God as an Imperfect Creator

[Queeb Salaron]

The universe simply is. It is neither perfect nor imperfect. Religious institutions are the only ones who try to convince people that there is such a thing as a "paradise" where everything is better.

This universe contains the elements to make it either a heaven, a purgatory, a limbo or a hell for people, it´s up to us to decide what we want to make of it.

No shit. You're fucking kidding me. I had absolutely no idea -- me posting on a sci-fi board and all -- that religious-minded people were trying to ignore science and try to pass off their ridiculous antiquated mantras as truth.

Seriously, I hope that post was a joke. Read the OP. We're taking a Christian premise and moving forward from THAT point. Thanks for trying.

[sketerpot]

This isn't making any sense. All that is what I would call senseless bad luck, and it's exactly what you would expect to see from pure chance. Your rationalization for God's behavior, for someone who doesn't already believe it, is no more plausible than Chef's rationalization:

Missed my point. You claim that if the world is imperfect God must be imperfect. I was stating that the world is imperfect so we can grow, become better people etc. So maybe the perfect world for us to become the best we can become is a world inwhich things do not always work out as we hope.

Okay, so your theory is unfalsifiable. In that case, it all comes down to faith. See below.

Both of these claim that things which could be explained by random chance are due to God's motives, and both of these can be supported by parts of the Bible.

However I'm arguing against your claim that god is imperfect due to a crummy world. What I'm claiming is that crummy world don't mean crummy god.

I'd call God incompetent if He created a world with so many problems in it that He regularly gets pissed off at its inhabitants. But you could bring out the "world is imperfect so we can grow" argument again. We're back to unfalsifiablity, and the whole thing being based on faith. See below.

So here are two interpretations of the part in Exodus that I cited:

1. God is perfect and the Bible is in error in places which imply otherwise, for one of the reasons you cite below.
2. God is imperfect and the Bible is in error in other places.

Which do you choose, and why?

I choose door number 1.

If you must ask reasons then you didn't read where I argued against a perfect bible.

Did you notice that both of those choices had the Bible being wrong in some places? If you accept that the Bible is fallible, either #1 or #2 could be correct. However, you chose the one that you already believe and didn't give a reason for it. Again, pure faith. Again, see below.

Just as a note I'm mormon. I believe in current revelation from god and that the bible isn't the only testament of Jesus etc. Thusly, the bible's errors can be determined by the more up to date works by prophets. I've never understood why people think the bible is the say all...

Perhaps because they don't accept the validity of your more up-to-date prophets any more than you accept the validity of Norse legends. And, really, why should they? It all comes down to faith, and they don't share your faith in later holy texts. Can you give them any reason to change that which will be plausible if they don't already believe it?

We've come to dragon-in-my-garage unfalsifiability. The Bible says that God is imperfect, so you say that the Bible is wrong in those places. The Bible implies God's imperfection in other places, so you argue divine semantics by proposing alternate definitions of perfection. I say that the Bible can be interpreted in two equally well supported ways, and you assert that it's #1 without giving a good reason for it. You bring out the mormon stuff, which can't be proven to be from God---but also can't be proven to not be from God. And you clearly don't seem to think that Occam's Razor applies here.

Therefore, a debate on this will get nowhere. So, unless you want to continue debating the things above, I'll stop. The stuff below, however, deserves comment:

Unfortuneatly for you the bible is not science, it is a religous history.

Here's the lead-in to complete rejection of the scientific method in this area....

A better analogy would be if you know that a eye witness is 50% accurate, do you discredit everything he says since you can't determine what is accurate or what is not? Most people say no. You get other eye witnesses and compare their stories to get a more complete and accurate picture. The bible is a recording of observations by eye witnesses most of the time. The best method is to find other eye witnesses. Hence my belief in other religious texts.

Do you believe in the Vedas? How about stories about Odin and Thor and giants and trolls? Quetzalcoatl? Mithraism? Or are those "eyewitness" accounts somehow less valid than the ones you were raised to believe in?

And where did you get the figure for ~50% accuracy in the Bible? Do you extend this generous credulity to the more recent, and presumably less distorted, Koran?

