What type of design is this? - 2nd atttempt

[OnceConvinced]

Ok, my first thread on this topic went a little off topic. So I'm going to try again, this time with different poll options. I wish I could allow multiple boxes to be checked for this poll, but unfortunately I can't.

Hopefully though I will have the right options this time:

Note: This poll is not talking about any other act of creation except for the creation of angels who fell from grace.

So:

Presuming God is real and presuming demons and Satan is real...

Presuming God created them as angels and then the ones that rebelled became the demons, led by Satan himself. These fallen angels became so corrupt that they became completely evil, with no redeeming features at all. They are only set on doing evil and are not interested in doing anything good.

So God created these beings and for whatever reason they became pure evil. Yet God, even if he didn't know for sure, had a good idea they would become that way. Yet he created them anyway, knowing they would be come corrupted and turn against him.

Or maybe he had no idea at all? Maybe their corruption was a complete surprise to him?

Or perhaps he just didn't care about how he had created them? Perhaps he really did consider the consequences of what he was doing but then thought "It's good enough"?

So....
What sort of design would this be?

Malevolent?
Incompetent?
Foolish?
Apathetic?
Benevolent?

Please justify your answer.

[Clownboat]

So....
What sort of design would this be?

Malevolent?
Incompetent?
Foolish?
Apathetic?
Benevolent?

I say benevolent, because:
1. God has given freedom and I think freedom is good.
2. God has given this opportunity also for those who hate Him, which I think is sign of greatness.
3. Even if some turn against God, they can’t destroy soul, which is the meaningful thing in Biblical point of view.

I must reject this explanation.
1. You failed to show that a god gave freedom and you failed to address that this hypothetical given freedom brings evil. Yet you call it good.
2. Nonsensical statement. What kind of a person would hate a god that they don't believe in? That's like a parent actually hating Santa Clause. That is some goofy right there.
3. Only meaningful when what is being sold to you is eternal paradise or eternal torture of this said soul. I personally believed because I was indoctrinated to believe that my soul would go to heaven and because I was also threatened with eternal torture in a lake of fire if I didn't believe. Those free from such a belief have no reason to posit a soul. If you were set free from your beliefs, you would also lose this fear of what might happen to this said claim of a soul.

You seem to call him benevolent because you want to, not because you can actually argue that he is. You of course are free to, but don't think it goes unnoticed.

[Bust Nak]

Remind me as to the 'rules' re being a theist...

Rule 1 believe in a personal deity.

This is the point where the argument becomes circular. You have yet to acknowledge any understanding as to the idea I presented that this universe is perfect for the job.

In this case, the job requires 'the need to change' adapt, learn, adopt, etc.

Which mean things are not perfect... And round we go again.

Again I will ask you to identify anything which might be considered to being conclusively imperfect.

We are conclusively imperfect, as demostrated by the 'the need to change' adapt, learn. Adapt implies a degree of incompatibility with our surroundings and learning implies ignorance.

Not entirely sure what you mean by "adopt" though.

Perhaps we can examine the totality of the universe itself, which is consistently in the process of changing. Do you think the universe therefore is 'imperfect'? If so, why?

What I believe is irrelevant though, I am attacking an inconsistence in the narrative, but since you asked, the universe is imperfect because there is suffering in it.

You propose that human beings are imperfect. I argued that if this were the case, human beings cannot perfectly correctly represent -through definition - a perfect thing.
In the same way, how is an imperfect critter able to perfectly correctly represent -through definition - an imperfect thing?

By appealing to the definition fo perfection, along the lines of the no improvement is possible.

Do you see the dilemma? Is it not more appropriate to put aside such distinctions as 'perfect' and 'imperfect' as conditions which we are unable to find anything absolute to argue from?

No, because I don't see why an imperfect being can't occationally be correct, espically with something as simple as absolute statements/conditions.

Also, if you are going to argue that a perfect creator cannot create imperfections, how is that creator therefore perfect? Another dilemma.

It's not? Not sure what you are getting at here, the whole point is that the narrative of a perfect creator is logically impossible.

Are you quoting me, and if so, are you quoting me in context?

I think so.

So, you remember that much...

No, that was not a memory. It's a condlusion from deductive reasoning.

[Peds nurse]

Hello OC!

For all the angels that have become the allies of Satan, it cannot discredit the angels that are for the glory of God. For good cannot really be good without the opportunity for evil, can it? I would like to think that God's design isn't for evil to exist, but for love to flourish.

Wishing you well!

[bluethread]

Hello OC!

