Why would God create a flawed creation? (2)

[Dave Ellis]

God's notion of perfect is wholly different from what you guys assert to be perfection. How you define God's creation has no bearing whatsoever, because you are not a participant in creating this universe. Who are you to tell God what perfection is?

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the LORD." Isaiah 55:8

Because perfection has a definition. If his creation does not meet the definition of perfection in any way (i.e. it's susceptible to corruption), then it's not perfect.

You don't have to be god to identify attributes of things like that. In fact, it's really not that hard at all.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Agree, it Will be perfect in the end. Being perfect is knowing Him completely, being perfect in love, you become like Him and only want to do what He wants.

But why would he create it that way knowing billions of souls are going to burn for eternity?

Any being that would willingly create a universe under those conditions is a monster.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Why would a perfect God have to create a perfect creation?

The Bible doesn't say the world was created perfect, merely good. They are two different things.

If you drop the perfection label, then it is easier to defend for sure... however if he still has the labels of omniscient and omnipotent, he'd still be evil for creating the universe that we see.

 

[Inkfingers]

Finite things can never be perfect (because finite things are limited and limited things can never be perfect).

Things in a universe can never be other than finite.

Thus, the universe must contain imperfections.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Finite things can never be perfect (because finite things are limited and limited things can never be perfect).

Things in a universe can never be other than finite.

Thus, the universe must contain imperfections.

I don't think I accept your point here... there are some examples of finite things which are perfectly built.

For example, a bomb. It's intended to explode, ending the existence of the bomb. A perfectly designed bomb must be designed with the finite in mind.

So, I don't know if it's proper to equate infinite existence with perfection. In fact, if something requires infinite existence then we don't really know of anything that we could legitimately call perfect.

 

[Messy]

But why would he create it that way knowing billions of souls are going to burn for eternity?

Any being that would willingly create a universe under those conditions is a monster.

I don't think eternal hell is true, there's aioons, the people from before the flood got saved later. He only said the sin against the Spirit wouldn't be forgiven in eternity, the rest would be forgiven. He who didn't know much got a few stripes. Every mouth will confess Jesus is Lord, you can't say that except through the Holy Spirit. Jews and first christians said it was for purification. The last enemy, death, will be destroyed.
The Salvation Conspiracy: How Hell Became Eternal | The Christian Universalist Association

 

[Inkfingers]

I don't think I accept your point here... there are some examples of finite things which are perfectly built.

For example, a bomb. It's intended to explode, ending the existence of the bomb. A perfectly designed bomb must be designed with the finite in mind.

So, I don't know if it's proper to equate infinite existence with perfection. In fact, if something requires infinite existence then we don't really know of anything that we could legitimately call perfect.

A bomb will rust and become useless (or may explode at the wrong time).

Perfection is impossible amonst the finite.

 

[agua]

A bomb will rust and become useless (or may explode at the wrong time).

Perfection is impossible amonst the finite.

Yes this is similar to the Stoic's philosophy. ( aside from the impossible part ) A thing is consedered perfect if it operates according to it's intrinsic virtues. In the case of humans the Stoics believe the intended virtues are humane, or loving, I think.

 

[terryjohn]

If nothing finite can be called perfect then there is no need for the word. Perfection is relative. There are degrees of perfection and we are restless until we find a better example of something.
with regard to man kind I fear God has in mind a greater work than we dare imagine. There may be one form of glory and praise in being created perfect and an even greater glory and praise in being taken from one state of perfection to another.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, but these atheists believe God should create a creation that can never be corrupted, which will never make it perfect according to God's will because perfect (maturity) requires a process of learning by experience.

They want to take the seat of God and prescribe to God what and how He should have created the universe, a preposterous and arrogant thing to do.

It doesn't seem anymore arrogant than when religious people make all sorts of claims about God's personality and what he wants of us, particularly what he wants of us while were naked.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What a great thread!

Of course the material universe is 'imperfect'. That's why it's going to 'pass away'. In fact radioactive decay tells us that our batteries are running down (gulp).

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't think eternal hell is true, there's aioons, the people from before the flood got saved later. He only said the sin against the Spirit wouldn't be forgiven in eternity, the rest would be forgiven. He who didn't know much got a few stripes. Every mouth will confess Jesus is Lord, you can't say that except through the Holy Spirit. Jews and first christians said it was for purification. The last enemy, death, will be destroyed.
The Salvation Conspiracy: How Hell Became Eternal | The Christian Universalist Association

Fair enough

 

[Dave Ellis]

A bomb will rust and become useless (or may explode at the wrong time).

Perfection is impossible amonst the finite.

That's ignoring the point. A bomb is perfectly designed if it can meet its purpose.

 

[WoundedDeep]

It doesn't seem anymore arrogant than when religious people make all sorts of claims about God's personality and what he wants of us, particularly what he wants of us while were naked.

The fact is no true Christian will dare make claims about God apart from what He revealed in His Law and Prophets. When people like you challenge our claims, you are not challenging us but rather God Himself, something pretty arrogant and preposterous in itself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The fact is no true Christian will dare make claims about God apart from what He revealed in His Law and Prophets. When people like you challenge our claims, you are not challenging us but rather God Himself, something pretty arrogant and preposterous in itself.

Presuming to speak for God isn't arrogant?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Presuming to speak for God isn't arrogant?

It is you atheists questioning, accusing and asking about God. Or are you suggesting that we ignore you guys altogether?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is you atheists questioning, accusing and asking about God. Or are you suggesting that we ignore you guys altogether?

It is you theists who claim to know of the existence of a God, his nature, his personality, and even his intentions. Moreover, some of you use these claims as the basis for asserting authority over others. Should we ignore that?

 

[WoundedDeep]

It is you theists who claim to know of the existence of a God, his nature, his personality, and even his intentions. Moreover, some of you use these claims as the basis for asserting authority over others. Should we ignore that?

That is a red herring. You attempt to accuse us of arrogance for telling you who God is based on His revelations to us, when it is you who are demanding us to give you an answer. How else do you propose that we answer your impolite accusations if you insist we should not "speak for God"?

Besides, I have not seen any Christians exercising authority over others on here based on what they tell people about God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is a red herring.

A red herring? There wouldn't be anyone asking these sorts of questions if there weren't theists making these claims.

You attempt to accuse us of arrogance for telling you who God is based on His revelations to us, when it is you who are demanding us to give you an answer. How else do you propose that we answer your impolite accusations if you insist we should not "speak for God"?

I'm not convinced that you do speak for God.

 

[WoundedDeep]

A red herring? There wouldn't be anyone asking these sorts of questions if there weren't theists making these claims.

And why are our claims a concern to you if you are so convinced in your mind about your atheistic beliefs? Why is there a need to accuse us and our faith in God? Don't try to push the blame to us now when it is people like you who see a need to oppose our faith, even when we have done no personal harm or injury to you. Furthermore, don't attempt to label us with arrogance when we are but responding to your persistent attempt to discredit our God.

If you have a genuine interest to learn the truth, that would have been a different matter. But it is apparent that there are some of you who have no other idea in mind but to come here to slander our God and accuse us of this and that. To say the least, that is being a busybody (since our faith does no harm to any atheists). To say the worst, that is challenging God Himself in the most preposterous and arrogant manner.

I'm not convinced that you do speak for God.

What you think about me is of no concern to me.