[VT-16]

Seriously, I hope that post was a joke. Read the OP. We're taking a Christian premise and moving forward from THAT point. Thanks for trying.

You´re not taking the Christian point of view in your OP, rather a different interpretation of God that go against some of the Christian mantras. I fail to see how this can turn into an interesting debate, if all we´re going to do is talk about pros and cons of different interpretations of the same unprovable being.

[Queeb Salaron]

You´re not taking the Christian point of view in your OP, rather a different interpretation of God that go against some of the Christian mantras.

Lemme break this down for you:

1) God created earth.
2) God is a perfect entity.
3) God is a loving entity.

Both of these are Christian premesis. We move forward:

4) According to Genesis, man (God's creation) was created in a state of evil (nudity).
5) God's living creations were not provided for. They had to figure out how to survive on their own. Therefore, either:

6) God did not create the earth,
7) God is imperfect, or
God is not loving.

(Points 6, 7, and 8 were not drawn in the OP, but are rather the logical conclusions drawn from evidence presented in the OP)

Other points:

1) Man is God's creation.
2) God is present in quotedienne life.
3) Man has the ability to create.

The first point is universally Christian, the second is a bit debated among Christians, but holds true for the majority. The third, obviously, is objective fact.

4) Man's ability to create was given to him by God (Adam and Eve had the ability to conceptualize and create clothing, for example).
5) Q: Does God - an entity present in our daily lives - have a hand in man's creative processes?
5a) A: If so, he is responsible for our highest achievements and our greatest crimes against humanity, from Ghandi to Hitler.
5b) A: If not, God had no hand in inspiring Holy literature, namely the bible, as revelation and divine inspiration are impossible.
5c) A: If God is only responsible for some of man's creations, is it possible to determine which are of God and which are of man, and if so, haven't the tools that God has given us evolved into tools of evil?

I fail to see how this can turn into an interesting debate, if all we´re going to do is talk about pros and cons of different interpretations of the same unprovable being.

I find it all very interesting.

[Terr Fangbite]

Ok a couple of points.

1)Yes, god is all about faith. Maybe one day he will do something proving his existence. Maybe not. No where have I asserted that god exists due to science.
2)The strife=growth has been proven. Children develop from interaction and conflict. Think of how much some people get from these debates. I doubt you can be in this forum (primarily debate from where I visit in it) and not come out with something. Also, would you learn etc if everything was just given to you. If you were a rich snob who for life was set to live in luxary, would you bother getting a job, or learning how to make a living? Also, technology most improves in areas lacking in "perfection". Why bother getting better farming etc when all you have to do to survive is pluck a fruit from a tree each day.
3)For the choices you gave me, i chose the first one because the bible isn't perfect. That or I missed your point.
4)I was stating its confusing people believe the bible to be true when its full of holes without taking into concideration all the stuff mormons get. Sheez just look at this forum. I could probably find dozens in here who could tear the bible appart far better than I can. Thats why its not the do all say all that most Christians foolishly believe.
5)The 50 % accuracy was refering to EYE WITNESSES, not the bible. I don't know how much the bible is accurate, and doubt I'll ever know. Anyway I think I overestimated eye witness accounts anyway with that shot in the dark.


However you are right in how our debate is getting nowhere. Neither of us will definately prove the other wrong in our own minds. Nothing you can say will make me doubt my faith and none your faith. Thusly having said what I wanted to (i.e. god is not imperfect because the world is imperfect) I'll back out.

[Darth RyanKCR]

You´re not taking the Christian point of view in your OP, rather a different interpretation of God that go against some of the Christian mantras.

Lemme break this down for you:

1) God created earth.
2) God is a perfect entity.
3) God is a loving entity.

Both of these are Christian premesis. We move forward:

4) According to Genesis, man (God's creation) was created in a state of evil (nudity).

Incorrect. Man was created in a state of perfection. When sin entered then everything became corrupt. When man decided for himself to be like God and know good and evil what he learned was that he already knew good and now he knew what evil was by experiencing it. God knew what evil was the same way a doctor knows what AIDS is and man learned what evil is the same way an AIDS patient knows what AIDS is.