For all the angels that have become the allies of Satan, it cannot discredit the angels that are for the glory of God. For good cannot really be good without the opportunity for evil, can it? I would like to think that God's design isn't for evil to exist, but for love to flourish.

Wishing you well!

I hate to correct such a kind-hearted person. However, you appear to be using the Greek dichotomy of absolutes. That is "good" can not be seen in any way as "evil" and vice versa. In this scenario, everything is placed between those two extremes. This, IMO, is not the Scriptural view. The Scriptural view is comparative and relational, not dichotomous and absolute.

Tov, translated as "good", is that which is in accordance with Adonai's ways. Ra', translated as "evil", is that which is in accordance with the ways of the nations. In this scenario, ra'(evil) can be contrary to tov(good), but does not have to be. It can be neither, not according to Adonai's ways, but not in opposition to them either. Tov(good) can also appear to be "evil", if not viewed from Adonai's perspective.

So, tov(good) can coexist with ra'(evil) in Adonai's plan. It is the knowledge of tov and ra' as opposites that causes the problem. When the ways of the nation(ra') do not stand in opposition to Adonai's ways(tov), they are not "evil". However, when they(ra') do stand in opposition to Adonai's ways(tov), then they are "evil", in the Greek sense of the term.

Also, to make things even more difficult "good" and "evil" are not Greek terms either. The English term "good", derived from the idea of being suitable, is rather vague and refers to a multitude of things depending on context. Therefore the translators use it in place of several different Greek terms. Also, the English term "evil" is generally used for the Greek term paneros, which refers to that which is difficult or annoying. Therefore, the philosophical differences between the Hebraic and Greek views is not readily apparent due to the translators using best fit terms from two non-hebraic languages.

[William]

[Replying to post 72 by Bust Nak]

My main focus is on the argument you appear to be making that imperfect critters can perfectly correctly represent -through definition - a perfect thing.

I would even go so far as to say that there is no thing which anyone can point to and show conclusively it is imperfect.

That's kinda an odd claim coming from a theist.

Remind me as to the 'rules' re being a theist...

Rule 1 believe in a personal deity.

Um...what has that to do with what I wrote above?

We are conclusively imperfect, as demostrated by the 'the need to change' adapt, learn. Adapt implies a degree of incompatibility with our surroundings and learning implies ignorance.

Not entirely sure what you mean by "adopt" though.

'Adopt' is related to 'adapt'...Since our environment is consistently in a state of adapting, are you stating that the universe - and specifically biological evolution is imperfect?

What you appear not to have yet grasped Bust Nak, is that 'perfection' is not an absolute and therefore non-debatable quality.

What I believe is irrelevant though, I am attacking an inconsistence in the narrative, but since you asked, the universe is imperfect because there is suffering in it.

I was not asking you for your beliefs.
Also, you are attacking a perceived inconsistency in the narrative, whilst apparently unable to grasp what the narrative is actually attempting to convey.
As to suffering, one has to say that biological life forms on this planet are that which experience such, so in that, is your argument more that biological life in this universe is the imperfect thing, rather than the universe itself?

You propose that human beings are imperfect. I argued that if this were the case, human beings cannot perfectly correctly represent -through definition - a perfect thing.
In the same way, how is an imperfect critter able to perfectly correctly represent -through definition - an imperfect thing?

By appealing to the definition fo perfection, along the lines of the no improvement is possible.

The dilemma is obvious, as I have already pointed out. You are arguing from an assumption that perfection/imperfection is an absolute, rather than from the more abstract reality that the words are normally said to convey preference dependent upon the individual and the preferences are different from individual to individual.

As one example, if a functional society had within it a smaller percentage of dysfunctional individuals whom the functional considered to being disruptive to the smooth flow of said functional society, the functional might regard the dysfunctional to being imperfect in relation to their preference for smooth running functionality.

That society might decide to round up all the dysfunctional individuals and secure these on an isolated island where the dysfunctional would be unable to interfere any longer with the smooth running of the functional society, and in that, force the dysfunction to sort themselves out...or kill themselves off (which might amount to the same thing) and in that, the island would be 'perfect for the job'.

The dysfunctional might not consider the island to be 'perfect for the job', so which group would be correct? Essentially both are, from those separate perspectives and underlying motivations.

So, how an observer might categorize the above would depend upon the preferences of the observer. Thus, perfection and imperfection are about preferences not absolutes.

Thus, when it comes to design, the same thing applies.
Votes signify preferences, not absolutes.

