Creation

[Angry Dragon]

It is said that the christian god is all powerful, all knowing, created everything and perfect
I was wondering how a perfect being could create anything imperfect.

[exboyfil]

1. The Fall

Of course He knew that Lucifer and Adam/Eve would rebel. Hard to get your head around it (why create man knowing that most will burn in eternal fire for eternity).

[TexasProgresive]

2. A whole arm, leg, branch of theology is dedicated to understanding your question

Theodicy (/?iːˈɒdɪsi/), in its most common form, attempts to answer the question why a good God permits the manifestation of evil. Theodicy addresses the evidential problem of evil by attempting “to make the existence of an All-knowing, All-powerful and All-good or omnibenevolent God consistent with the existence of evil” or suffering in the world.[1] Unlike a defence, which tries to demonstrate that God's existence is logically possible in the light of evil, a theodicy attempts to provide a framework wherein God's existence is also plausible.[2] The German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Leibniz coined the term "theodicy" in 1710 in his work Théodicée, though various responses to the problem of evil had been previously proposed. The British philosopher John Hick traced the history of moral theodicy in his 1966 work, Evil and the God of Love, identifying three major traditions:

1. the Plotinian theodicy, named after Plotinus
2. the Augustinian theodicy, which Hick based on the writings of Augustine of Hippo
3. the Irenaean theodicy, which Hick developed, based on the thinking of St. Irenaeus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Theo-idiocy. NT.

[cleanhippie]

9. Exactly

[3catwoman3]

66. That is how my mind's eye...

...first saw that word -

[cleanhippie]

8. You mean a whole arm is dedicated to making it what they want it to mean.

Fixed it for ya.

[cilla4progress]

59. These people

Had too much time on their hands!

[rogerashton]

101. But ale does more than Milton can

to justify God's ways to man.

[Jerry442]

3. Perfection is a false goal.

Perfection is sterile and stagnant. Make yourself a perfect crystal of silicon, without flaw of any kind, and what do you have? A pretty chunk of an inert mineral. Add some impurities though, and the possibilities are endless.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. There is nothing about this universe that requires

gods as an explanation. This nonsense should just be put in the shelf with the rest of the myths and fairy tales.

[Angry Dragon]

6. I have other questions

Where did the universe come from??
What is the universe expanding into??

One should never quit asking until all the questions are answered

[Warren Stupidity]

10. A) nothing. B) it is the expansion.

[Angry Dragon]

13. these seem like weak answers

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. Sometimes reality doesn't meet our expectations.

It is what it is, regardless of what I would prefer that it be.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. It isn't expanding "into" anything, all of space is expanding.

There isn't some surrounding "void". That is a holdover concept from ancient cosmology.

[trotsky]

50. That's where a lot of confusion over origins comes from.

Humans can't help but try to apply their understanding of the universe to the conditions "before" or "outside" the universe. But of course those very notions are meaningless, since time and space are themselves defined by the universe itself.

[whatthehey]

52. Why? Exactly what is weak about them?

[cleanhippie]

11. Those are great questions that should be asked. Religion isn't going to answer them though.

Science may, but religion never will.

[Angry Dragon]

14. most organised religions already feel they already have all the answers

that is why they are not happy with questions

[pokerfan]

19. Feynman said it best, I think

[trotsky]

7. The most sophisticated believers realized the inherent contradiction in this long ago...

and rather than take it as a sign the whole thing is phooey, they set about coming up with excuses as to why their ALL-POWERFUL god was somehow "forced" to do something one way.

[guillaumeb]

12. Free will.

Without free will there can be no choice. The Creator chose to create and gave sentient beings the same freedom of choice.

[Angry Dragon]

15. it would seem there are no wrong choices

[guillaumeb]

16. Who determines wrongness?

If man is made in the image of the Creator, image generally interpreted to mean possessing reasoning power, man must be free to make choices.

And that reasoning power can sometimes lead people to disbelieve in the existence of a Creator.

