Why do christians put limits on their gods's power?

rockbeer

Dades wrote: »

A human builder can at least do a decent job of building a house that does not shake, flood, or spew magma.

Well, I've heard that some can at least!

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

What is surprising is that you invoke the spectre of a perfect creator (something which I believe to be as impossible as the perfect builder) and yet imbue him with the same limitations as a human builder.

A human builder cannot build the perfect house because he himself is not perfect. If he were, by definition he would be able to do so.

It's senseless to remove the limitation of imperfection from your deity and yet to continue to apply it to his creations. Either both are subject to the limitations of imperfection or neither are.

Not so. A perfect builder could build a house that is perfectly fit for the purpose for which it was intended, but that does not mean that it is the most perfect house imaginable.

The problem is that we all use the word 'perfect' in different ways:
a) Perfect as in the best imaginable, and unable to be improved in any shape or form. (In this sense God is perfect.)

b) Perfect as in fit for its intended purpose. ("I need a pen to jot down this number. Thank you, that will be perfect.")

c) Perfect as in on target in one's development. ("Andrew Murray is now #4 in the world's tennis rankings - his progress this year has been perfect.")

The fact that you reject my reasoning doesn't mean I haven't provided any. I would say you continue to persist in denial despite the inherent - and obvious - logical contradiction of your position.

I see no reasoning. You state that it is impossible for a Perfect being to create anything that is imperfect. You need to demonstrate why. I cannot be expected to accept something just because you declare it to be so.

Process, I accept, introduces another element into the argument. I accept that you can have faith that this universe is part of a process which is not currently perfect but will be so on completion. I see no evidence for this supposition, but still, if that's what you want to believe..

.
I don't need to show you any evidence other than that is part of the overall Christian teaching as based on Scripture. You (and others) are arguing that the Christian concept of God is incompatible with the present state of the universe. Yet the Christian teaching concerning God is that He has not finished with the universe. Therefore it is wrong to assert that there is any contradiction between the state of the universe and the Christian teaching about God.

However, I understood christians to believe that a better place already exists. Are not the dead of generations supposed to be there already? Suggesting that god is capable of significant improvements right now. (An idea that I maintain is also implied by the idea of his own perfection).

So the question still remains that if god is capable of making things better right now, why doesn't our universe demonstrate it?

I think you are falling for popular modern misconceptions about heaven rather than the classical Christian understanding or indeed the Biblical teaching.

Heaven is not a better or more perfect world. We are told little enough about heaven in the Bible, but it appears to be a waiting room for the redeemed who have died until, through the resurrection from the dead, they take their place on a perfect world.

Heaven is a place where people go after they have exercised their free will on earth. We are not told that we exercise free will in heaven.

A marriage, which Scripture uses as a picture of eternal life, may provide us with a useful analogy. You exercise your free will before the wedding to choose your marriage partner. But, after the wedding, you no longer have that choice. Yet, if we were to skip the choice bit and go straight to the marriage (arranged marriage) then most of us would see that as less than perfect because we want the freedom to choose.

Biro

Wicknight wrote: »

Rather than taking a universe full of problems, asserting God exists for some reason, and then making a set of excuses for all the problems it seems far easier and logical to just say God doesn't exist.

True, but what's easy isn't necessarily correct.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

A human builder can at least do a decent job of building a house that does not shake, flood, or spew magma.

By no means perfect, but it's a start!

But a perfect builder would be able to build a house and property that utilised all these things to provide a constant source of energy (as in Iceland harnessing geothermal power), and constructing the most perfect garden containing wonderful islands and mountain ranges etc.

However, this wouldn't work if the tenant of the house refused to follow the builder's instructions and insisted on sticking his fingers into electrical sockets, locking his children in cupboards, camping in a tent on the very spot where the artificial lake is being constructed, and hanging a hammock over the very spot where the vents release the geothermal energy.

Zombrex

Biro wrote: »

True, but what's easy isn't necessarily correct.

Certainly not, as something like string theory demonstrates.

But what I meant was easier in the context of the common Christian assertion that the universe reveals that it obviously has a creator that was perfect and good.

That is only obvious if one then factors in a whole load of excuses to explain away things like suffering, based on the axiom that the creator already exists So when asked why if God exists and is perfect and good is the world so full of suffering the response is because God exists and is perfect and good there must be a reason for this.

That is making the assertion that was supposed to be obvious for the universe in fact very convoluted and complicated. Which causes (or should cause) the person to go back and re-evaluate how obvious the assertion really was to begin with.

Again using the example of Intelligent Design, this is often a point raised about the excuse that one can explain away all the imperfection in life by using the Fall.

The assertion, made by people like JC, is that life is obviously designed by something of vast intelligence and power. When a Biblical Creationist like JC is presented with all the examples in biology where the assumed "design" would appear to be pretty stupid JC puts forward the Fall to explain all this. Life was created perfect, but then the Fall happened and changed all life into it's far from perfect state at the moment.

