Creationists: How does creation explain the existence of parasites?

[AV1611VET]

Because creationists continually intrude on the domain of science.

Actually it's the opposite, in my opinion.

Creationists can fight scientists back to their territory, but then they go too far and intrude on to their turf and get what they deserve: pwned.

This, not so much. This doesn't do anyone any good, honestly. At best all you're advocating is scientific illiteracy which comes with its own bundle of consequences (as the pandemic has nicely illustrated via COVID-denial, anti-vaxx, etc).

And I will never accept this as a valid comeback to my SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE mantra, as I advocate science doing what it should be doing: God's will.

What creationists really need to do is reframe their beliefs so they don't feel the need to tell science to "take a hike" in the first place.

I disagree.

I think the Bible itself tells science to take a hike often (by way of documenting miracles).

Science isn't going anywhere.

It shouldn't.

God created science to make our lives better, find His "Easter eggs" buried in His creation at the right time (like oil), and keep us keeping on for Him.

 

[Job 33:6]

Something has to give tho.
Either:
1. Good is not intelligible to humans
2. God is not perfectly good.

I'm fine with the idea that God knowingly made a world of brutal suffering. But if that is good, then the meaning of "good" is extremely strained and perhaps even breaks. Perhaps there's divine good and then a different human good. Same problem tho. We use human words with human meanings.

Also, your normal human incapacity to imagine a world without suffering does not indicate to me that such a world must be impossible. It could simply be the failure of imagination that we should expect given that we're totally embedded in the world we've got.

I think there's a difference between good in the sense of righteousness and good in the sense of butterflies and flowers without any suffering.

A police officer could break someone's arm and someone could say that this scenario was not good because the individual suffered when they had their arm broken, but someone else could look at it and say that it is good depending on who's getting their arm broken.

I think it's strange to attribute the human perception of "good" to a divine entity. It's easy to say that Jesus is good if he feeds a poor person. But it's a bit different to say that the father is good, when the father is more infinite and less tangible.

You mentioned that the word good might break in this sense. Regardless of what you call it I think that this is the case.

A lot of pain in this world comes with things like survival of the fittest, or pain that promotes growth or development in some fashion in individuals or over generations of time.

Someone could say that it is not good for a lion to eat a zebra, the zebra suffers in pain. And yet the mechanism that produced this result is part of what a lot of people would consider a beautiful planet of diversity.

Without struggle there is no change or without change, there is no struggle, and without change there is no diversity or beauty or variation. People wouldn't even have the choice to decide to worship God or not worship God in a world without pain and suffering.

For your second paragraph, I think that It may be an assumption that there could be a perfect world without suffering. You call it my human incapacity to imagine such a thing. But I would say that it's simply a logical conclusion.

Then I gave a couple examples above, but imagine that you have a slice of pizza, unless you have infinite knowledge, that pizza will not always meet or match your expectation of what it will taste like. With a failed expectation, there is suffering. And so unless I have infinite knowledge and awareness, I will suffer.

If we consider all the attributes of God, if creation lacks any of those, creation by default will have sin and will be broken, or broken at least as we see it. But not necessarily unjustified.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No ... God gave choice ..... to sin or not to sin .... all choose either life or death. God told Adam & Eve IF they ate of the tree they would surely die .... THEY made the choice .... not God.

And ... please refrain from putting words into my mouth ... in an attempt to justify YOUR thinking ... thank you

Sorry, but you don't get to change argument at this stage. I said God brought death to the world, you said sin brought death. Your words in the post I am responding to confirm what I said - God put death into the world as a consequence of a choice. Death was already there, ready to be imposed.

It's not my fault you contradict yourself, so perhaps you need to look to your own claims rather than pointing fingers at others.

 

[durangodawood]

...I think it's strange to attribute the human perception of "good" to a divine entity. It's easy to say that Jesus is good if he feeds a poor person. But it's a bit different to say that the father is good, when the father is more infinite and less tangible.....

I completely agree with that. Its exactly why theology always breaks down into nonsense. First of all, "good" is carrying to much weight, having a variety of implications. And second, the divine is proposed to be someone ineffable, impossible to definitively pin down with human terms.