[trotsky]

17. Do people have free will in heaven? n/t

[guillaumeb]

18. When I get there I will walk over and let you know.

[Act_of_Reparation]

25. His question isn't flippant.

You really should consider it.

If the answer is yes, then God obviously can reveal his existence to people. If the answer is no, then free will isn't all that important to human happiness, and its existence is therefore arbitrary.

[guillaumeb]

31. If a person/intelligence/entity has free will at birth,

it would be reasonable to assume that that same person/intelligence/entity would continue to have that same characteristic in the afterlife.

And the Creator always has the option of revelation. Whether or not the revelation is recognized and/or understood is another matter.

[trotsky]

46. Is it also "reasonable to assume" that since we are told that suffering is a necessary consequence..

of free will, that there is then also suffering in heaven?

[guillaumeb]

49. Suffering is a vague term.

But free will does not imply anything about choices that are made.

[trotsky]

51. Actually free will is all about choices made.

That's the constant refrain that apologists like yourself give when asked why there is suffering in the world. Because of free will. People have to be free to choose whatever they want to do, including possibly hurting someone else.

You claim there is free will in heaven. Yet I can only assume there cannot be suffering in heaven. So is free will limited in heaven?

[guillaumeb]

53. I cannot answer because I am living in the material world.

But my feeling is that the answer will be "yes".

Again, you will have to wait for that answer until you get there.

[trotsky]

54. Wow, so free will is restricted in heaven?

Doesn't sound like heaven then. Perhaps you've got your destinations mixed up?

[guillaumeb]

57. Here is/was my previous answer to your question:

I cannot answer because I am living in the material world.
But my feeling is that the answer will be "yes".
Again, you will have to wait for that answer until you get there.

Now if I answered that "my feeling is that the answer will be "yes", how could anyone interpret that as a negative answer?

PS.
I updated my signature line. Thanks for the inspiration.
Guillaume

[trotsky]

60. Because my question was: "So is free will limited in heaven?"

If you answer "yes," then that means you think free will is limited in heaven. You answered yes. Thus you think free will is limited in heaven.

I'm a little scared by your sig line. Usually people who claim to know what god thinks are the most dangerous ones of all.

[guillaumeb]

61. You apparently misread my answer.

And my signature line is a tongue in cheek response to yours.

And I believe, but cannot prove, that free will exists everywhere that the Creator exists.

[trotsky]

65. Yes obviously I must have misread the words that you put in your post.

You have made repeated insinuations that my comprehension skills are lacking. So clearly that is the problem - when you get trapped by an answer you gave, you just imply that I'm dumb, and drop it. Very Christian of you.

And I believe, but cannot prove, that free will exists everywhere that the Creator exists.

Then why did you so confidently reply with "free will" to the question in the OP?

That you think you can speak for a god though, is very disturbing. Although not surprising given your history.

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. So what?

Every time this topic comes up, the theists present free will like it's some kind of gift. As if it makes all the horrible things humanity endures somehow worth it.

One million children die of malnurishment every year, but fuck it, I get to pick whether I want my iPhone in gold or space gray.

[guillaumeb]

32. You are confusing (or conflating) free will with freedom to shop.

And you are free to do so, but to what point?

[cleanhippie]

39. No, you're just being intentionally obtuse about it.

[Leontius]

67. And yet you use your choice (free will) to buy an IPhone

instead of helping save those children from dying.

[Act_of_Reparation]

69. OH HAI LEO!

I'm really pleased you could drop by and be a part of this conversation. If you're not too busy purposefully misrepresenting hyperbole as literal fact, maybe you could explain why free will is worth millions of children dying from inadequate access to food.

I might not be able save a million kids a year, but my line of work necessarily entails that I help save at least a few. Which is more than can be said for your dear and fluffy lord. And I'm guessing probably you, too.

[trotsky]

70. Hey he makes lots of snarky comments directed at atheists on the Internet.

That's gotta be good for feeding at least a dozen kids. I'm sure Jesus is proud.