Do you see the dilemma? Is it not more appropriate to put aside such distinctions as 'perfect' and 'imperfect' as conditions which we are unable to find anything absolute to argue from?

No, because I don't see why an imperfect being can't occationally be correct, espically with something as simple as absolute statements/conditions.

But who is to say what is 'occasionally correct' or incorrect, especially when preference based judgement is conflated with absolute statements/conditions? Surely the wisest approach in argument is to abstain from the use of absolute statements/conditions because *fallacy*.

Also, if you are going to argue that a perfect creator cannot create imperfections, how is that creator therefore perfect? Another dilemma.

It's not?

No, it is not.

Not sure what you are getting at here, the whole point is that the narrative of a perfect creator is logically impossible.

It depends on the purpose of that which is created, as in ' is it perfect for the job at hand' rather than presuming absolutes.

If the universe was created for the purpose of those experiencing it not having to be ignorant, or learn anything etc, then one could say "the universe is not perfect for the job, therefore its creator is not perfect." and one would have a point.

However, one cannot tell if this is the case with this universe and us being within it.

Are you quoting me, and if so, are you quoting me in context?

I think so.

I don't think you are. The best thing one can do when claiming someone said something is to quote them. That normally takes care of any possible confusion and keeps things on the level.

One cannot experience non existence other than to go through such a sector created for that purpose and come out from that with the memory of having not existed.

For example, this is one such state we have each been through prior to being born as we remember the experience of not existing.

Wait you remember what it was like to not exist?

Yes, and so do you.

I don't though. I wasn't there to put anything into my memory.

So, you remember that much...you remember a time when you did not exist.

No, that was not a memory. It's a condlusion from deductive reasoning.

That is how memory works. One requires data of experience in order to deduce.
You remember not existing, because your existence now, allows you to remember that once being the case. It is a blank moment through which you deduce no memory of any experience of existence prior to that blankness.

[Bust Nak]

Um...what has that to do with what I wrote above?

You asked me a question, I gave you a direct answer. It can have hardly any less to do what what you wrote.

'Adopt' is related to 'adapt'...Since our environment is consistently in a state of adapting, are you stating that the universe - and specifically biological evolution is imperfect?

Yes, I don't even know why you thought to ask, whatever could it be that lead to to question whether evolution is imperfect or not.

What you appear not to have yet grasped Bust Nak, is that 'perfection' is not an absolute and therefore non-debatable quality.

That's the claim, I see no reason why something as absolute sounding as perfect should be treated as some debatable quality.

I was not asking you for your beliefs.

Asking me if I thought the universe is imperfect does not qualify as as asking for my beliefs? What exactly is the distinction about my thoughts and my beliefs?

Also, you are attacking a perceived inconsistency in the narrative, whilst apparently unable to grasp what the narrative is actually attempting to convey.

That's where you come in? Help me make sense of what you are saying.

As to suffering, one has to say that biological life forms on this planet are that which experience such, so in that, is your argument more that biological life in this universe is the imperfect thing, rather than the universe itself?

Not seeing the difference, the premise is that something is imperfect, doesn't matter what.

The dilemma is obvious, as I have already pointed out. You are arguing from an assumption that perfection/imperfection is an absolute, rather than from the more abstract reality that the words are normally said to convey preference dependent upon the individual and the preferences are different from individual to individual.

That's from one narrow point of view, I am talking about perfection in the full sense of the word.

As one example, if a functional society had within it a smaller percentage of dysfunctional individuals whom the functional considered to being disruptive to the smooth flow of said functional society, the functional might regard the dysfunctional to being imperfect in relation to their preference for smooth running functionality.

That society might decide to round up all the dysfunctional individuals and secure these on an isolated island where the dysfunctional would be unable to interfere any longer with the smooth running of the functional society, and in that, force the dysfunction to sort themselves out...or kill themselves off (which might amount to the same thing) and in that, the island would be 'perfect for the job'.

The dysfunctional might not consider the island to be 'perfect for the job', so which group would be correct? Essentially both are, from those separate perspectives and underlying motivations.

So, how an observer might categorize the above would depend upon the preferences of the observer. Thus, perfection and imperfection are about preferences not absolutes.

Thus, when it comes to design, the same thing applies.
Votes signify preferences, not absolutes.

That's a moot point since the very existence of dysfunctional individuals is enought to warrent the conclusion that, not everything is perfect.

But who is to say what is 'occasionally correct' or incorrect, especially when preference based judgement is conflated with absolute statements/conditions? Surely the wisest approach in argument is to abstain from the use of absolute statements/conditions because *fallacy*.