Clothing is symbolic of covering our shame because of our sin

5) God's living creations were not provided for. They had to figure out how to survive on their own. Therefore, either:

All of creation was provided for. It was called Eden

[General Zod]

Incorrect. Man was created in a state of perfection. When sin entered then everything became corrupt. When man decided for himself to be like God and know good and evil what he learned was that he already knew good and now he knew what evil was by experiencing it. God knew what evil was the same way a doctor knows what AIDS is and man learned what evil is the same way an AIDS patient knows what AIDS is.

if man was created in a state of perfection then how is it he fucked things up in the first place?

[Slartibartfast]

Incorrect. Man was created in a state of perfection. When sin entered then everything became corrupt. When man decided for himself to be like God and know good and evil what he learned was that he already knew good and now he knew what evil was by experiencing it. God knew what evil was the same way a doctor knows what AIDS is and man learned what evil is the same way an AIDS patient knows what AIDS is.

if man was created in a state of perfection then how is it he fucked things up in the first place?

That's right, if Man was perfect before eating the fruit or whatever, he would have never eaten the fruit, unless it was the right and "perfect" thing to do.

[sketerpot]

That's right, if Man was perfect before eating the fruit or whatever, he would have never eaten the fruit, unless it was the right and "perfect" thing to do.

I agree, and here's an analogy:

If I throw a brick at you, is it "safe" until it hits you? No, it's not. It's not hitting you while it's flying toward you, but at any time during its flight it has characteristics (mass, velocity) which will cause it to hit you.

Likewise, Adam and Eve clearly were not "perfect" if they had characteristics (like curiousity) which would cause them to sin.

[Darth Wong]

Incorrect. Man was created in a state of perfection.

What did this perfect man look like? Why aren't there any fossils of him? What sort of DNA structure could have produced perfect man?

When sin entered then everything became corrupt.

How is sin a heritable trait? Please explain your theory of characteristic propagation that permits a single act to alter the DNA structure of a living organism.

[Darth RyanKCR]

Incorrect. Man was created in a state of perfection. When sin entered then everything became corrupt. When man decided for himself to be like God and know good and evil what he learned was that he already knew good and now he knew what evil was by experiencing it. God knew what evil was the same way a doctor knows what AIDS is and man learned what evil is the same way an AIDS patient knows what AIDS is.

if man was created in a state of perfection then how is it he fucked things up in the first place?

That's right, if Man was perfect before eating the fruit or whatever, he would have never eaten the fruit, unless it was the right and "perfect" thing to do.

And this is the crux of the whole thing. God could have prevent or created us in such a way as to keep us mindless robots but He wanted free will beings to choose Him. I don't know all the inner secrets of it all. I just know that things are allowed to happen for a reason. Like when the disciples asked what the blind man or his parents sin was that he was born blind but Christ answered that it was not sin that directly led to his blindness but that the Glory of God could be shown. Perhaps that fact that Creation was so messed up yet God could redeem it when no one else could is possible reason for it.

Also how is sin inhearted in response to Mike's question. Not everything that happens has a physical explaination to it. Mike, explain the biological process that creates the love you have for your wife and children. Give me the physical, scientific proof of this love. You can't be tied down to material physical things. There is a greater world to be explored. Science and physicality is a great beginning but it is just a beginning.

[Rye]

Affection neurotransmitters are well established, as is the chemical basis for all emotion.

[Darth Wong]

Also how is sin inhearted in response to Mike's question. Not everything that happens has a physical explaination to it. Mike, explain the biological process that creates the love you have for your wife and children. Give me the physical, scientific proof of this love.

Love does not cause genetic changes. You are claiming that sin does. Therefore, this rebuttal has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my question, and is nothing more than the usual evasive Bible-thumper bullshit.

Once again: justify your claim that sin causes heritable genetic damage, and explain the total lack of evidence or even theoretical support for your assertion that the human genetic structure was ever capable of producing a perfect ageless being.

You can't be tied down to material physical things.

Actually, my genetic structure can most certainly be shown to be inherited physically from my parents. I did not, however, genetically inherit their actions in life.

There is a greater world to be explored. Science and physicality is a great beginning but it is just a beginning.

You honestly don't understand that you're not supposed to state beliefs and facts interchangeably, do you?