[Leontius]

71. Your lack of understanding is forgiven

It still does not answer the question of the use of free will or choice if you prefer that with or without God those choices are ours to make and we, all of us together, have the power and resources to save those children and yet we don't. Whose fault is that? Saying why doesn't God do it is just not good enough to excuse our lack of doing so especially if there is no God, as I believe you claim, to pass the blame to.

[Act_of_Reparation]

72. THX BUDDY

The trouble is I'm not trying to decipher who is actually responsible for feeding kids, or who we should blame when shit goes south. We can talk about that in another locale, and chances are we'd be in complete agreement.

[edhopper]

28. I choose to be born

without sin.

[guillaumeb]

34. What if we substitute the word "flaw" for sin?

As in a non-perfect entity. Does your statement still apply?

[edhopper]

36. flaws a plenty

but the idea of original sin, ie, people have sex, is abhorant.

I reject the concept of sin, as most Christians follow.

[guillaumeb]

48. Original sin was about rejecting the Creator's injunction.

Not about sex.

[Act_of_Reparation]

64. Still kind of abhorrent, don't you think?

To raise your children to think they were born sick and are commanded by God to be well.

[guillaumeb]

75. That was not how we raised our children. eom

[edhopper]

83. nah

it's all really about sex, no matter how many pretty words they want to sling around.

but I'll play, since Adam an Eve is a mythological story and has no resemblance with how humans came to be, what was the actual sin that iall are born with?

[guillaumeb]

84. Adam and Eve are archetypes.

Think of the earth giving life as substitutes for the names and the hidden meaning is apparent.

The Bible is clear on what was meant by the fall.

[edhopper]

85. I am dim then

what sin is all mankind guilty of, one we are born with. and it must be something applicable to bronze age nomads?

what is the Bible so clear about?

[trotsky]

89. "The bible is clear"

Isn't it interesting how the same people who bash fundamentalist Christians for being so certain what their bible says are so quick to turn around and make a statement like "The bible is clear..." when it comes to supporting their beliefs?

There's a word for that, isn't there?

[guillaumeb]

91. What do you see as sin?

[edhopper]

104. sin to me is

a religious concept having to do with God. I don't go along. with the concept.

what is sin to you?

[guillaumeb]

106. Behaving badly.

[edhopper]

107. it is generally accepted

that sin is violating God's law or will, it is almost never used without a religious connotation. And I can't see why it would be on this forum.

discussing original sin without religion is pretty meaningless.

I still wonder what the Bible is so clear about original sin, you haven't answered that one.

[guillaumeb]

108. That varies by sect:

There are wide-ranging disagreements among Christian groups as to the exact understanding of this doctrine, (meaning original sin) with some so-called Christian groups denying it altogether. Eastern Orthodoxy, Judaism, and Islam acknowledge that the introduction of sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind, but deny any inherited guilt or necessary corruption of man's nature.

http://www.theopedia.com/original-sin

Is this clear?

[edhopper]

109. no, not really?

so it might be sex, or just man's imperfect nature, or might not exist at all.
But the Bible is very clear about it.

[guillaumeb]

111. How many ways can the Bible be interpreted? Many ways.

Witness the radically different interpretations of the Second Amendment, which was not written 5800 years ago. Does this surprise you?

[edhopper]

113. I still don't understand this:

"Think of the earth giving life as substitutes for the names and the hidden meaning is apparent.

The Bible is clear on what was meant by the fall."

so it can be interpreted in many ways but is also clear and the meaning apparent.

of course if you see the Bible, not as the word of God, but the musings of men with limited knowledge, it starts making sense.

[guillaumeb]

115. And if this statement represents your view I understand

of course if you see the Bible, not as the word of God, but the musings of men with limited knowledge, it starts making sense.

[edhopper]

116. that's fair

but I still don't understand what you meant about the meaning of the fall being apparent and clear in the Bible?

can't you just give a declarative statement about that?

