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 33 by JLB32168]


[center]God can't create anything perfect.
Part Three: "A need by any other word" or intense language difficulties.[/center]


Note: at the bottom, there are MANY questions, many more, in fact, than my usual many.. One reason for so many questions is that what I am presented with is so hard to follow ...

Many questions is an indication of how problematical I think the post I am responding to has been. Conversely, the fewer the questions, the more I understand what's going on. As we can plainly see by the number of my questions below... I'm not too sure yet what JLB is trying to say. I would also add that the LENGTH of my reply indicates how many problems I have with what I am responding to. This post, for example, is very long.

In order for something to exist, it had a NEED to be brought into existence.. interesting idea.

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

That's a valid argument.. I'd say it's also sound.
Good work. Keep doing that kind of thing.. and we will get to the bottom of this in no time.

Take a look at mine:

P1... If God has a need to create.. God is incomplete.
P2 that which is incomplete is also imperfect, therefore,
C God is imperfect.

Question below.

[p1]Anything created lacks self-existence as evidenced by the fact that it must be brought into existence or caused by something outside itself.
[p2]Lack indicates imperfection.
[c]Created things/creatures are imperfect.

It’s not just interesting; it’s logical.

In fact, I'd say it's VERY interesting. But is the logic sound like in your first argument?
I'm not so sure.. you might have to answer a few questions so that I can agree that it is.

For example, in P1, we would have to accept that things that don't exist can be said to have characteristics of any kind.. such as "lacking" something. You would have to demonstrate that P1 is true, or even possibly true. I think this is another case of contradiction. That's why I previously used the phrase : "Married bachelor". The very concept of needing before existing makes no sense.

Question below.

Hmmm something perfect doesn't have any requirements outside itself to exist.

Correct.

I wonder just how many things in the universe are perfect like that..
Because, if it's the very thing that you want to prove exists, that would be special pleading. And that would disqualify the argument.

Question below.

1. How can you need ANYTHING before you existed?

A need and a lack of X are the same thing.

That's what I thought you meant all along.
Thank you very much for the clarification.

It exposes your contradictions quite clearly.

If you didn’t exist and now you do exist, then you had to be brought into existence because you were lacking self-existence.

"I" had needs before "I" existed...

To me, that's like saying "I could dance the cha-cha before I could dance the cha-cha", or " I could dance the cha-cha before I was alive." or, or " I had a need to dance the cha-cha before I was alive." or " I was lacking dancing the cha-cha before I was alive."

Your statement is incomprehensible.

I wasn’t always alive so I didn’t need anything one hundred years ago;

Now, you seem to agree with me.
What doesn't exist, doesn't have anything, including "needs".

You contradict yourself too often for me to follow.

however, before I could exist/be alive I had/needed to be brought into existence by my parents.

Now, you say that in order to exist, we have a need.
And you seem to equate "having with needing". ( "had/needed" is another weird contradictory or at the very least ambiguous use of language )

Questions below.

My need for my parents to cause me to exist indicates my lack of self-existence; therefore, I am imperfect.

I don't really see how before you existed, you could not have been perfect OR imperfect.

You use the phrase: "Your lack of self-existence" to mean "doesn't exist"
I suggest not using the confusing turn of phrase that has the ambiguous word "lack", which implies existence, and use the simpler version which does not.

Right now, you might as well be saying that "What does not exist, has needs."
How does something that doesn't exist HAVE EM?

I’m imperfect because of a lot of things but if I possessed everything else but lacked the ability to spring into existence on my own then I am imperfect.

You might assume that you exist before you actually exist. You cannot need, nor possess anything if you don't yet exist. Before one exists, one cannot tap dance or swim, or have a need for peanut butter brittle, either.

You seem to define perfection as the ability to self-create.
You stated earlier that everything self-creates.

But now, you say that you can't self-create.
I agree.. you can't self create.

In this universe, I don't know of anything that can.
You claim that "God" can.

I'm sorry, but until you resolve your contradictory statements, I can not make sense out of your reasoning. You seem to be equivocating on terms like "need" and "lack" and "self-create" and so on. And we haven't even got to the special pleading part of your case, very much. Time to address, that. I'm lacking that.. I have a need to explore it with you.. I wont be perfect until the need is fulfilled. ( and then, maybe I will be perfect like "God".. who knows? )

Question below.

3. Why does a perfect god have a need of anything outside of itself?

A perfect god doesn’t need anything. Why would one conclude that a god that creates had a need?

He seems to have needed to create or was lacking the creation or he created for no reason at all. I'm not sure if you believe that a perfect "God" creates for no reason...