The point is why introduce that unnecessary middle bit at all. If life doesn't look designed now which is a more reasonable conclusion, it was designed perfectly then something happened that changed that, or it simply wasn't designed at all?

The reason for suggesting that life was designed by God is that it is supposed to look like it was designed by God. If you then come up with countless examples of where it doesn't look at all like it was designed, by God or anyone else, the sensible thing to do is to drop the original assertion that life was designed by God because it looks like it was. What is not a particularly sensible conclusion is to still maintain the position that it was designed by God even if it doesn't look like it was because of convoluted explanation X (eg the Fall).

If you have lost the original justification for an assertion you don't hold on to the assertion by introducing even more fantastical assertions.

The same holds for the idea that the universe looks like it was created by a perfect and good creator for us.

If there are a lot of reasons to believe that assertion doesn't hold any more (and I can think of plenty) it is far more sensible to drop the assertion, rather than hold on to the assertion and introduce a series of unsupported guesses to explain away why the universe might not look it was created by a perfect and good creator but still be.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

However, this wouldn't work if the tenant of the house refused to follow the builder's instructions and insisted on sticking his fingers into electrical sockets, locking his children in cupboards, camping in a tent on the very spot where the artificial lake is being constructed, and hanging a hammock over the very spot where the vents release the geothermal energy.

Again you are missing the point.

If a occupant can stick his fingers into electrical sockets then it isn't a perfect building

A perfect building is not a building that requires the occupant to behave in a particular manner to avoid harming himself. Quite the opposite in fact. A perfect building would provide all the comforts desired by the occupant with no potential for harm or distress.

I appreciate that it is hard for you (and I) to imagine a perfect building, so it is hard to visualise it and thus we are prone to sticking imperfect designs, like wall socked and cupboards, into the building to try and visualise it.

But this is down to our lack of imagination ability, rather than a flaw in the logic of a perfect building or builder.

The same holds for the idea of a perfect universe. Any attempt made by Christians here to describe the problems with a perfect universe have been done by introducing imperfect design into the equation.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Again you are missing the point.

If a occupant can stick his fingers into electrical sockets then it isn't a perfect building

A perfect building is not a building that requires the occupant to behave in a particular manner to avoid harming himself. Quite the opposite in fact. A perfect building would provide all the comforts desired by the occupant with no potential for harm or distress.

Apparently your perfect building is a padded cell.

I'm trying to think of any comment I could make that would be funnier than that fact. I don't think I can do it.

CodeMonkey

PDN wrote: »

Apparently your perfect building is a padded cell.

I'm trying to think of any comment I could make that would be funnier than that fact. I don't think I can do it.

A perfect building doesn't have to be a padded cell. Wicknight is right that you are limited by your imagination. I can easily imagine a better house with some very fancy high tech monitoring gadgets that can stop you getting into trouble.

It's like cars with no airbags and moderns cars that has airbags that inflates when you crash so you don't bang your head on the steering wheel. It just needs a hidden mechanism to save you, not make the steering wheel out of jello.

A perfect house is a house that offers all the comforts the occupant desires....like what wicknight said.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

However, this wouldn't work if the tenant of the house refused to follow the builder's instructions and insisted on sticking his fingers into electrical sockets, locking his children in cupboards, camping in a tent on the very spot where the artificial lake is being constructed, and hanging a hammock over the very spot where the vents release the geothermal energy.

You seem to be confusing my cryptic reference to natural disasters with one regarding natural resources!

Unless by the above you mean that people should know better than to live near tectonic fault lines, coastal areas, or active volcanoes.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Apparently your perfect building is a padded cell.

You are doing it again. :rolleyes:

You need a padded cell because of the flaws in the under lying structure, such as hard bricks or sharp timber. Neither of these are perfect building material, they are used because they are available and relatively cheap and for a long time because no one had figured out a better way of doing it. We then need to pad them for protection. This is far from ideal as any architect will tell you, and in fact there has been a lot of advances in producing soft but strong material just just such problems.

The same applies for things like wall sockets. They are far from perfect, they are flawed design that is kept on because it has become a standard, but since then there have been a number of advances in how power can be provided in safer more convent fashion.

Again all these "problems" you are coming up with are down to your lack of imagination, rather than flaws with the idea itself. The same is true of the assertion that the universe is some how the best it possibly could be.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

while it appears to have convinced Jammy Dodger, [it] is not going to make it any more convincing to those of us who would like to see some reasoning to back the claim up

Actually, I only believe things that are backed up with reason. I didn't need Rockbeer to convince me of anything. I'm quite capable of drawing my own conclusions, thanks.

Biro wrote: »

You're actually wrong. The highlighted sentence there is the problem. What if the teacher taught the perfect student that the answer to the question "what colour is red?" is actually "green", so the student answered the question as "green" like taught, would still get 100% and still be a perfect student, even though the answer to an outside on-looker was incorrect. It was actually the intended answer.
Therefore a perfect being who creates an imperfect world by deliberate design and it turns out exactly as planned means that it was designed perfectly, according to an imperfect design specification.