[guillaumeb]

117. I can give a declarative statement.

There are, or can be, many meanings/interpretations of many passages in the Bible. To the literalists there is no room for interpretation. I am not a Biblical literalist.

So when I said that the meaning is apparent and clear I should have added to each individual believer to my statement. My lack of clarity. No pun intended but you are free to interpret it that way if you wish.

[edhopper]

118. thanks for that clarification nt

[Warren Stupidity]

88. See Augustine. Sex is the main event. Bad bad dirty dirty!

[cleanhippie]

38. Lol. I can see you believe that, but that doesn't make it true.

You can certainly try and prove it to be true, but first you'd need to prove there is a "creator", and that it's the one you believe in.

Good luck with that.

[Humanist_Activist]

40. Still doesn't explain a universe full of suffering that is mostly incompatible...

to most life as we know it.

[cpwm17]

63. What is this free will that you speak of?

We are the products of our genetics and environment, neither of which we have any choice at birth. After that, we think and act based on how our brains have developed in our environment. We don't design our own brains, so our conscious selves don't ultimately control our actions and thoughts. If you believe in a god, then this god is responsible for who we are.

Free will is an illusion. We don't understand how our brains work or how they come to their conclusions. Our heads are black boxes.

We experience inputs into our brains and we experience outputs from our brains. What our brains actually do, we can't know. We experience feelings associated with our thoughts and action. This gives us the illusion that our conscious selves actually made the decision. But our feelings only drive our thoughts and actions by forcing our (outside of conscious) brains to act.

Even when you use sequential logic, ultimately your thoughts come out of your black box.

There is no free will. That is just an excuse for this imaginary god for not being able to see the future and the flaws in creation. God says, the buck don't stop here.

[guillaumeb]

74. If I accepted your argument, which I do not,

that same argument could be interpreted to mean that we have no control.

Thus if I kill someone it is not my fault?

So anything that a human does should be accepted?

[cpwm17]

77. My position is a major argument against torture

and one of many reasons that hell is so wrong. But punishment by imprisonment is needed to protect the public and to prevent future crimes.

Those thoughts and motivations that caused you to write what you wrote, where did they come from?

[guillaumeb]

78. I have no idea. They just erupted from my fingers onto the keyboard.

Plus I have no control over my fingers so I cannot stop typing lak=====jbfieorugnid44cnaodjcnadj..................

[cpwm17]

79. If we had free will, we would be able to explain where our thoughts came from.

We experience feelings and thoughts, with our feelings feeding back to our brains to drive our thoughts and actions. Our brains do this, but our conscious brains have no free will. Most of what happens in our brains happens outside our consciousness.

[rug]

80. The corrollary to that is you can predict what you will do tomorrow.

That's as sound a position as astrology. Just substitute biochemistry for astronomy.

[cpwm17]

81. Through a feelings driven process, you can plan your tomorrow.

Like all thought processes, most of this happens outside of consciousness. If different thoughts (plans) associated with more powerful feelings don't happened between your planning and tomorrow, you will actually go through with your plans.

Every moment of consciousness your conscious brain is a slave to your (good and bad) feeings, and without feelings, you would be in a coma-like state.


We have no way of knowing what goes on in here. We have feelings and thoughts, and stuff happens.

[guillaumeb]

82. How much of what happens in the brain relates to automatic functions?

You do not control most of what your body does, but this is irrelevant to the concept of free will. A far better explanation than I could do is here:

These arguments leave untouched the meaning of free will that most people understand, which is consciously making choices about what to do in the absence of external coercion, and accepting responsibility for one’s actions. Hardly anyone denies that people engage in logical reasoning and self-control to make choices. There is a genuine psychological reality behind the idea of free will. The debate is merely about whether this reality deserves to be called free will. Setting aside the semantic debate, let’s try to understand what that underlying reality is.