Question below.

4. Why would a perfect god need to create anything?

I don’t know but you presuppose that a perfect god needed to create.

I don't PRESUPPOSE anything at all about your concept "perfect god" . I am trying to understand what you MEAN by it. For example, if need and lack mean the same thing, as you just stated, then a god who LACKS creation needs it, and lacking anything ( if god has no creation, by your reasoning, he lacks it ) he isn't perfect.

Question below.

Why should one conclude that one needs to create?

By your definition need and lack are the same.
If "God" lacks, "God" also needs.

If creation "NEEDS" to be created, it's "God" who is having the need.
If "God" didn't think that something was LACKING.. he would not have needed to create it. "God" was lacking creation, he then created it. After which, "God" didn't need or lack creation any longer. With creation, "God" is now complete. But he apparently needed something before.. he wasn't quite satisfied with the no creation condition he was previously in. He was lacking creation. He wasn't complete.

And if "God" is incomplete, "God" is imperfect, by your reasoning.

Are you perhaps defining need differently than how I am using it? I need water. I don’t need it in the form of coffee so my choice to have it in the form of coffee indicates no need for coffee.

Good point about defining terms.
And right now, I really need a coffee !!

I get caught SO often.. discussing things that I don't know how the other person is using. I have to learn that lesson.. GET PEOPLE TO DEFINE TERMS FIRST.. so my very first questions should always be about that.

I should know better.. live and learn.

Question below about the meaning of "need", in case you have more to say about it. For example, is a need a "desire"? I very OFTEN say that: "I need a coffee".

( you have already said that need=lack )

When I create something, I usually have a need to create if for some reason.
I don't usually create things for no reason at all. If I desire something, I usually do so for a reason. My "choice" of needing coffee.. is for a reason. I COULD choose water, instead, if I desired that. When I have a choice, I often decide on water or coffee based on my NEED.

I'm assuming that the perfect god ... had a reason, a desire, hence a "need" of some sort that was fulfilled by creation. And logically, that's a little iffy.

Look for the questions below about that.

Does everything have to need to be created in order to exist?

I didn’t say that. I said that if something was created then it lacked existence. Lack is need. Need is indicative of imperfection.

Since you seem to equate a lack and a need.. they are the same.I can't understand how things that don't exist can "need" or "lack" anything. You seem to be playing with words when you say that lacking existence is the same as not existing, and then saying that what lacks existence NEEDS existence as if it had a desire to exist. Which it cannot have.. until it actually exists. Things that don't exist don't have needs .. and they don't feel any LACK. And about feeling that "lack" or feeling that "need".. what about "God's" lack and "God's" need of creation?

This is a long debate about how you use words in your arguments.
And in my opinion, that's quite poorly.

6. Does "God" need to be created in order to exist?

I’m not discussing whether or not God is the creation of men’s mind, which is what your question seems to be asking.

I'm not discussing that either and here is how you can tell:

[/quote]

If I meant something to do with men's minds, you would have SEEN the phrase "men's minds". If you have trouble comprehending a question, please ask for clarification.

You almost asked me a question there... but not quite.
I will re-phrase my question below.

I know what you believe and you know what I believe.

That's not as true as you might think.
I am not convinced that you "know what I believe". You may know a little about what I DON'T believe... right?

As for your beliefs.. I'm doing my best.
I have a ton of questions before I get there.

I seem to never get it right.. RIGHT?
I don't see a lot of agreement from your side.
Have you EVER agreed with anything that I have written?

I can't recall right now.

I have no interest in your opinion of my belief so if you want to discuss if my belief is true then it’ll be a one way discussion. You’d be better served by discussing and soliciting an opinion from a fence post.

How interesting.
If I ask about the truth of your belief, you say I might as well talk to a fence post.
You have no interest in my opinions.. interesting..

Yet, here we are debating your opinions.
You might want to reconsider having an interest in what others have to say.

7.[/b] How does perfection imply a "need" of any kind?

Perfection implies the exact opposite.
If I am perfect then I require, lack, need nothing.

It's as if you are saying that "God" didn't require, lack, or need creation.
Look for the question below about what could have motivated "God" to create.

If I choose to do something then it’s my prerogative but it doesn’t necessarily indicate a need on my part.