[Queeb Salaron]

Incorrect. Man was created in a state of perfection. When sin entered then everything became corrupt. When man decided for himself to be like God and know good and evil what he learned was that he already knew good and now he knew what evil was by experiencing it. God knew what evil was the same way a doctor knows what AIDS is and man learned what evil is the same way an AIDS patient knows what AIDS is.

Again, I'd try harder to follow your point, but I'm feeling the overpowering desire to redpencil the fuck out of it. Speak English.

To address the point, if there is one, just because man experienced evil after eating the fruit doesn't mean that evil didn't exist beforehand. In fact, "sin" was not a creation of Adam and/or Eve, and had little to do with the fruit. The first sinner was the snake, who tempted Eve (and, assumedly, ate the fruit).

Clothing is symbolic of covering our shame because of our sin

First of all, I didn't eat the fruit, ergo WE didn't cover up anything. But the absurdity of the concept of original sin is a topic for another debate.

And what authority, exactly, definitively determines the meaning behind biblical symbols? Barring a highly individualized interpretation, I don't remember clothing being symbolic of anything. Is the only reason we wear clothing today because of the symbolism? Of course not. It's because we identify nudity with sex, and sex is -- generally speaking from a Christian point of view -- inherently evil out of wedlock. Ergo nakedness is evil, or some approximation of evil. Ergo man was created in a state of evil.

All of creation was provided for. It was called Eden

This, at least, is a half-valid point. But man still had to eat in Eden. He still had to find food. A perfect creation would be completely self-sustaining. Also, a perfect creation would have been built to resist temptation. Also, a perfect world would have been created without the concept of temptation. The absence of these traits hints at (though I recognize it does not prove the theory of) an imperfect creator. Read the rest of the post for proof.

[General Zod]

And this is the crux of the whole thing. God could have prevent or created us in such a way as to keep us mindless robots but He wanted free will beings to choose Him. I don't know all the inner secrets of it all. I just know that things are allowed to happen for a reason. Like when the disciples asked what the blind man or his parents sin was that he was born blind but Christ answered that it was not sin that directly led to his blindness but that the Glory of God could be shown. Perhaps that fact that Creation was so messed up yet God could redeem it when no one else could is possible reason for it.

except if god created things to be perfect he wouldn't stamp his feet like a child and cause all sorts of plagues when people didn't do what he wanted.
like, you know, the egyptians and slaughtering all their firstborn. including the newborns that didn't do a thing. a creator who needs his ego constantly stroked and told how great he is doesn't strike me as being very perfect imo.

Also how is sin inhearted in response to Mike's question. Not everything that happens has a physical explaination to it. Mike, explain the biological process that creates the love you have for your wife and children. Give me the physical, scientific proof of this love. You can't be tied down to material physical things. There is a greater world to be explored. Science and physicality is a great beginning but it is just a
beginning.

"love" is a simple chemical reaction in the body, which likewise can be duplicated by eating copious amounts of chocolate.

[Queeb Salaron]

And this is the crux of the whole thing. God could have prevent or created us in such a way as to keep us mindless robots but He wanted free will beings to choose Him.

First of all, the phrase "free will beings" encompasses any number of creatures, and I don't see fauna falling to their knees to worship.

That's all well and good. But the angels were given free will, and they are (in theory) FAR more perfect than man is. If God can create angels, why create man at all? Or is man just a failed attempt (beta version) of the angel? Man is certainly a lesser creature, as his will is imperfect whereas the will of the angels is (more often than not) the will of God. The amazing part is that angels choose to follow the will of God of their own free will. And if the stories of angels are true as Christians claim, specifically the stories about Lucifer and the fallen angels, even the angels in Heaven aren't free from temptation. Therefore not only has God failed to create a world in which man is safe, he has failed to create a safe haven for him after death.

I don't know all the inner secrets of it all. I just know that things are allowed to happen for a reason. Like when the disciples asked what the blind man or his parents sin was that he was born blind but Christ answered that it was not sin that directly led to his blindness but that the Glory of God could be shown.

Again, there's a point in here somewhere, I'm sure. And again, if it were written in coherent English, I might be able to more clearly ascertain what that point was.

If you're going off on a deterministic rant, save it. That tree's been barked up, cut down, and hacked to bits on this board.