There is no need to insist that free will is some kind of magical violation of causality. Free will is just another kind of cause. The causal process by which a person decides whether to marry is simply different from the processes that cause balls to roll downhill, ice to melt in the hot sun, a magnet to attract nails, or a stock price to rise and fall.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/free_will_debate_what_does_free_will_mean_and_how_did_it_evolve.html

[cpwm17]

86. Ultimately, all decisions are outside of consciousness.

Definitions of free will that are relevant to religious discussions have to require that our thoughts and actions come from our conscious brains, since it is our conscious brains that would experience any rewards and punishments, such as heaven or hell.

meaning of free will that most people understand, which is consciously making choices about what to do in the absence of external coercion, and accepting responsibility for one’s actions. Hardly anyone denies that people engage in logical reasoning and self-control to make choices.

(This is all my opinion, that I haven't seen written by anyone else before) Our consciousness does play a critical role, but our consciousness isn't what makes decisions. I deny that decisions in logical reasoning ultimately come from consciousness. Consciousness is what experiences pain, pleasure, emotions, and other much more subtle feelings (along with thoughts and senses), without (consciousness) which you can have no drive. Drive is what forces us to think and do, and the strength of our feelings determine what we learn.

Every waking moment we are completely driven by our feelings, most of them very subtle. Our feelings force our brains to work (that's why we are conscious), but our non-conscious brains do the actual thinking. Thinking has to be automatic in the non-conscious brain since we have no way of knowing how our brains actually work and conscious free-will is fundamentally impossible.

I know I'm repeating myself, but one has to explain in detail how our brains actually work, rather than stating it as a matter of faith that we have free will.

[trotsky]

90. Well, "free will" really does become a matter of faith for Christians, since...

their entire theological house of cards is built on it.

[guillaumeb]

92. I think that unless we know exactly how our brain works,

this is all speculation. Motivation is difficult to understand and explain.

But if you are willing to deny that volition exists, all acts are random and the actor bears no responsibility for actions. Explain then how this concept requires society to abandon any attempt at social rules.

[cpwm17]

93. It's not at all random.

Our brains have evolved to best allow us to pass on our genes. A brain that acts randomly could never survive, and those genes won't get passed on. Any of us that don't properly follow social rules will not be successful. People around him/her will react poorly to improper behavior.

Our brains are programmed, through learning and instinct, to give us positive and negative feedback (feelings) based on our thoughts and actions. Our feelings do give us a stake in our own existence (motivation) which automatically forces our brains to work in our own benefit. Our consciousness doesn't do the actually decision making, but it certainly plays an important role.

Science certainly has difficulty explaining consciousness, but if we had free will this wouldn't be the case. We would understand where our thoughts come from and how we reach our decisions.

The reason we can't explain how we reach our decisions is due to the fact that our consciousness does far less than we think.

[guillaumeb]

94. Some random comments:

First:

Our brains have evolved to best allow us to pass on our genes. A brain that acts randomly could never survive, and those genes won't get passed on. Any of us that don't properly follow social rules will not be successful. People around him/her will react poorly to improper behavior.

Social rules are not "hardwired" into the brain. They are social constructs. And these social constructs are needed if humans are to survive communally.

Second:

Our brains are programmed, through learning and instinct, to give us positive and negative feedback (feelings) based on our thoughts and actions. Our feelings do give us a stake in our own existence (motivation) which automatically forces our brains to work in our own benefit. Our consciousness doesn't do the actually decision making, but it certainly plays an important role.

The decision to eat potatoes or carrots is deliberately made. And the decision, being deliberately made, involves conscious behavior because it is not automatic behavior like breathing or digestion.

Third:

Science certainly has difficulty explaining consciousness, but if we had free will this wouldn't be the case. We would understand where our thoughts come from and how we reach our decisions.

Free will means the ability to choose freely, without coercion. If you freely choose to eat potatoes you are exercising your free will. True, the choice is a minor one, but that does not make it any less a freely made choice.