Ok.. "doesn’t necessarily indicate a need" ... will be the topic of question 25.
___________

Questions:

• 1. Define "need".
  2. Do you agree that if God has a need to create.. God is incomplete?
  3. In your opinion, why did "God" create the universe?
  4. If God had no need or didn't lack anything, why did he bother with creation?
  5. Did God desire something that he didn't have?
  6. Did God want something that would fulfill some need?
  7. How does something that doesn't exist HAVE anything like a need, desire or a lack? ( like a lack of water or a lack of existence? )
  8. Are the phrases "lack of existence" and "not existing" identical ?
  9. Are you saying that "something that does not yet exist needs to be created in order to exist" means the same as "that thing itself has a need or a desire to exist?"
  10. Are you saying that the word "need" is equivalent to "desire"?
  11. Could you give us a list of things that are perfect in the universe .. that don't "need" to be created to exist?
  12. Is their something that has identity before it exists, that could HAVE a need? What or who is doing "the needing to exist" Who or what has the "need" to exist before it exists?
  13. Is potentially existing the same as actually existing?
  14.How can Blastcat have a need before there is a Blastcat?
  15. How can things that don't exist be said to have characteristics of any kind.. such as "lacking" something?
  16. How many "things" are perfect the way you describe it?
  17. You stated that: "I wasn’t always alive so I didn’t need anything one hundred years ago; " isn't that like saying that before you were alive, you didn't LACK anything ( like existence )? I think you equated lack with need earlier.
  18. How can one be perfect or imperfect before one exists?
  19. Do the terms "Lack of self-existence" and "Doesn't exist" mean different things?
  20. How does something that does not exist have needs, desires, or deficiencies ( lacks, by another word )
  21. Do you think that when we lack something, or we need it, that we would desire it? Why would "God" desire creation? Why would he want it?
  22. You state that need and lack are the same. If "God" lacks creation ( before it existed, it was "lacking" for everyone ) he isn't perfect. Can you resolve this apparent contradiction?
  23. Can Blastcat want, need, desire, lack dancing the cha-cha before Blastcat exists?
  24. You state that "God" self-creates. Does "God" need to be created by himself in order to exist?
  25. You stated that "If I choose to do something then it’s my prerogative but it doesn’t necessarily indicate a need on my part." Choosing to do something doesn't necessarily indicate a need or a lack or a desire or a requirement? What else COULD it indicate that isn't synonymous with "need"?
  26. You state that need = lack. And then you used the term "had/needed"... Do you mean to say that "lack=having"?
  27. Do you not care about the truth of your beliefs?
  28. Do you not care about other people's opinions concerning your ideas?
  29. Why would one debate ideas if one is not concerned about what people think of them?
  

___________

[JLB32168]

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.

Okay.
I gather it’s not acceptable to you. I can live with that, so you’re free to reject what I said. I can’t be bothered.

P1... If God has a need to create

You’ve presupposed that God needed to create. Just because I walked outside doesn’t mean that I needed to walk outside.

For example, in P1, we would have to accept that things that don't exist can be said to have characteristics of any kind. such as "lacking" something.

The rock in my front yard did not always exist. It lacked existence at one time so it had a lack. It also lacks imperviousness to erosion as evidenced by the fact that it will disappear at some point in the future. That created things lack something is manifestly true since they lack the ability to will themselves into existence. Instead, they must be brought into existence.

It exposes your contradictions quite clearly.

Uh . . . yeah

"I" had needs before "I" existed.

I honestly don’t know why this is so difficult. You and I have not always existed and one day entropy will prevail and we will no longer exist as persons. We lack self-existence; we need to be brought into existence by an outside variable and an outside variable will see to it that we cease to exist as persons at some point in the future. If that’s incomprehensible, then it would appear we have nowhere else to go in this conversation so this will be the last discussion I’ll have on need/lack as it relates to created things.

What doesn't exist, doesn't have anything, including "needs".

Yes, but if it exists and didn’t always exist then it lacks self-existence and lack is need and need is imperfection. Again, if you cannot understand that then I have no way to break it down any further so we’ll just stop debating this topic if you don’t get it.

Right now, you might as well be saying that "What does not exist, has needs."

No – that is not at all what I said and what’s incomprehensible to me is how one cannot understand that if X exists now, but didn’t at one time, then X clearly lacks self-existence since it had to be created by something else.

The rest of your post is a restatement of the same thing seventeen ways ‘til Sunday. If you don’t understand what I’m saying after this, then I can’t break it down any easier. If you still don’t get it then we have nothing further to discuss.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 61 by JLB32168]




[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Is it an opinion or a claim?
Part Five: One could not be bothered about one's claim.[/center]

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.

Okay.
I gather it’s not acceptable to you. I can live with that, so you’re free to reject what I said. I can’t be bothered.