You're missing the point.

Christians claim that God is perfect in all respects, in every single possible way. Right? The key phrases there being "in all respects" and "every possible way". Ok, so now that's clear, I'll move on.

If a being who meets the above criteria, creates or does something that isn't perfect, then it isn't perfect in all respects (It can't be, that's a contradiction). As it has done something imperfect, that results in it not being perfect in every possible way. Thus, it no longer meets the appropriate criteria, so it can not be considered perfect in all respects.

That leads to an interesting result, one which can be gotten to in one of two ways:

1.
God is absolutely perfect in every single possible way. But, he has created something that isn't perfect. Wait a second, that means he isn't perfect in every possible way... (Don't try to argue that a being that is perfect in all possible ways can create something imperfect. It cannot. And don't try to say the universe isn't perfect, we as meer Humans can see that it isn't).

2.
God was never absolutely perfect in every possible way to begin with, so making something that wasn't perfect was never an issue. I think that this is the admittance by Christians, that most atheists would like to see.

There aren't any other possibilities.

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

If a being who meets the above criteria, creates or does something that isn't perfect, then it isn't perfect in all respects (It can't be, that's a contradiction). As it has done something imperfect, that results in it not being perfect in every possible way. Thus, it no longer meets the appropriate criteria, so it can not be considered perfect in all respects.

Incorrect. You are jumping to a false conclusion. It does not logically follow that a perfect being cannot make something that is less than perfect. That is a leap of logic.

You are failing to distinguish between something that is perfectly made and something that is made perfect.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

Incorrect. You are jumping to a false conclusion. It does not logically follow that a perfect being cannot make something that is less than perfect. That is a leap of logic.

You are failing to distinguish between something that is perfectly made and something that is made perfect.

Is God perfect in every single, possible way? Every single way? If he is, he cannot make something imperfect. If he makes something imperfect (while trying to do it perfectly, perhaps), it follows, that he is not perfect in at least one respect. If he is imperfect in at least one respect, he cannot be perfect in every single way.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

Incorrect. You are jumping to a false conclusion. It does not logically follow that a perfect being cannot make something that is less than perfect. That is a leap of logic.

You are failing to distinguish between something that is perfectly made and something that is made perfect.

Yeah, this would be my line of thought. BTW, I like dig the new sig! As the Yanks would say: MLK was awesome!

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Is God perfect in every single, possible way? Every single way? If he is, he cannot make something imperfect. If he makes something imperfect (while trying to do it perfectly, perhaps), it follows, that he is not perfect in at least one respect. If he is imperfect in at least one respect, he cannot be perfect in every single way.

Repeating your logical error several times does not, alas, make it valid.

There is no reason why a perfect Being should not be able, if He chooses, to make an imperfect object.

If a perfect God makes a clothes peg, that peg does not need to be the most perfect peg imaginable. It just needs to be sufficient to hold the washing on the line.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

Repeating your logical error several times does not, alas, make it valid.

There is no reason why a perfect Being should not be able, if He chooses, to make an imperfect object.

If a perfect God makes a clothes peg, that peg does not need to be the most perfect peg imaginable. It just needs to be sufficient to hold the washing on the line.

I can see what your reasoning is. And, I can see where you perceive my logical error. But, I have to disagree. If He chose not to make the world perfect, very well. But, in doing so, he is making himself imperfect. Let me explain. To use a previously used analogy, a student who always recieves 100% is, in respect to academic performance, perfect. If the student consciously decides to just get 90 or so percent in a test, he can no longer be considered a perfect student; No matter what the excuse is. God, in making an imperfect world, is making himself imperfect in one respect: the level of perfection of his productions. Even if he consciously made the world imperfect, it's still his production, thus, the level of perfection of his productions can never be considered perfect again, making him imperfect in at least one respect. If he is imperfect in one respect, he is not absolutely perfect. This is getting pedantic, but, at least to me, it's a valid point.

santing

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

If the student consciously decides to just get 90 or so percent in a test, he can no longer be considered a perfect student;

You cannot compare God's creation with a capability test. God didn't make the world as a test for his capability.

santing

santing wrote: »

You cannot compare God's creation with a capability test. God didn't make the world as a test for his capability.

If that's all you took from my post, then you've missed my point entirely.

Biro

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I can see what your reasoning is. And, I can see where you perceive my logical error. But, I have to disagree. If He chose not to make the world perfect, very well. But, in doing so, he is making himself imperfect. Let me explain. To use a previously used analogy, a student who always recieves 100% is, in respect to academic performance, perfect. If the student consciously decides to just get 90 or so percent in a test, he can no longer be considered a perfect student; No matter what the excuse is. God, in making an imperfect world, is making himself imperfect in one respect: the level of perfection of his productions. Even if he consciously made the world imperfect, it's still his production, thus, the level of perfection of his productions can never be considered perfect again, making him imperfect in at least one respect. If he is imperfect in one respect, he is not absolutely perfect. This is getting pedantic, but, at least to me, it's a valid point.