My simplified interpretation of your idea is that if any part of our decision making is automatic, rather than specifically thought out, that nullifies the concept of free will.

[trotsky]

95. "The decision to eat potatoes or carrots is deliberately made."

How do you know this for certain?

Would the process look (or feel) any different if the choice was being made for you, and you were simply rationalizing it as your choice?

Be specific in your answer please.

[guillaumeb]

98. Who or what made you respond?

That type of argument is fruitless.

If you decide to go to the movies, did you really decide, or did the aliens aim a mind control ray at your head?

And that is ultimately where this train is going.

Perhaps the Creator inspired you to write this in an attempt to test my faith.

Or perhaps what I see as the universe is merely a mental construct.

[trotsky]

120. No, you made a claim.

Support it. Go ahead.

[cpwm17]

97. Each and every decision you make, where did they come from?

How do they pop into your conscious brain? You claim you have free will, so you have to know where your thoughts come from.

The decision to eat potatoes or carrots originates with a desire, perhaps originating with hunger. This desire is imposed on your consciousness. The desire is a motivational force which automatically makes your brain prioritizes your hunger.

Our brains are automatic brain-storming machines. So in our every waking moment stuff flows through our brains. Consciousness plays a part. In my opinion, along with being a motivational force, the desires in consciousness force our complicated brains to act as one. As thoughts pass through our conscious brains, our consciousness automatically react to these thoughts with feelings (usually subtle, sometimes not). The force of feelings automatically keeps our thoughts on track, and our brains working on one particular goal of the moment. Hunger is usually a more powerful feeling which pushes our brains in a particular direction. In the big picture, this process isn't deliberate. It's automatic. You can't stop it.

Social rules are learned. They only exist in our heads.

In every step of the way thoughts automatically pop in our heads. For difficult problems not dealt with before, we can break up our thoughts into understandable and previously learned steps. Everything is still ultimately imposed on our conscious minds.

[guillaumeb]

99. Prove to my satisfaction that you exist.

[cpwm17]

100. Artificial intelligence hasn't advanced with the ability to write what I write,

so presumably you can assume there's a human on this side.

[guillaumeb]

102. The Turing test.

But will artificial intelligence advance to that level, and if it does, will it possess sentience?

If AI does advance to that point, would it have enforceable rights?

[cpwm17]

103. Some people, including some scientists, think that consciousness

will automatically emerge in computers if we make them complicated enough. Or at least consciousness in AI is reasonably possible.

Some think the inability to explain the role of consciousness in our brains means that consciousness has no role. They think consciousness will just appear if you make an AI computer complicated enough.

I think the fact that we experience pain and pleasure and the profound effect they have on our behavior certainly shows that consciousness has an important role.

I am skeptical of the ability to ever make a conscious computer. We don't understand how our own brains make consciousness and we will never truly understand. If man ever makes one, it would have to be artificially evolved.

[guillaumeb]

105. And if consciousness appears with any sufficiently complex brain,

does that imply that it is a design feature of that brain. Meaning that when a brain reaches a certain level of complexity consciousness/sentience appears?

In my faith-based view, sentience is the divine spark, the soul. Also unprovable.

[cpwm17]

110. I notice that I didn't complete my thoughts above.

I meant to also write that I don't think that consciousness just appears with a sufficiently complex brain, as some believe, since I think that consciousness has an important role. Our brains evolved consciousness to serve this important role.

The fact that damage to our brains causes our consciousness to diminish or die, strongly indicates that our consciousness is a process of the physical brain.

[guillaumeb]

112. I might agree that the conscious part of the brain depends of course on

the physical part of the brain for the hardware, with sentience/consciousness being the software. To make an analogy.

But even a damaged brain still has sentience, with the amount depending on the severity of the damage.

[Warren Stupidity]

87. Neurology is not finding much evidence of this alleged free will.

And yes it does raise interesting question about our penal system. Probably makes the case for ditching retributive punishment entirely.