 

[pitabread]

Creationists can fight scientists back to their territory, but then they go too far and intrude on to their turf and get what they deserve: pwned.

Science's "turf" is simply studying the natural universe. Creationists get upset when science comes up with conclusions that contradict creationist beliefs and then demand science back off.

Tough cookies. Conclusions in science aren't going to change simply because some theocrats have twisted their Biblical knickers in a knot.

I think the Bible itself tells science to take a hike often (by way of documenting miracles).

You could say the same thing about all sorts of human story telling. Ever see a superhero movie? Pretty sure a lot of things in those defy science as well.

None of that changes the domain of science (investigating the natural universe) or the conclusions it derives thereof.

All this "science can take a hike" stuff just comes across as petulant whining.

 

[Job 33:6]

I completely agree with that. Its exactly why theology always breaks down into nonsense. First of all, "good" is carrying to much weight, having a variety of implications. And second, the divine is proposed to be someone ineffable, impossible to definitively pin down with human terms.

Maybe that is the point of theology.

You view this concept as something that is an issue to "pin down" as you put it.

Perhaps God is something that cannot be "pinned down".

But that's ultimately why people believe in God.

Because there's something about reality that we can't quite pin down.

We can't pin down the vastness of the universe. To be fair, in many ways we don't control our own lives. We can't control how the wind blows, when we live, when we die.

We really don't even know why we are here talking about this now. As opposed to there being nothing at all that exists.

God I think is this recognition of pure powerlessness in existence. And a feeling that we need to trust in something far greater than ourselves to carry us through. Or a trust in something far greater than ourselves that gives us meaning and purpose.

And I think this is why the father is so often defined as a being that is feared. People who fear God are the ones that God loves. But why is the word feared used?

What we fear is this existence that we have no control over, we can't predict it, we are completely submissive to it. But in that desperation and vulnerability, we trust that there is meaning and reason in it all.

And we attribute the source of this meaning and reason, to God. An incomprehensible source of purpose.

Theology isn't necessarily nonsense, but rather it's a recognition of nonsense that we don't have control over, and a response to it.

Unless someone believes that the universe truly is without meaning or without purpose, The alternative is to believe in God. Granted, God can take many different forms or appears in different perspectives based on religion. But I would say that this is where belief in God stems from.

This kind of all plays into the hands of the anthropic principal as well. We could trust that the universe is without meaning or purpose, and that perhaps it is truly just chance that...say the constants of gravitation are as they are, by some chance that we cannot explain that is simply beyond us. We cannot pin it down.

Or we could attribute this fine probability, to something more than merely luck or chance. Something that holds a source of meaning or purpose that we simply defer to as God.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think there's a difference between good in the sense of righteousness and good in the sense of butterflies and flowers without any suffering.

A police officer could break someone's arm and someone could say that this scenario was not good because the individual suffered when they had their arm broken, but someone else could look at it and say that it is good depending on who's getting their arm broken.

I think it's strange to attribute the human perception of "good" to a divine entity. It's easy to say that Jesus is good if he feeds a poor person. But it's a bit different to say that the father is good, when the father is more infinite and less tangible.

You mentioned that the word good might break in this sense. Regardless of what you call it I think that this is the case.

A lot of pain in this world comes with things like survival of the fittest, or pain that promotes growth or development in some fashion in individuals or over generations of time.

Someone could say that it is not good for a lion to eat a zebra, the zebra suffers in pain. And yet the mechanism that produced this result is part of what a lot of people would consider a beautiful planet of diversity.

Without struggle there is no change or without change, there is no struggle, and without change there is no diversity or beauty or variation. People wouldn't even have the choice to decide to worship God or not worship God in a world without pain and suffering.

For your second paragraph, I think that It may be an assumption that there could be a perfect world without suffering. You call it my human incapacity to imagine such a thing. But I would say that it's simply a logical conclusion.

Then I gave a couple examples above, but imagine that you have a slice of pizza, unless you have infinite knowledge, that pizza will not always meet or match your expectation of what it will taste like. With a failed expectation, there is suffering. And so unless I have infinite knowledge and awareness, I will suffer.

If we consider all the attributes of God, if creation lacks any of those, creation by default will have sin and will be broken, or broken at least as we see it. But not necessarily unjustified.