That's all the more reason why we should stick to aboslute statement and remove the preference from the discussion.

No, it is not.

Just to double check, you are saying the creator of the universe is not prefect?

It depends on the purpose of that which is created, as in ' is it perfect for the job at hand' rather than presuming absolutes.

If the universe was created for the purpose of those experiencing it not having to be ignorant, or learn anything etc, then one could say "the universe is not perfect for the job, therefore its creator is not perfect." and one would have a point.

However, one cannot tell if this is the case with this universe and us being within it.

See above for "perfect for the job."

I don't think you are. The best thing one can do when claiming someone said something is to quote them. That normally takes care of any possible confusion and keeps things on the level.

Okay, the quote is "the state of perfection either does not exist, or if it does, is undefinable by those who are imperfect." What am I missing?

That is how memory works. One requires data of experience in order to deduce.
You remember not existing, because your existence now, allows you to remember that once being the case. It is a blank moment through which you deduce no memory of any experience of existence prior to that blankness.

What are you talking about? It's literally absurd. The data is "I need to exist to have an experience" I don't need to have experienced non-existence to have this data.

[William]

[Replying to post 76 by Bust Nak]

What you appear not to have yet grasped Bust Nak, is that 'perfection' is not an absolute and therefore non-debatable quality.

That's the claim, I see no reason why something as absolute sounding as perfect should be treated as some debatable quality.

That you see no reason does not mean that there is not reason, and certainly I have given reason which you have yet to fully address.

Asking me if I thought the universe is imperfect does not qualify as as asking for my beliefs?

No. It qualifies as as a preemptive to you then being asked to explain to the reader exactly why you think so, by providing evidence to support your assertion.
If it is simply a matter of you are arguing your beliefs, then it is understandable you are unlikely to be able to provide any evidence and we can leave it there...

Just to double check, you are saying the creator of the universe is not prefect?

If you review what I have already offered in my posts, you should be able to ascertain that I am not arguing this at all. I am arguing that 'perfection' and 'imperfection' are not absolutes and that it is simply a matter of personal taste which insists definition of either.

My particular argument here is that use of the ideas of perfect and imperfect are not able to be backed up by anything in an absolute manner (which all can agree upon) and in relation to the universe and a creator of said universe, the universe can be understood as 'perfect for the job' even that anyone might argue it is not 'perfect' in their own estimate. And I gave examples as to what I mean by that.

That is how memory works. One requires data of experience in order to deduce.
You remember not existing, because your existence now, allows you to remember that once being the case. It is a blank moment through which you deduce no memory of any experience of existence prior to that blankness.

What are you talking about? It's literally absurd. The data is "I need to exist to have an experience" I don't need to have experienced non-existence to have this data.

No. The data is the experience itself.

You have data which gives you the impression you once did not exist, correct?

That means you have experienced non existence.

[Bust Nak]

That you see no reason does not mean that there is not reason, and certainly I have given reason which you have yet to fully address.

Well I think I have. You spoke of imperfect beings not being able to come up with a definition of perfection. In response I said that's all the more reason to stick with absolutes instead of relying on subjective judgement of what is and isn't perfect.

No. It qualifies as as a preemptive to you then being asked to explain to the reader exactly why you think so, by providing evidence to support your assertion.

But I did that too - it's not perfect because there is suffering.

If you review what I have already offered in my posts, you should be able to ascertain that I am not arguing this at all. I am arguing that 'perfection' and 'imperfection' are not absolutes and that it is simply a matter of personal taste which insists definition of either.

Right, but from what I read, it seems you are not just saying that, you are also saying that according to your personal taste, God is still not perfect because we, the product, are imperfect.

No. The data is the experience itself.

Then I don't have that data, which means your premise that "One requires data of experience in order to deduce" is false, beucase I still managed to deduce that "I wasn't there to put anything into my memory" without having experienced non-existence.

[William]

[Replying to post 78 by Bust Nak]

You spoke of imperfect beings not being able to come up with a definition of perfection

No. What I spoke to was to question the idea that imperfect beings could define perfection correctly. I did not say they couldn't create definitions of perfection.

In response I said that's all the more reason to stick with absolutes instead of relying on subjective judgement of what is and isn't perfect.

Which lead to you saying that the universe was not perfect - at least not in your subjective opinion - 'because there is suffering'.
That itself is a strange conclusion to draw. It would be like someone claiming the universe was perfect 'because there is happiness'.

But regardless, I continue to point out that the idea of perfection is based upon a subjective opinion rather than anything absolute, and you appear to still be struggling to accept this as the case.