No, read my example again. The student deciding not to be perfect any more is different, they're ceasing to be perfect. In my example I showed you that they are taught that one of the questions needs to be answered incorrectly (or imperfectly) in order to achieve the perfect result to that obscure test. The student does what is necessary and in doing so achieves exactly what was required of him, thus remaining perfect. It doesn't matter that the answer is imperfect, he was required to answer it imperfectly in order to achieve the perfect result.

Biro

Wicknight wrote: »

Certainly not, as something like string theory demonstrates.

But what I meant was easier in the context of the common Christian assertion that the universe reveals that it obviously has a creator that was perfect and good.

That is only obvious if one then factors in a whole load of excuses to explain away things like suffering, based on the axiom that the creator already exists So when asked why if God exists and is perfect and good is the world so full of suffering the response is because God exists and is perfect and good there must be a reason for this.

That is making the assertion that was supposed to be obvious for the universe in fact very convoluted and complicated. Which causes (or should cause) the person to go back and re-evaluate how obvious the assertion really was to begin with.

Again using the example of Intelligent Design, this is often a point raised about the excuse that one can explain away all the imperfection in life by using the Fall.

The assertion, made by people like JC, is that life is obviously designed by something of vast intelligence and power. When a Biblical Creationist like JC is presented with all the examples in biology where the assumed "design" would appear to be pretty stupid JC puts forward the Fall to explain all this. Life was created perfect, but then the Fall happened and changed all life into it's far from perfect state at the moment.

The point is why introduce that unnecessary middle bit at all. If life doesn't look designed now which is a more reasonable conclusion, it was designed perfectly then something happened that changed that, or it simply wasn't designed at all?

The reason for suggesting that life was designed by God is that it is supposed to look like it was designed by God. If you then come up with countless examples of where it doesn't look at all like it was designed, by God or anyone else, the sensible thing to do is to drop the original assertion that life was designed by God because it looks like it was. What is not a particularly sensible conclusion is to still maintain the position that it was designed by God even if it doesn't look like it was because of convoluted explanation X (eg the Fall).

If you have lost the original justification for an assertion you don't hold on to the assertion by introducing even more fantastical assertions.

The same holds for the idea that the universe looks like it was created by a perfect and good creator for us.

If there are a lot of reasons to believe that assertion doesn't hold any more (and I can think of plenty) it is far more sensible to drop the assertion, rather than hold on to the assertion and introduce a series of unsupported guesses to explain away why the universe might not look it was created by a perfect and good creator but still be.

This is a good post to be fair, you've explained your stance very well. I don't have all the answers, nor pretend to. However, I also like this post :

Wicknight wrote: »

I appreciate that it is hard for you (and I) to imagine a perfect building, so it is hard to visualise it and thus we are prone to sticking imperfect designs, like wall socked and cupboards, into the building to try and visualise it.

But this is down to our lack of imagination ability, rather than a flaw in the logic of a perfect building or builder.

Just because we can't imagine it, doesn't mean it can't exist!

Biro

Biro wrote: »

No, read my example again. The student deciding not to be perfect any more is different, they're ceasing to be perfect. In my example I showed you that they are taught that one of the questions needs to be answered incorrectly (or imperfectly) in order to achieve the perfect result to that obscure test. The student does what is necessary and in doing so achieves exactly what was required of him, thus remaining perfect. It doesn't matter that the answer is imperfect, he was required to answer it imperfectly in order to achieve the perfect result.

Yes, I know what you meant by your post. I wasn't basing my reply on your post, I was using your analogy of a student in a different way.

santing

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

If that's all you took from my post, then you've missed my point entirely.

I don't think so, you are judging God's quality by what He does, according to your standards. With that you make His creation an exam and God fails your exam criteria.

However, you fail to notice that you are not qualified to make an exam, or even to judge what "perfect" is. As I said in an earlier post (borrowed from Wikipedia) imperfection of parts may not make the whole imperfect, but that in case the imperfections in parts may be because of our wrong criteria.

TO bring this threat forward, I propose that we define first all aspects of Perfectness that God needs to measure up to, and then we need to come up with tests for each of these criteria. We may need to buy some time and dimensions as God most likely must be perfect at all times and in all dimensions - even the ones we still don't know about.

=====================================================
Isa 29:16 ESV You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me"; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?

Call Me Jimmy

Even though I have been involved in this discussion previously, reading the last few pages there's only one pattern that emerges. The argument gets smaller and smaller and smaller until we're looking up dictionaries. Having said that, I'm gonna reply as well

On the point of God being perfect in every single way - well if that's what christians claim then it is impossible for him to create anything imperfect because it means one of God's abilities is imperfect. But hold on, he could have made something imperfect on purpose, so he isn't imperfect. Well in that case he's cruel. Isn't he supposed to love us?