I feel like this post largely wasn't responded to. 10 paragraphs and I got a response only to one.

 

[durangodawood]

Maybe that is the point of theology.

You view this concept as something that is an issue to "pin down" as you put it.

Perhaps God is something that cannot be "pinned down".

But that's ultimately why people believe in God.

Because there's something about reality that we can't quite pin down.

We can't pin down the vastness of the universe. To be fair, in many ways we don't control our own lives. We can't control how the wind blows, when we live, when we die.

We really don't even know why we are here talking about this now. As opposed to there being nothing at all that exists.

God I think is this recognition of pure powerlessness in existence. And a feeling that we need to trust in something far greater than ourselves to carry us through. Or a trust in something far greater than ourselves that gives us meaning and purpose.

And I think this is why the father is so often defined as a being that is feared. People who fear God are the ones that God loves. But why is the word feared used?

What we fear is this existence that we have no control over, we can't predict it, we are completely submissive to it. But in that desperation and vulnerability, we trust that there is meaning and reason in it all.

And we attribute the source of this meaning and reason, to God. An incomprehensible source of purpose.

Theology isn't necessarily nonsense, but rather it's a recognition of nonsense that we don't have control over, and a response to it.

Unless someone believes that the universe truly is without meaning or without purpose, The alternative is to believe in God. Granted, God can take many different forms or appears in different perspectives based on religion. But I would say that this is where belief in God stems from.

This kind of all plays into the hands of the anthropic principal as well. We could trust that the universe is without meaning or purpose, and that perhaps it is truly just chance that...say the constants of gravitation are as they are, by some chance that we cannot explain that is simply beyond us. We cannot pin it down.

Or we could attribute this fine probability, to something more than merely luck or chance. Something that holds a source of meaning or purpose that we simply defer to as God.

That is really well put. Except somehow I'd given the entirely wrong impression. My sense is that the traditional theology that tries to pin God down with pithy formulations and so called proofs is completely misguided. I'm not a believer. But if there is a God, He's got to be something truly ineffable which perhaps can elect to reach out to us via some relatable emanation, but remains in fullness well beyond the grasp of our conditioned imaginations.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think there's a difference between good in the sense of righteousness and good in the sense of butterflies and flowers without any suffering.

Not clear what you mean. I thought it could be morally good versus nice, but your addition of "without suffering" seemed to mimic the moral version. So I'm confused.

A police officer could break someone's arm and someone could say that this scenario was not good because the individual suffered when they had their arm broken, but someone else could look at it and say that it is good depending on who's getting their arm broken.

I would challenge the second viewpoint. It sounds too much like revenge - not good. However, if the arm was broken to effect the arrest of a dangerous criminal, rather than shooting him dead - good.

I think it's strange to attribute the human perception of "good" to a divine entity. It's easy to say that Jesus is good if he feeds a poor person. But it's a bit different to say that the father is good, when the father is more infinite and less tangible.

If we were made in His image I don't see why our perception of "good" should not be close to that of God.

You mentioned that the word good might break in this sense. Regardless of what you call it I think that this is the case.

Not applicable to me.

A lot of pain in this world comes with things like survival of the fittest, or pain that promotes growth or development in some fashion in individuals or over generations of time.

Yes.

Someone could say that it is not good for a lion to eat a zebra, the zebra suffers in pain. And yet the mechanism that produced this result is part of what a lot of people would consider a beautiful planet of diversity.

And?

Without struggle there is no change or without change, there is no struggle, and without change there is no diversity or beauty or variation. People wouldn't even have the choice to decide to worship God or not worship God in a world without pain and suffering.

You seem to be equivocating sturggle and pain. Struggle can be enriching - No pain. No gain. - Except the pain is really not serious paint, not true pain. I don't see your statements leading to your conclusion.

For your second paragraph, I think that It may be an assumption that there could be a perfect world without suffering. You call it my human incapacity to imagine such a thing. But I would say that it's simply a logical conclusion.

It seems presumptive to consider it a logical conclusion. If it is a logical conclusion you could lay out the logic.

Then I gave a couple examples above, but imagine that you have a slice of pizza, unless you have infinite knowledge, that pizza will not always meet or match your expectation of what it will taste like. With a failed expectation, there is suffering. And so unless I have infinite knowledge and awareness, I will suffer..