Can't be bothered.. so sad.

I have to wonder why one would bother bringing it up in the first place.
Some people think that in honorable debates we back up our claims, or retract them.

Some people might not care about honorable debates.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 61 by JLB32168]





[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Is it an opinion or a claim?
Part Six: Mistaking a hypothetical case for a presupposition.[/center]

P1... If God has a need to create

You’ve presupposed that God needed to create. Just because I walked outside doesn’t mean that I needed to walk outside.

Notice the word "If" that precedes "God needed to create". That indicates a conditional. I am NOT presupposing anything at all...

But just like "God" IF ( please notice the "if" ) you needed something, you would not be perfect. Similarly, IF ( again, please notice the "if" ) "God" needs to create, it would not be perfect.

This is using your reasoning.
Now, all we have to determine is if "God" needed to create anything or not.

[JLB32168]

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

Of course you’re right, but some seem to have an exceedingly hard time understanding what you and I would see as manifestly obvious (e.g. “The sky is blue on a clear day in FL,� which would seem to be an inscrutable idea to some.)

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.

I agree. That God created us in no way implies that God needed to create us as if He sat by the phone waiting excitedly and with bated breath for Venus to call back. What has recently been asserted here is that [p1]creation lacked existence and [p2]God needed to create it; therefore, [c]God is also imperfect because God needed something. The obvious absurdity in this syllogism is that the word “need� is being used in two different ways. We could say that creation has the need to be created because it lacked self-existence. In this case “need� is being used as a noun, namely, circumstances were such that in order for creation to exist it needed to be created by something able to create (rather than creation springing into existence on its own.) We could also say that in order for there to be a creation the required course of action (the need) was to create it. However, this is creation’s need. There were no circumstances that needed to be ameliorated for God to exist. He simply existed. It was the creation that needed something, namely, for there to be a creation, it needed to be created (or it lacked self-existence and couldn't create itself.)

No need was fulfilled by our creation, nothing was completed or perfected.

I agree that God was not completed/perfected, and that He had no personal existential need fulfilled by creating everything. Other people seem to find this to be beyond enigmatic. Can you confirm if I’m being clear enough for you to understand? I want to determine if I lack clarity in speaking, or if some people are just good at shoveling taurine fertilizer and feigning confusion.

[JLB32168]

Similarly, IF ( again, please notice the "if" ) "God" needs to create, it would not be perfect.

God doesn’t need to create. In order for creation to exist, it needed to be spoken into existence.

What did the singularity need before it exploded? Was it lacking anything? No. It possessed everything. It could have sat there forever and been just fine on its own. The laws of physics, however, wouldn’t ever have existed w/o the singularity. This need is completely one-way. The singularity needed jack-shiznit; it was fine on its own. The laws of physics, however, (and every subsequent law in science) needed the singularity to exist before they ever came into being.

Again, I don’t see why this is so hard to comprehend. I'll assume that if TS understands then there isn't any lack of clarity - just a lack of reading comprehension skills - (real or feigned - not that I'm referring to anyone on this website, of course.)

[Peds nurse]

Why didn't a god create perfection?

A created thing had to be brought into existence by something outside itself; therefore, a created thing by virtue of being created cannot be perfect.

To an extent this is true, JLB. But we judge the carpenter or the tailor by the goods they make. If the carpenter makes a table that collapses, he has done a bad job. It is therefore problematic that a perfect carpenter produces some articles that are hopelessly bad.

Hello Mr. Marco!! I hope this finds you well and smiling!

So, what if the carpenter makes excellent, flawless tables, but the people that use them, take a hammer to them and break it in pieces? Is it the fault of the carpenter that the table wasn't used as intended?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 65 by JLB32168]




[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Is it an opinion or a claim?
Part Seven: God doesn't need anything.. not even chocolate cakes.[/center]

Similarly, IF ( again, please notice the "if" ) "God" needs to create, it would not be perfect.

God doesn’t need to create.

Good, that's clear.
You say that "God" doesn't need to create.
Look for the question about that.

In order for creation to exist, it needed to be spoken into existence.

That statement seems to mean that creation had needs before it was created... or after, for that matter. I'm not sure that I can follow you at all.

What did the singularity need before it exploded? Was it lacking anything? No.

Right, that's what I was asking.. what did the creation need before it existed? Was it lacking anything? No.. it didn't exist. I don't think that anything other than existing SENTIENT beings can NEED anything, actually.

I think if anything needed to create, in your world view, it would HAVE to be that sentient "God" you seem to believe in.

But, you just said that "God" didn't need anything..
And that the universe didn't need anything, either..