If I had a glass case and two mice, and i put cheese, an exercise wheel and water in there (everything they needed to survive and enjoy their lives) then it isn't cruel.
But then I decide to throw a piece of cheese in with a hidden poison capsule, am I cruel? Am I loving towards those mice?

santing

santing wrote: »

However, you fail to notice that you are not qualified to make an exam, or even to judge what "perfect" is. As I said in an earlier post (borrowed from Wikipedia) imperfection of parts may not make the whole imperfect, but that in case the imperfections in parts may be because of our wrong criteria.

I can't see myself getting anywhere with the absolute perfection must lead to perfection argument. So I'm going to persue another, related line of argument with regards to perfection.

You claim that God is absolutely perfect, in all respects. Yes? I don’t think we’ll have any argument whatsoever about that. You must also concede that absolute perfection entails entirety, wholeness, completeness in all possible senses, at all times. A perfect entity is free of deprivation whatsoever, and therefore lacks nothing, ergo, wants and needs nothing.

A perfect entity cannot have any needs to satisfy, if it does, it surely cannot be perfect. It is a contradiction to say a perfect being has needs or desires. If it has needs or desires, how can it be perfect, as it lacks entirety, completeness, totality. So, I argue, by definition, a perfect being cannot have needs or desires, without a need or desire there can be no purpose (dictionary.com’s definition of purpose: “an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.”; it follows that if a being has no needs or desires, it cannot have an aim, or a goal).

How can you reconcile this with your constant allegations that God has purpose for us all? Either God has no purpose, or he is imperfect.

Zombrex

Biro wrote: »

Just because we can't imagine it, doesn't mean it can't exist!

Well yes that is my point.

The argument that we can't imagine how God would have created a better universe than this one (which isn't a particularly good argument anyway, because I certainly can) doesn't imply he couldn't have.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Repeating your logical error several times does not, alas, make it valid.

Aye, but it might make it a religion

PDN wrote: »

There is no reason why a perfect Being should not be able, if He chooses, to make an imperfect object.

I'm not at all sure that Plato -- the man who developed much of what would become the later christian ideas of perfection -- would agree with you on that, but your point is largely correct for many meanings of the word "perfect".

But since nobody's defined what "perfect" means to everybody else's satisfaction, it's quite unlikely that any discussion about the implications of their own personal definition of perfection will reach any useful conclusion any time soon.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Aye, but it might make it a religion

Wait a minute, if I learnt anything from the odd troll that pops up here, you'll need deluded followers for that! Wait... it seems you are in luck,though!

:pac:

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

But since nobody's defined what "perfect" means to everybody else's satisfaction, it's quite unlikely that any discussion about the implications of their own personal definition of perfection will reach any useful conclusion any time soon.

Nail on the head to be honest.

I would imagine that Jammy is working of the idea that a perfect being is a being that does perfect things, which isn't a totally outrageous definition of "perfect"

PDN possibly uses the definition that a perfect being is a being that can do perfect things, even if he doesn't. Again not a totally outrageous definition.

While both definitions are largely incompatible with each other I can't really see any way of saying one has the correct definition of perfect in this context.

Dades

Forget perfection for a moment. The bible doesn't specify that perfection was required. Instead we have:

Gen 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good.

The problem is I wouldn't class the our chaotic planet as "very good". More like "could do better". In fact perhaps should do better given omnipotence.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

But since nobody's defined what "perfect" means to everybody else's satisfaction, it's quite unlikely that any discussion about the implications of their own personal definition of perfection will reach any useful conclusion any time soon.

Wicknight wrote: »

Nail on the head to be honest.

I would imagine that Jammy is working of the idea that a perfect being is a being that does perfect things, which isn't a totally outrageous definition of "perfect"

PDN possibly uses the definition that a perfect being is a being that can do perfect things, even if he doesn't. Again not a totally outrageous definition.

While both definitions are largely incompatible with each other I can't really see any way of saying one has the correct definition of perfect in this context.

I'd totally agree with that too. We're just running rings around each other, playing over slightly different interpretations of perfection. I can't see the perfection line of argument going too far.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

The bible doesn't specify that perfection was required.

Well, the OT generally doesn't -- things had moved on by the time the NT showed up.

As above, the idea of deistic perfection, souls and so on, seem to have been imported wholesale from ideascapes like as Plato's Theory of Forms which claimed that the real world we live in is nothing than a shadow of a higher perfection.

This is quite an appealing notion to anybody who believes that this world is inherently banjaxed, and, quite possibly contributed to christianity's evolutionary fitness in the religious memepool.

rockbeer

Wicknight wrote: »

PDN possibly uses the definition that a perfect being is a being that can do perfect things, even if he doesn't. Again not a totally outrageous definition.