And yet with a taste that exceeds expectation there is delight. Also, you seem to be describing an immature individual who suffers when expectation are not realised. A mature individual would recognise that expectations are approximations and would not be trouble by occassional shortfalls.

If we consider all the attributes of God, if creation lacks any of those, creation by default will have sin and will be broken, or broken at least as we see it. But not necessarily unjustified.

Sorry that went over my head, or past my elbow, somewhere, but it didn't engage my neurons.

 

[Job 33:6]

And?

Just trying to get to the bread and butter here but the "and?" Is that the destruction that comes with life, can be part of a greater good, or for a greater purpose. That's all I've been suggesting here.

You seem to be equivocating sturggle and pain. Struggle can be enriching - No pain. No gain. - Except the pain is really not serious paint, not true pain. I don't see your statements leading to your conclusion.

I don't think that this is a false equivocation. I think it's just an observation. Sure sometimes pain can be faint and fleeting and other times it can be gorging and awful. Regardless of the level of pain, I think that this is a necessary reality of creation. And in this, pain drives us toward growth for a greater part of God's plan. An asteroid hit the dinosaurs, such pain is beyond anything fathomable. And yet, here we stand in a better position than perhaps we would otherwise be. Just as someone might experience slight pain while building muscles on a weight bench.

Pain just doesn't necessarily equate to...what I would necessarily call evil, nor is it even necessarily bad.

There's no reason that hypothetically, a "good" or justified God couldn't be behind a creation that encompasses pain. No more couldnt there be a good police officer breaking a man's arms to get the murderer off the street. It doesn't have to be vindictive or vengeful implementation of pain. But rather pain could be a natural product that must exist in creation. Though if people ourselves are vengeful, then we might view this as a person's individual choice and not necessarily Gods.

It seems presumptive to consider it a logical conclusion. If it is a logical conclusion you could lay out the logic.

I could try. I'll see if I can give it a shot with my lay-logic background.

And yet with a taste that exceeds expectation there is delight. Also, you seem to be describing an immature individual who suffers when expectation are not realised. A mature individual would recognise that expectations are approximations and would not be trouble by occassional shortfalls.

So someone would have to be maximally mature, in this sense, I would think. To say that any human being could ever mature to a position in which they might never be disappointed by a surprise that didn't meet their expectation, I think is unrealistic. Unless you have the personality of a rock.

And we can call this immaturity if we want, but I don't think it changes my argument.

 

[Ophiolite]

Just trying to get to the bread and butter here but the "and?" Is that the destruction that comes with life, can be part of a greater good, or for a greater purpose. That's all I've been suggesting here.



I don't think that this is a false equivocation. I think it's just an observation. Sure sometimes pain can be faint and fleeting and other times it can be gorging and awful. Regardless of the level of pain, I think that this is a necessary reality of creation. And in this, pain drives us toward growth for a greater part of God's plan. An asteroid hit the dinosaurs, such pain is beyond anything fathomable. And yet, here we stand in a better position than perhaps we would otherwise be. Just as someone might experience slight pain while building muscles on a weight bench.

Pain just doesn't necessarily equate to...what I would necessarily call evil, nor is it even necessarily bad.

There's no reason that hypothetically, a "good" or justified God couldn't be behind a creation that encompasses pain. No more couldnt there be a good police officer breaking a man's arms to get the murderer off the street. It doesn't have to be vindictive or vengeful implementation of pain. But rather pain could be a natural product that must exist in creation. Though if people ourselves are vengeful, then we might view this as a person's individual choice and not necessarily Gods.



I could try. I'll see if I can give it a shot with my lay-logic background.



So someone would have to be maximally mature, in this sense, I would think. To say that any human being could ever mature to a position in which they might never be disappointed by a surprise that didn't meet their expectation, I think is unrealistic. Unless you have the personality of a rock.

And we can call this immaturity if we want, but I don't think it changes my argument.

Thank you for your responses. My own were designed to ease your suffering at the disappointment of no initial response though all the thoughts were sincere. If I remember I'll respons to each of your points on which I have a view, but I will tackle one now. You seem to equate dissapointment with suffering. I suppose there is overlap on a Venn diagram of the pair, but it's not a big one. That, to me, negates your point there - maximum maturity is not required, just reasonable maturity. Why I think even some [insert name of political group you feel averse to] might make the grade.