Perhaps that fact that Creation was so messed up yet God could redeem it when no one else could is possible reason for it.

No one else could redeem Creation? Who else was around? It wasn't like anyone else tried. Seriously, did you actually read Genesis, or did you just sparknote it?

Also how is sin inhearted in response to Mike's question. Not everything that happens has a physical explaination to it. Mike, explain the biological process that creates the love you have for your wife and children. Give me the physical, scientific proof of this love. You can't be tied down to material physical things. There is a greater world to be explored. Science and physicality is a great beginning but it is just a beginning.

I'm no scientist, but happiness is often measured in terms of endorphine levels on a biological scale. Anthropologists observe and predict the courting habits of males and females in certain cultures. Sociologists explore the social ramifications of love and affection. Naturalists observe, record, and analyze emotions such as love on a regular basis. Psychologists study the brain's reaction to emotional, romantic stimuli. Archaeologists study the evidence of romantic relationships in ancient cultures. Historians study the recorded history of love. There are oceans of evidence -- such that even Moses couldn't part -- that prove love exists, each of them objectively and scientifically.

You want proof that love exists? Check Hallmark's quarterly financial reports.

Funny that for all of our studying of love, we have no shred of evidence that says that God is love, nor that God even exists.

Funny that.

[VT-16]

Perhaps that fact that Creation was so messed up yet God could redeem it when no one else could is possible reason for it.

If Creation was messed up to begin with, then the Creator was certainly not a perfect being. If no physical change occured when Sin entered the world, then Man was made with sexual reproduction organs. Why was this, if there were only supposed to be two people?

Science and physicality is a great beginning but it is just a beginning.

So far they are the beginning and the end, thoughts and emotions included.

[General Zod]

Perhaps that fact that Creation was so messed up yet God could redeem it when no one else could is possible reason for it.

If Creation was messed up to begin with, then the Creator was certainly not a perfect being. If no physical change occured when Sin entered the world, then Man was made with sexual reproduction organs. Why was this, if there were only supposed to be two people?

if that were by some small chance the case then that wouldn't make God the creator anymore, would it? more akin to a janitor that decided to fix things up a bit.

[Darth RyanKCR]

I did not say or mean to imply that the act directly caused a physical change in the genetic structure but that the Spiritual act of disobedience caused a Spiritual change that caused a physical change to the whole universe and that is implied in Scripture. There is a verse and I don't remember where that mentions that the whole of creation is groaning (read disasters, third law of thermodynamics, etc) Remember this thread was started to understand from within a Christian perspection (unless I misunderstood and if so I apologize) and I was just correcting some of the premises that were mentioned.

[SirNitram]

I did not say or mean to imply that the act directly caused a physical change in the genetic structure but that the Spiritual act of disobedience caused a Spiritual change that caused a physical change to the whole universe and that is implied in Scripture. There is a verse and I don't remember where that mentions that the whole of creation is groaning (read disasters, third law of thermodynamics, etc) Remember this thread was started to understand from within a Christian perspection (unless I misunderstood and if so I apologize) and I was just correcting some of the premises that were mentioned.

No such line exists. Creation does not react in any means; there are just guards posted at Eden's entrance.

[Darth RyanKCR]

I did not say or mean to imply that the act directly caused a physical change in the genetic structure but that the Spiritual act of disobedience caused a Spiritual change that caused a physical change to the whole universe and that is implied in Scripture. There is a verse and I don't remember where that mentions that the whole of creation is groaning (read disasters, third law of thermodynamics, etc) Remember this thread was started to understand from within a Christian perspection (unless I misunderstood and if so I apologize) and I was just correcting some of the premises that were mentioned.

No such line exists. Creation does not react in any means; there are just guards posted at Eden's entrance.

Actually it does: Romans 8:22 - For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

It goes on to state that we are waiting for the full redemption that will occur. Which is when the new Heave and new Earth weill be established where there will be no suffering etc. I can't wait. Having my defib go off twice and then try to coordinate 2 doctors is going to cause it to go off again.

[Darth Wong]

I did not say or mean to imply that the act directly caused a physical change in the genetic structure but that the Spiritual act of disobedience caused a Spiritual change that caused a physical change to the whole universe and that is implied in Scripture.