I don't know, I still think this definition is problematical. If we cite a being who is perfect in every conceivable way but allow him to do imperfect things then right there, surely, we have defined at least one way in which he is imperfect? If nothing else, he is imperfect in that he doesn't do his best every time he does something.

A totally perfect being would do perfect things all the time. Otherwise it's only potential perfection.

Besides, why would a being capable of perfection fail to achieve it?

I know, I know, time to let it go.

rockbeer

rockbeer wrote: »

I don't know, I still think this definition is problematical. If we cite a being who is perfect in every conceivable way but allow him to do imperfect things then right there, surely, we have defined at least one way in which he is imperfect? If nothing else, he is imperfect in that he doesn't do his best every time he does something.

A totally perfect being would do perfect things all the time. Otherwise it's only potential perfection.

Besides, why would a being capable of perfection fail to achieve it?

I know, I know, time to let it go.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make all along. In doing something imperfect, he's imperfect as he isn't perfect in every possible respect.

But, yah, I think we've argued the perfection debate to the point that it is no more.:pac:

Biro

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That's exactly the point I was trying to make all along. In doing something imperfect, he's imperfect as he isn't perfect in every possible respect.

But, yah, I think we've argued the perfection debate to the point that it is no more.:pac:

With due respect, post 129 that you agreed with should be the final word, but in this post you drag it down again by harping on with your point.
In any case I'm not sure where it's defined that God is absolutely perfect in every way. Infinitly better than humans still isn't perfect!

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Forget perfection for a moment. The bible doesn't specify that perfection was required. Instead we have:

Gen 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good.

The problem is I wouldn't class the our chaotic planet as "very good". More like "could do better". In fact perhaps should do better given omnipotence.

That can be answered in one of two ways.

a) God saw that what He had made was good before his tenant started sticking his fingers in the electrical sockets and pooping on the carpets.

b) The Christian concept of creation is of a process - a process that has not yet been completed. Last night I cooked a Chilli con Carne. My wife came into the kitchen and said, "That looks good!" In fact, at that stage, all I had in the pan was the onion, mushroom, garlic & olive oil. All the other ingredients were still waiting on the worktop. Heck, even the rice was still hard as rock. However, my wife could see that the dish was on target for turning out as a delicious meal (which it was). So, labelling the world as 'good' in Genesis 1 may simply mean that everything was on track and proceeding according to God's purpose.

You seem to be confusing my cryptic reference to natural disasters with one regarding natural resources!

No, I'm not confusing them. I'm pointing out that the same forces that create natural disasters may be the same forces that we can harness for alternative forms of renewable energy. Maybe that was their original purpose, one which we ditched in favour of deforestation (think Easter Island) and the rape of the planet through fossil fuels.

Unless by the above you mean that people should know better than to live near tectonic fault lines, coastal areas, or active volcanoes.

Anyone who knowingly builds a house on top of an active volcano should not blame God when the inevitable happens.

I think it very possible that humanity, as originally created by God (irrespective of the process or timescale involved in that creation) had the abilities to avoid such natural disasters. I have heard that animals often know in advance when a tsunami is coming, or when an earthquake is imminent. Maybe man orginially had this gift.

In one of Pearl Buck's books (I forget which) she describes how the inhabitants of a Japanese town simply climbed up into the hills a few hours before a tsunami because they were warned by animal behaviour. This is an example of people, living in harmony with nature, being able to live in a coastal area while not being killed in a natural geological event that, if we were wiser, could provide more energy than a thousand smoke-belching power stations.

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That's exactly the point I was trying to make all along. In doing something imperfect, he's imperfect as he isn't perfect in every possible respect.

But, yah, I think we've argued the perfection debate to the point that it is no more.:pac:

Call me stubborn if you wish, but I'm going to have one more try at getting this point across.

Let's say that a perfect teacher wants to teach me Pythagoras' theorem. So she draws me a couple of diagrams accompanied by the usual equation and mnemonic devices.

Now, it is not necessary that the diagrams are perfect in the sense that they are the best diagrams ever drawn. Nor is it necessary that the diagrams are drawn on the highest possible quality of paper. Indeed, if analysed under a powerful microscope it may be demonstrated that her diagrams are not drawn at precisely 90 degrees, nor are the lines of the triangle absolutely straight.

Despite all these 'imperfections' the diagram fully serves its purpose. It enables me to understand Pythagoras' theorem.

In fact, it would be OK if the diagram had been roughly scribbled on the back of an envelope, just so long as it fulfills its intended purpose of teaching me the principle.

Now, the teacher has produced something (a diagram) which is imperfect in the sense that it is not the most perfect diagram that could conceivably be drawn. However, that imperfection in the diagram has no logical bearing on whether the teacher is perfect or not.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

No, I'm not confusing them. I'm pointing out that the same forces that create natural disasters may be the same forces that we can harness for alternative forms of renewable energy. Maybe that was their original purpose, one which we ditched in favour of deforestation (think Easter Island) and the rape of the planet through fossil fuels.