[immoderate]

20. Being an asshole, God placed the Tree of Knowledge where he knew Adam would eat

from it. You can't say he was surprised. That fucked things up for everybody. Adam had no free will.

--imm

[Angry Dragon]

21. they just blame it on the woman

[immoderate]

22. She had no choice either. All part of God's nefarious plan.

He may be incompetent, but he knows everything that has happened, and that will happen. We think we have choices, but it's all been determined.

--imm

[edhopper]

26. A question about God

not answered for 2000 years and counting

[img][/img]

[guillaumeb]

33. If allowing people to make choices is evil, this might make sense.

And the specifics of what comprises evil have varied in every society, which might lead one to feel that good/evil are human constructs that have no place in the Creator's thinking.

[edhopper]

37. which assumes

a thinking creator, not in evidence.

[whatthehey]

56. Not all evil is human

Does free will create famine and landslides and random genetic deformities and volcanoes and floods and childhood cancer and earthquakes and type 1 diabetes and tsunamis and SIDS and torandos and the plague?

Why didn't an omnipotent omnibenevolent creator make the central nervous system register pain only until you take your hand out of the flame? Why did he design teeth for the pinnacle of his creation, his own image no less, which didn't normally last their natural lifespan until the last few decades, by human ingenuity, when he gave other creatures the ability to keep regrowing them?

[guillaumeb]

58. Your questions seem to assume that creation is something

that the Creator constantly updates and guides.

Why would you assume that?

Why would you assume that what you feel is logical would also be logical for the Creator?

And all of these things you cataloged in your first paragraph are not evil, they are simply things that happen in this universe. And probably in ever universe.

[whatthehey]

62. So which omni is BS?

Because an entity which even designed a world containing those things and millions more like them is certainly not omniscient AND omnipotent AND omnibenevolent because those things exist, QED. If you retreat into ineffability as per usual, then we are left with a creator about which nothing meaningful can be said.

[guillaumeb]

73. If you believe in a Creator,

one who created all that humans recognize as existence, the capabilities of that creator would of necessity be far beyond our own. So why would any human feel that they had the capability to understand the motivation of that creator?

[trotsky]

76. ...

So why would any human feel that they had the capability to understand the motivation of that creator?

I dunno, you certainly don't seem to have any reservations about doing so, even going so far as to pretend to quote it in order to insult a scientist you've misrepresented. You seem to value humility and compassion, but your actions certainly don't match.

[True Dough]

55. +1 for Epicurus

Who then made his way into the kitchen and cooked some tasty fish and drank an obscene amount of wine.

[exboyfil]

27. Here is an interesting video

addressing this question.

[bulloney]

29. I've wondered why this all-knowing God didn't know enough to create a female counterpart

to his own species when he did with all of the other animals.

As I've gotten older, I increasingly believe the Old Testament is a collection of fairy tales that originated from a bunch of nomad men sitting around the campfire at night and telling bullshit stories to each other. These stories have a common thread in that women are subordinate to men because, according to these campfire bullshitters, woman had to be created from a part of a man (rib).

[guillaumeb]

35. Your last sentence:

These stories have a common thread in that women are subordinate to men because, according to these campfire bullshitters, woman had to be created from a part of a man (rib).

If we consider that, chromosomally speaking, women are XX and men are XY, and we consider that a Y can be seen as an X missing the lower part, perhaps the story of the missing rib can be seen as a biological explanation set in Bronze Era language. It would have been obvious that men and women do not have a different number of actual ribs, but if the story is examined as metaphor.............?

[Humanist_Activist]

41. That seems to be a stretch, particularly since, technically, female is the "default" for...

most vertebrate animals(including humans).

Males are an adaptation to create sexual reproduction and selection pressures.

[trotsky]

47. Oh you and your facts.

He's on a crusade to prove that his creation story is true. Don't be so mean!

[edhopper]

42. You notice that when man started understaning

how the Universe really works, God stopped talking to us.