 

[dlamberth]

as I advocate science doing what it should be doing: God's will.

From where I stand, science IS doing God's will by opening a window for us to see how God creates new life forms. So I'm left wondering what you think science would look like doing God's will.

 

[AV1611VET]

From where I stand, science IS doing God's will by opening a window for us to see how God creates new life forms. So I'm left wondering what you think science would look like doing God's will.

Creating new life forms -- called pestilences. Read the book of Revelation.

On a positive note, just as He calls men into the pulpit today, and just as He calls men on to the mission fields today, I'm sure He calls men into the laboratory.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Science is sacred -- or should be.

 

[BeyondET]

Seems an overly complicated and needlessly cruel method to accomplish that.

Again, why would a creator create such a complicated parasitic life cycle? What is the purpose behind that?

Most everything of creation is complicated, some purposes are beyond human reasoning of coarse man wants to know the answer to everything

 

[coffee4u]

That said, how and why would an intelligent designer create such an organism? Imagine having a parasite in your eyeball that forces you wait around until it's pecked out by a bird. What purpose does such a parasite serve?

This is an example of the corruption that took place after the fall.

Before the fall there was no death. The definition of Biblical 'Death' only means the passing away of a creature with a soul and life blood.
All animals and man were vegetarian and this includes tiny creatures.
After the fall certain animals became carnivores.
The creatures true nature was changed and corrupted into that of an eyeball chewing creature, what we now call a parasite.

Nothing mysterious about it at all, the fact that there was no death and that the world we live on now and everything on it is corrupted and changed is right there in scripture.

 

[pitabread]

All animals and man were vegetarian and this includes tiny creatures.
After the fall certain animals became carnivores.
The creatures true nature was changed and corrupted into that of an eyeball chewing creature, what we now call a parasite.

To clarify, this isn't simply a case of an organism being a carnivore. This is a case of a parasitic organism with a complicated lifecycle involving two host organisms (birds and snails), whereby the carnivorous nature of birds is part of its lifecycle. It literally creates broodsacs while within snails designed to attract and be eaten by birds, so it can then reproduce inside of a bird's cloaca. Then the eggs in the bird's fecal matter are consumed by snails and the cycle repeats.

Simply claiming "FallDidIt" isn't explaining how this organism came to be.

If this parasitic organism had a prior lifecycle that was different, then how did that previous lifecycle function? And how did the fall change this organism's lifecycle?

 

[Job 33:6]

Thank you for your responses. My own were designed to ease your suffering at the disappointment of no initial response though all the thoughts were sincere. If I remember I'll respons to each of your points on which I have a view, but I will tackle one now. You seem to equate dissapointment with suffering. I suppose there is overlap on a Venn diagram of the pair, but it's not a big one. That, to me, negates your point there - maximum maturity is not required, just reasonable maturity. Why I think even some [insert name of political group you feel averse to] might make the grade.

I would certainly consider failed expectations a form of suffering. Ever broken up with a girlfriend or got a divorce? You don't have to physically be hurt to experience suffering.

And yes, I was suffering (though as you note, by only minor amounts) while eagerly waiting for responses and watching pages go by without anyone seeing me lol. I wanted to ease my pain, my failed expectations and anticipation, so I asked for others to speak to me. So thank you

Consider the question of if creation is "good" in that it ought to be without the slightest blemish. I mean, this is what the problem of evil is all about.

The problem of evil isn't about major amounts of pain or only little amounts of pain. It's just about pain, period.

It's not about just a little bit of suffering or a lot of suffering. It's about any suffering.

If God is an infinitely good being, then some might say that not even the slightest suffering should exist.

But I say that, the question is broken, because unless we are God's ourselves, suffering is perhaps a mandatory consequence of being created.

Perhaps suffering is just the way creation has to be. Else we would be God's, equal to and perhaps even more mighty than our own creator.

 

[Job 33:6]

Consider the question of if creation is "good" in that it ought to be without the slightest blemish. I mean, this is what the problem of evil is all about.

It's not about major amounts of pain or only little amounts of pain. It's just about pain, period.

