIS being ALL knowing:
Acts 15:18 Known unto GOD are all HIS works from the beginning of the world.

HIS works are HIS creative decrees by which HE created all that HE created. HE knows all HIS works so if HE did not create something, HE doesn't know it.

I contend that HE did not create the results of our free will decisions. Therefore HE doesn't know the results of our free will decisions until we choose them and in that way HE finds out what they are. This contradiction to the pagan definition solves the blasphemies that the pagans brought into the church with their so called wisdom.

Therefore my GOD did not know who would create evil if anyone at all and is not responsible for its creation, just the necessity of it being allowed as part of our having a free will to be able to fulfill HIS purpose for us.

[ttruscott]

Free Will and a god plan are incompatible. Either god has determined a plan for you or you have free will and no plan.

You are correct that our free will is incompatible with our being predestined or our lives being predetermined. But PCE Christian theology does not accept we have a free will here on earth. Jesus told us that we are enslaved by the addictive nature of sin / evil which permeates our will and clouds our minds and intentions.

Therefore, since everyone became addicted to evil by their free will, for GOD to predetermine the lives of HIS sinful people of the kingdom, (HIS sheep gone astray, HIS elect), to fulfill HIS predestination of them to heaven the best possible way, does not to go against their free will at all which was lost long before they were sent here.

HE did not predestine our fate, heaven or hell. We chose our own fate, heaven or hell, by our free will. Sinners are given predetermined lives here on earth to fulfill HIS plan for their redemption.

For those who chose to accept HIM as their GOD, HE predestined us to heaven by means of a perfect salvation (found in HIS Son) if we chose to ever sin. Then the few who did sin were given predetermined lives here on earth by which HE would fulfill HIS promise of salvation in us the best way possible.

Predestination and predetermination do not set our chosen fates, heaven or hell, but only ensure that what we chose by our free will is fulfilled.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to Donray]

The question is illogical.

If something is perfect: immune, immutable, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do.

Pretty good...

But

A God who is perfect does nothing except exist.

this does not apply to a living GOD who is aware of possibilities and choices and self understanding...and HE exists like this without disequilibrium.