People were dying from flash floods and drought long before man-made carbon emissions became an issue.

The planet has always been a hazardous place to live, and the fact we beginning to harness certain natural energies is, imo, a testament to science rather than to a forward-thinking creator.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

In one of Pearl Buck's books (I forget which) she describes how the inhabitants of a Japanese town simply climbed up into the hills a few hours before a tsunami because they were warned by animal behaviour. This is an example of people, living in harmony with nature, being able to live in a coastal area while not being killed in a natural geological event that, if we were wiser, could provide more energy than a thousand smoke-belching power stations.

I assume that's The Big Wave, one of Buck's kids' stories -- I don't believe it's a true account of a real event.

I recall reading somewhere that naturalists went to Aceh to investigate the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami to check out whether or not animals had been able to detect the earthquake or the wave and take some action, but they found no evidence that they had been able to. Animals there died no different to how humans did.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

Call me stubborn if you wish, but I'm going to have one more try at getting this point across.

Accepted. Now let me have one more try at this one...

You claim that god is perfect in every possible way. Correct?

Now, one way in which we can measure perfection is by the standard of his accomplishments. Does he achieve total perfection in everything he sets out to accomplish?

This is a valid measure of perfection. Not the only one, maybe, but an entirely valid one.

You freely admit that god does not do everything to a standard of absolute perfection.

Therefore, he is not perfect in every possible way.

What you're really doing is picking and choosing the ways in which god is perfect.

You're saying "god is perfect in every way except in the sense that he does not achieve total perfection in everything he does".

If he really was perfect in every possible way you would not need to do this.

You are also attempting to apply two definitions of perfect to god simultaneously. On the one hand you claim for him the absolute standard of perfection in every possible way. But when it comes to the standard of his accomplishments you hold him to the different standard of fit for purpose. "Perfectly adequate", as I said before, and which I think you denied at the time.

So which is it?

Is god totally perfect in every possible way? Or is he simply fit for purpose, which is an entirely different thing.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I'm pointing out that the same forces that create natural disasters may be the same forces that we can harness for alternative forms of renewable energy.

Natural disasters release vast amounts of energy, but the engineering challenges of harnessing this power are intractable. How does one extract electricity from an earthquake or a tsunami if you don't know when and where they're going to happen?

There has been a lot of progress with low-temperature-difference energy sources over the last few years, to the extent that it's now economically viable to use them. The environmentally-conscious monks in Glenstal have a reasonably large unit installed which, if memory serves, takes heat at around 8 degrees from a small lake and dumps it back at around 4 degrees, consuming around 75kW, and generating around 200kW for use within the monastery. You can get smaller units for residential use which use similarly small temperature gradients.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

People were dying from flash floods and drought long before man-made carbon emissions became an issue.

The planet has always been a hazardous place to live, and the fact we beginning to harness certain natural energies is, imo, a testament to science rather than to a forward-thinking creator.

OK, I'm thinking you've completely misread my post. Nowhere did I suggest that flash floods or drought are caused by man-made carbon emissions (although, thinking about it now, some of them probably are).

My point was that the things that you see as 'bad' because they are dangers may in fact have been, in the original order of things, 'good' because they provided potential sources of energy. However, man, by disobeying the maker's instructions, has turned these sources of good into 'natural disasters'.

I do not buy into Wicknight's idea of a possible perfect world where we are treated as total morons who need to be protected from ourselves by ensuring that our disobedience never produces any negative consequences - in effect a luxury padded cell, or a namby pamby state magnified to an infinite degree. I think a better world is one where I am treated like a rational moral creature who can make free choices and, if I make the wrong choices, deal with the resulting negative consequences. That, in my view, differentiates freedom from being a pampered pet.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

Accepted. Now let me have one more try at this one...

You claim that god is perfect in every possible way. Correct?

Now, one way in which we can measure perfection is by the standard of his accomplishments. Does he achieve total perfection in everything he sets out to accomplish?

This is a valid measure of perfection. Not the only one, maybe, but an entirely valid one.

You freely admit that god does not do everything to a standard of absolute perfection.

Therefore, he is not perfect in every possible way.

What you're really doing is picking and choosing the ways in which god is perfect.

You're saying "god is perfect in every way except in the sense that he does not achieve total perfection in everything he does".

If he really was perfect in every possible way you would not need to do this.

You are also attempting to apply two definitions of perfect to god simultaneously. On the one hand you claim for him the absolute standard of perfection in every possible way. But when it comes to the standard of his accomplishments you hold him to the different standard of fit for purpose. "Perfectly adequate", as I said before, and which I think you denied at the time.

So which is it?

Is god totally perfect in every possible way? Or is he simply fit for purpose, which is an entirely different thing.