It's not about just a little bit of suffering or a lot of suffering. It's about any suffering.

Also, we can easily take the same case and replace a misconception about pizza and can apply it to more severe cases.

So for example, before I mentioned that someone would have to have infinite knowledge, else they would suffer when they found out that pizza wasn't as good as they thought it would be.

Some people don't think that this is true "suffering", but the logic applies to plenty more. For example:

Just the same I could say that someone would need infinite knowledge of many other things to prevent suffering. Imagine going for a walk outdoors, and you step on a crack in the sidewalk wrong and sprain your ankle.

That's suffering. But in order for such an event to not occur, you would need infinite awareness of all angles in sidewalks, else you would eventually mess up and step in one wrong, as many people do.

In order for suffering to not exist, we really would have to have infinite qualities of God. We would have to be fully without error, which would require Godly awareness. We would need to have bodies that never fail or struggle or cripple. Perhaps our bodies would have to never feel pain, and yet, for this to be true, we would have to be in some sense, indestructible. Or we simply wouldn't have a nervous system and wouldn't be able to feel anything at all.

To truly remove suffering or to have a creation without suffering, would be logically impossible lest we be created God or Gods ourselves.

Which is to say that the reason creation includes suffering is because this is the only way in which creation can exist. Unless maybe we were created all inanimate particles of sand in an infinite beach or something along these lines. Though perhaps that wouldn't be in God's image. The only God that might appreciate a dead creation might be Thanos. To be sentient and to have choice, otherwise by default comes with a burden of pain.

 

[coffee4u]

To clarify, this isn't simply a case of an organism being a carnivore. This is a case of a parasitic organism with a complicated lifecycle involving two host organisms (birds and snails), whereby the carnivorous nature of birds is part of its lifecycle. It literally creates broodsacs while within snails designed to attract and be eaten by birds, so it can then reproduce inside of a bird's cloaca. Then the eggs in the bird's fecal matter are consumed by snails and the cycle repeats.

Simply claiming "FallDidIt" isn't explaining how this organism came to be.

If this parasitic organism had a prior lifecycle that was different, then how did that previous lifecycle function? And how did the fall change this organism's lifecycle?

So basically you want to know exactly how life cycles worked on a world no one has seen or tested?

The world we live on is not the same as the world at creation, it has large and fundamental differences. These changes weren't some random dice roll either.

The intricacies of the reproductive cycle would have fit the laws governing that world.
Genesis 1:30
And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
Now while this is talking about animals like mammals and birds here, is it also talking about creatures without nephesh? without a soul? Maybe it is maybe it isn't.
Snails and parasites don't have nephesh.

Perhaps they still worked with snails but in some other way. There are plenty of creatures that actively help other creatures while feeding off them like cleaner fish. Perhaps the creature cleaned the shell of the snail or ate the mucous it produced but it is likely it was in some way beneficial to the snail. There was no need to attract birds to eat the snail since birds ate fruit and seeds. If the bird did ingest the parasite somehow it would not have been while it was eating snails "all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” But if birds did ingest the parasite this was not for food and neither was it viewed as death of a parasite because parasite were not considered to be alive in the first place.
Perhaps they went through the bird unharmed and were defecated out to a new area.
Perhaps the parasite produced its egg sacs on the outside of the snail, then were born and continued to clean it.
Again, these are really questions without answers only speculations, since none of this is in place anymore.

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright, here I go with my lay-logic efforts.

To suffer, definition:
experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant).
"he'd suffered intense pain"
Oxford Dictionaries.

1. So for a world to be without suffering, there cannot be anything unpleasant.

2. In order for creation to exist without anything unpleasant, it must be maximally pleasant, or perfect and without any blemish. Or maybe I could change this to say that if someone is wrong about something, they have an unpleasant experience. Even if it's something small like making a right turn when you wanted to make a left turn whole driving to the store. Being wrong about even the smallest of things is an unpleasant experience and is a form of suffering.

3. For God to create a world without suffering, God would have to create a perfect world. Or God would have to make people divinely aware of everything so that they would be without error in any form.

4. God cannot create a perfect world without suffering because nothing can logically be perfect or without any error but God itself (in a theistic perspective).