Did you take a special training course in evasive behaviour? All you've done is take "an act of sin caused a physical change" and rephrase it as "an act of sin caused a spiritual change which caused a physical change", which is basically the same proposition and which begs the same question: HOW?

What structure did the universe have before, in which a perfect Man was possible? At what point does the Bible explain how the structure of Man changed? What did it look like before? Why does it make no mention of such structural changes? And precisely how does a spiritual change cause a structural change?

There is a verse and I don't remember where that mentions that the whole of creation is groaning (read disasters, third law of thermodynamics, etc) Remember this thread was started to understand from within a Christian perspection (unless I misunderstood and if so I apologize) and I was just correcting some of the premises that were mentioned.

The thread was started to explore the question of whether the concept of God as a perfect creator makes any sense based on the descriptions in the Bible, not as a forum for mindless regurgitation of Christian dogma while refusing to seriously entertain the question of whether there could be any logical problems in it.

[Gil Hamilton]

And this is the crux of the whole thing. God could have prevent or created us in such a way as to keep us mindless robots but He wanted free will beings to choose Him. I don't know all the inner secrets of it all. I just know that things are allowed to happen for a reason. Like when the disciples asked what the blind man or his parents sin was that he was born blind but Christ answered that it was not sin that directly led to his blindness but that the Glory of God could be shown. Perhaps that fact that Creation was so messed up yet God could redeem it when no one else could is possible reason for it.

That's the sticky wicket, isn't it? Perfection and free will are contradictory. A person who is perfect not only doesn't make any errors or mistakes, but is also incapable of making mistakes, even by personal choice. That denies free will, since free will means you've got the option to make your own path, even if it's imperfect. Free will and perfection are just as contradictory as free will and all-knowing beings. You are contradicting yourself by saying that mankind was created perfect but still had free will.

Besides, why bother making creation messed up just to fix it in the end on purpose? That doesn't seem like a loving, perfect god but the work of either a fuck-up or someone that is fucked up in the head. Why bother, when you could make it right in the first place?

[Darth RyanKCR]

I did not say or mean to imply that the act directly caused a physical change in the genetic structure but that the Spiritual act of disobedience caused a Spiritual change that caused a physical change to the whole universe and that is implied in Scripture.

Did you take a special training course in evasive behaviour? All you've done is take "an act of sin caused a physical change" and rephrase it as "an act of sin caused a spiritual change which caused a physical change", which is basically the same proposition and which begs the same question: HOW?

What structure did the universe have before, in which a perfect Man was possible? At what point does the Bible explain how the structure of Man changed? What did it look like before? Why does it make no mention of such structural changes? And precisely how does a spiritual change cause a structural change?

There is a verse and I don't remember where that mentions that the whole of creation is groaning (read disasters, third law of thermodynamics, etc) Remember this thread was started to understand from within a Christian perspection (unless I misunderstood and if so I apologize) and I was just correcting some of the premises that were mentioned.

The thread was started to explore the question of whether the concept of God as a perfect creator makes any sense based on the descriptions in the Bible, not as a forum for mindless regurgitation of Christian dogma while refusing to seriously entertain the question of whether there could be any logical problems in it.

How does a spiritual change cause a physical change? You want a physical answer only and the answer is more metaphysical which you just discount and won't except. Also how can God create an imperfect world? Well I said he didn't it was corrupted later. My question to you is: If there is no God, no outside objective standard to compare to what makes you say that this world is imperfect? By your interpretation of the facts of the universe it is running as it should? What gave you the idea that there was something wrong?

[General Zod]

How does a spiritual change cause a physical change? You want a physical answer only and the answer is more metaphysical which you just discount and won't except. Also how can God create an imperfect world? Well I said he didn't it was corrupted later. My question to you is: If there is no God, no outside objective standard to compare to what makes you say that this world is imperfect? By your interpretation of the facts of the universe it is running as it should? What gave you the idea that there was something wrong?

are you going by biblical literalism or not here? even the fucking bible states that humanity is no longer perfect, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it's not. though i'm not seeing much of a point at your end. you were getting to one, right?

[/b]