[pokerfan]

43. I'm sorry but...

[grubbs]

30. It's all just fairy tales

We're here because we're here because we're here .,,,

[struggle4progress]

44. Since there is no obvious other candidate world to compare to this world,

the only thing we could mean, when we say 'the world is imperfect,' is 'we would change some things if we could'

And for as long as we have records, there seem to have been humans working hard at doing so, in various ways -- say, by making 'better' shoes or trying to cure particular diseases

Although many in this forum apparently dislike those answers (to questions about the world's 'imperfections') which reference 'free will,' such an answer, when properly understood, seems to me the only possible responsible answer: it redirects our attention from meaningless abstract gooble-de-gook back to the practical problem of choosing how to spend our time productively

There's no way to make sense of the question, 'How could a perfect being create anything imperfect?' There's no way to tell whether an 'answer' to the question is 'tight' or 'wrong' -- and there's nothing obvious that we could do with a 'right answer' to the question: the only thing one can do is suggest spending time and energy to improve some 'imperfection'

Thus, to 'How could a perfect being create anything imperfect?' one simply retorts 'So that you would be able to choose to make something better,' hoping enough people take the hint

And those who refuse to take the hint? Well, we all only a limited amount of time: why waste it in pointless arguments about the whatness-of-nothing?

[DetlefK]

68. Your question is unclear.

What do you mean by "perfect" and "imperfect"?

[Angry Dragon]

96. perfect would be no flaws

imperfect would be with flaws

It is said that the god of the Bible is perfect the question was ......... could a perfect being create an imperfect being or thing

[DetlefK]

114. That definition doesn't really help.

For example: The appendix on the colon. Certain herbivores need it for digesting plants. But in the human it just sits around unused. We only realize we have an appendix if it gets an inflammation.

Is the appendix a flaw?

We cannot know: If God created the human, and God has free will and a plan, then the appendix might be part of God's plan.






This is the basic problem with discovering God by his actions: No one knows what he meant by those actions.
For example: A hunter killing deer. Is he a bad person or is he preserving the deer-population by preventing over-population?

Trying to discover God by his works or by experiments or the like is a futile endavour from the very beginning: A human cannot learn more about God by using things like evidence or facts. It's philosophically impossible, because God has a free will (-> does not obey fixed rules) and is unique (-> you cannot use statistics to deduce some general behaviour of God).

God can neither be proven nor disproven by using things such as experiments, evidence, witnesses... Because God and the scientific method are based on incompatible philosophic assumptions.



Now, having discarded proving God by science, it's important to be aware of a dangerous double-speak when it comes to "faith":
"Faith" and "belief" have two radically different meanings, but some religious people jump between them as they please.
1. "Faith" and "belief" can mean guessing.
2. "Faith" and "belief" can mean the very specific cultural and religious doctrine of the person using that word. The doctrine itself. Not "faith"/"belief" as a mental state.

When a religious person scolds you for not believing, in 99.9% of the cases they are scolding you for not having the exactly same opinion as him. But they cover up this extremism by claiming to use the innocent 1st definition.

[Oneironaut]

119. This is a common philosophical paradox.

It asks many questions of itself:

If God is PKG (all knowing, powerful, and good), then why are its creations imperfect?

If God purposely created imperfection, then is it a monster?

If God created the Devil, then is God an idiot? Why create something that will directly oppose you and corrupt your creations?

If God is not in 100% control of free will, then it is not PKG, and therefore not a God.

If God is in control of free will, then why is God less evil than the Devil, for he is also the architect of pure evil on earth. If God cannot control the Devil, then God is not PKG, and therefore is not a God.

If imperfection is in God's plan, and it wants us to suffer, then God is evil. No good being would torture its creations, even if its intentions are good. A PKG God would create perfect creations in the first place. Otherwise, a PKG being creating imperfect creations that are sometimes subjected to horrific torture is morally no different from the Devil.