If you review what I have already offered in my posts, you should be able to ascertain that I am not arguing this at all. I am arguing that 'perfection' and 'imperfection' are not absolutes and that it is simply a matter of personal taste which insists definition of either.

Right, but from what I read, it seems you are not just saying that, you are also saying that according to your personal taste, God is still not perfect because we, the product, are imperfect.

I am not arguing that. As per my theology only forms are created and we are all aspects of GOD-consciousness within those forms.

I also am arguing that the forms may be 'perfect for the job at hand' while using the word 'perfect' in a less literal, non-absolute manner.

In line with the OP, perfection is not that which is under question. Rather type of design is under question, and that - mainly to do with angels who fell from grace - to which you and I have broadened the the subject to include this universe as a supposed creation of a GOD. My original post re the OP is post#28

My argument is not and can not make calls upon a supposed creators absolute perfection or lack thereof. Indeed, the question itself seems a pointless one to be asking, for reasons already given.

But if I were to suppose that The First Source was perfect, then I could also suppose that every aspect of the creator was also perfect and every creation of that creator would also be perfect, and since I cannot conclusively identify any absolute perfections or imperfections I am left to conclude that such absolutes do not exist and that the idea of perfection is formed through the minds of those who apparently see themselves as lacking something, and who apparently see a type of lack in things they observe outside of themselves as well. The two perceptions appear to be related.

My main point herein is that you brought the argument of an absolute perfection into the stream, and I am attempting to get you to grasp the idea that there is no such thing as perfection in the absolute objective sense, so it is fallacy to argue for it.
This is why - when I wrote;

Perhaps it's imperfections are what is perfect about it.

...one can clearly see that absolutes are not being spoken to.

Perfect by what criteria? Is the criteria perfect in itself? How is anyone able to tell?

See?

The best we have in this present circumstance is to bounce between the two extremes which in itself allows for a lot of leeway. Use the situation as perfectly as we can.

No. The data is the experience itself.

You have data which gives you the impression you once did not exist, correct?

That means you have experienced non existence.

Then I don't have that data, which means your premise that "One requires data of experience in order to deduce" is false, beucase I still managed to deduce that "I wasn't there to put anything into my memory" without having experienced non-existence.

Your deducing you have had no prior existence comes from your lack of memory as to having any prior existence. The lack of memory does not mean that you haven't had prior experience of existing.

Have you ever observed atheists arguing that when a person dies they return to that blank state of nothingness from which they came from?

The BSOT is known, because it is remembered, not because it has been 'deduced'.

[jeremiah1five]

Ok, my first thread on this topic went a little off topic. So I'm going to try again, this time with different poll options. I wish I could allow multiple boxes to be checked for this poll, but unfortunately I can't.

Hopefully though I will have the right options this time:

Note: This poll is not talking about any other act of creation except for the creation of angels who fell from grace.

So:

Presuming God is real and presuming demons and Satan is real...

Presuming God created them as angels and then the ones that rebelled became the demons, led by Satan himself. These fallen angels became so corrupt that they became completely evil, with no redeeming features at all. They are only set on doing evil and are not interested in doing anything good.

So God created these beings and for whatever reason they became pure evil. Yet God, even if he didn't know for sure, had a good idea they would become that way. Yet he created them anyway, knowing they would be come corrupted and turn against him.

Or maybe he had no idea at all? Maybe their corruption was a complete surprise to him?

Or perhaps he just didn't care about how he had created them? Perhaps he really did consider the consequences of what he was doing but then thought "It's good enough"?

So....
What sort of design would this be?

Malevolent?
Incompetent?
Foolish?
Apathetic?
Benevolent?

Please justify your answer.

Your whole premise is in error.

The gift of discerning of spirits (1 Co. 12) discerns the source of spiritual phenomenon.

This gift discerns the presence of these three spirits (or four if you bifurcate the elect angel and the non-elect angel) in creation:

1. The spirit of elect angels
2. The spirit of non-elect angels
3. the spirit of man
4. the Spirit of God.

These four and no more.

"Demons" originate in man. They are the mental attitude of a person whether good 'spirits' or attitudes or evil 'spirits' or attitudes.

Before Christ did anything with a person who was 'possessed' of an evil spirit He had to subdue the mind or attitude. This incidentally is where repentance occurs: in the mind.

And it is the mind which is part of the soul of man that is addressed by God and His Christ through mental communication whether thoughts and dreams and visions or verbal faculty.

Since "repentance" is to "change ones' mind" so also are demons attitudes of the mind - good and evil.