You are confusing two things, by once again taking the same leap of logic. I absolutely deny that God is merely 'perfectly adequate' - but there is no reason at all why a perfect God cannot create things that are perfectly adequate to perfectly achieve His intended purpose.

Let's go back to our perfect teacher and her scribbled diagram. I think it is wrong to say that the teacher, by producing a diagram that is less than perfect (in the sense that we can conceive of a more refined diagram) has therefore failed to achieve perfection in all that she does.

She wanted to draw a diagram that would communicate a concept to her student. She achieved that perfectly because I, as her student, now understand Pythagoras' Theorem.

I see no philiosophical or logical reason why a perfect God cannot create less-than-perfect objects providing that they perfectly serve the purpose for which they were intended. Nothing you have posted comes close to demonstrating otherwise.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

Nothing you have posted comes close to demonstrating otherwise.

yes it does, it demonstrates quite clearly that he is not perfect in every conceivable way.

I leave it to the forum to decide.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Natural disasters release vast amounts of energy, but the engineering challenges of harnessing this power are intractable. How does one extract electricity from an earthquake or a tsunami if you don't know when and where they're going to happen?

I think you've just jumped out of the discussion and are attempting to start a different one on totally different premises.

We are discussing this within the context of a philosophical argument that questions how God can be both benevolent and omnipotent. Therefore it is pointless to start calling something 'intractable' merely because it is beyond the baby steps that humanity has so far taken in respect to science.

I see no reason why man, in his original state where he talked to God face-to-face on a daily basis, could not know exactly where these events were going to happen and how to harness them. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that, before the Fall, what we now think of as 'evil' natural disasters were in fact 'good' features of the earth designed to enhance human existence.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

yes it does, it demonstrates quite clearly that he is not perfect in every conceivable way.

I leave it to the forum to decide.

Which is a bit like those BBC debates where the Labour and Conservative MPs spout their respective viewpoints and old Dimbleby says, 'We'll let the audience make up their own mind'. Then the Labour supporters make up their mind to agree with the Labour MP, and the Conservative supporters make up their mind to agree with the Conservative MP, irrespective of the strengths or weaknesses of either position.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that, before the Fall, what we now think of as 'evil' natural disasters were in fact 'good' features of the earth designed to enhance human existence.

I'm completely failing to see how earthquakes or tsunamis could possibly enhance human existence. Unless we're talking about our ancestors X years from now whose technology both protects and harnesses the powers for us.

Not much comfort for the millions of historic victims to date. I doubt they saw it as a design feature!

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

Which is a bit like those BBC debates where the Labour and Conservative MPs spout their respective viewpoints and old Dimbleby says, 'We'll let the audience make up their own mind'. Then the Labour supporters make up their mind to agree with the Labour MP, and the Conservative supporters make up their mind to agree with the Conservative MP, irrespective of the strengths or weaknesses of either position.

Yes, and the neutrals are usually left shaking their heads in despair

PDN

Dades wrote: »

I'm completely failing to see how earthquakes or tsunamis could possibly enhance human existence. Unless we're talking about our ancestors X years from now whose technology both protects and harnesses the powers for us.

Not much comfort for the millions of historic victims to date. I doubt they saw it as a design feature!

Yes, but you are looking at the house after the first few sets up tenants have ripped out all the electrical fittings and left exposed wires hanging out of the walls to electrocute the unwary.

If makind had, from the beginning, followed God's instructions then I see no reason why these sources of energy could not have been utilised fairly quickly and contributed to our living in the best of all possible worlds.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I do not buy into Wicknight's idea of a possible perfect world where we are treated as total morons who need to be protected from ourselves by ensuring that our disobedience never produces any negative consequences - in effect a luxury padded cell, or a namby pamby state magnified to an infinite degree.

Well that is hardly surprising since I never suggested such a ridiculous idea :rolleyes:

I've already explained why your idea of a padded cell is not an example of a perfect building, nor would a "padded universe" be an example of a perfect universe.

You have consistently missed the point on this and it is hard to avoid the feeling you are doing this on purpose because you don't have a response to what people are actually saying.

The idea that something is a perfect design if you incorporate imperfect design and then fix this with something else (imperfect hard walls fixed with padding) which is equally imperfect is nonsense. You are looking at how someone would fix the current universe, ignoring the fact that God wouldn't need to, he was there at the start.

All you are doing here is setting up a straw man that you can easily dismiss.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yes, but you are looking at the house after the first few sets up tenants have ripped out all the electrical fittings and left exposed wires hanging out of the walls to electrocute the unwary.

If makind had, from the beginning, followed God's instructions then I see no reason why these sources of energy could not have been utilised fairly quickly and contributed to our living in the best of all possible worlds.

Given that mankind has been around for about 500,000 years, suffering at the foot of mother nature, and God's "instructions" materialised about 4,000 years ago, and then only to a select few, it is hard to see how we could have been utilizing these energy sources from the beginning by following God's instructions.

There is also the fact that God never told us how to do this (the Bible is not a science book)