So all of creation.. not really needed by anyone or anything.. at least, not before us humans.

It possessed everything.

It's interesting that you say it possessed everything before the universe ( which is another name for "everything", by the way ) was created.

This is another one of these incomprehensible contradictions.

It could have sat there forever and been just fine on its own.

Yep, that's kinda what I'm thinking, too. A perfect being could have been perfect without the universe. The perfect being would have been perfectly fine without it.

So, what happened all of a sudden?

The laws of physics, however, wouldn’t ever have existed w/o the singularity. This need is completely one-way. The singularity needed jack-shiznit; it was fine on its own. The laws of physics, however, (and every subsequent law in science) needed the singularity to exist before they ever came into being.

This sounds to me like the chicken or the egg kinda problem.
You seem to be saying that the "singularity" doesn't rely on the laws of physics for it's existence. It was, as you say "fine on it's own".

I'm not too sure what you mean by that.
In any case, I'm not a theoretical physicist, and even if I were, I don't think the question of how the universe came to be has been settled by theoretical physicists, quite yet. It's of no use to pretend otherwise.

Again, I don’t see why this is so hard to comprehend.

You might not see why.
Perhaps if you answered more of my questions, I might comprehend you better.
That's why I ask them, as a matter of fact.

When you are clear, and it makes sense, I don't have to ask anything.

I'll assume that if TS understands then there isn't any lack of clarity - just a lack of reading comprehension skills - (real or feigned - not that I'm referring to anyone on this website, of course.)

________________

FOR THE RECORD:

Blastcat isn't TS.
________________

It's fine if you don't care to make yourself understandable to me.
Just don't pretend that you do.

You don't.

If you are talking about MY comprehension, we are BOTH involved, here, friend.

Communication is a two way street. Don't pretend otherwise.
It's no good at all to point to how someone ELSE understands you, because I still DO NOT.

____________

ALSO FOR THE RECORD:

I strive to be an honest debater, and would NEVER "feign" anything.
I am NOT that childish or dishonest and I resent the implication.

_____________


That comment rates a grrrrrr.




___________

Questions:

• 1. So, here is the million dollar question: Why oh why did "God" bother creating anything if it was so darn perfect?
  2. Define the word "need". I'm not sure what you mean by it.
  3. You stated that: "In order for creation to exist, it needed to be spoken into existence. " It's almost as if you mean that creation had a need before it was spoken into existence. How can something have a need if it does not exist?
  4. You say that "God" possessed everything before it created the universe. How can "God" or anyone else possess something that doesn't yet exist?
  5. Are you saying that nobody needed creation .. consequently humans before creation was caused to happen?
  6. What caused a perfectly alone and perfectly fine "God" to suddenly... create?
  7. You also stated that: "The laws of physics, however, (and every subsequent law in science) needed the singularity to exist before they ever came into being." Are you quite sure that the origins of the universe has been settled by the scientific community?
  8. Are you trying to explain yourself to TS or to me right now?
  9. Are you at all implying that I am not being honest, sir? For the record, please.
  10. How can things without brains ( say a chocolate cake ) have any needs?
  

___________

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 66 by Peds nurse]




[center]The world:
Unintended uses.
Part One[/center]

So, what if the carpenter makes excellent, flawless tables, but the people that use them, take a hammer to them and break it in pieces? Is it the fault of the carpenter that the table wasn't used as intended?

If we are talking about NATURE, Peds, I have to wonder how anyone has so abused the world that it causes earthquakes and tsunamis.. volcanoes, tornadoes... viruses.. amebas, internal parasites, and poisonous plants, to name just a few natural calamities.

Is that all the "user's fault"?
A bird defecated upon my head just last week.. that's my fault, too?

[benchwarmer]

To an extent this is true, JLB. But we judge the carpenter or the tailor by the goods they make. If the carpenter makes a table that collapses, he has done a bad job. It is therefore problematic that a perfect carpenter produces some articles that are hopelessly bad.

Hello Mr. Marco!! I hope this finds you well and smiling!

So, what if the carpenter makes excellent, flawless tables, but the people that use them, take a hammer to them and break it in pieces? Is it the fault of the carpenter that the table wasn't used as intended?

Hi Peds, you make an excellent point, but I'm not sure it lines up with with the original analogy.

Is the baby fighting for it's life in NICU a 'flawless table'? I could see how the 'spirit' or 'soul' of that baby is perfectly made if I believed, but it can be plainly seen that the body is not. Surely the baby is using its body as intended and no one has 'taken a hammer to it'.