Why would God create a flawed creation?

[Gottservant]

That's just flat out laughable.

I've explained quite clearly why your argument is silly, however I'll do it again.

If something has the potential for perfection, that means it is not yet perfect.

If a hockey player has the potential to score 30 goals this season, that means he has not yet scored 30 goals. You're only a 30 goal scorer once you've scored your 30th goal.

Likewise, you're only perfect once you've obtained perfection. If you have not yet done that, then you are not perfect, it doesn't matter what your potential is.


Why is it you people feel the need to redefine what words mean in order to make your arguments work? The best you can hope to accomplish is an equivocation fallacy.

As I said, a senseless reply: you are assuming time is automatically given in the context of the proving of the perfection

yet if time is not given, there is no way to judge any perfection but by its potential

as such your argument is nonsense (I am adopting your tone, I hope you don't mind it coming back to you)

 

[Gottservant]

How did you come to this conclusion?

Ken

its called being reasonable

 

[Gottservant]

How do you conclude and admission of guilt justifies perfection?
And how do you conclude perfection justified means it exists?

Ken

An admission of guilt justifies perfection because it justifies the potential of that which is not the guilt, by implication

If perfection is justified, it can be acted on

 

[Gottservant]

What I think is unreasonable is that you are putting the burden of proof on me to prove that potential means something, when all I am doing is saying people's potential is defensible (under any circumstance) - that includes your circumstance

I mean are you honestly suggesting that I'm going to turn around and say "but you don't have potential"?

If anything you should be complaining that I like you too much, by saying that

 

[Dave Ellis]

As I said, a senseless reply: you are assuming time is automatically given in the context of the proving of the perfection

yet if time is not given, there is no way to judge any perfection but by its potential

as such your argument is nonsense (I am adopting your tone, I hope you don't mind it coming back to you)

Again, potential has absolutely nothing to do with perfection.

What matters is if something is perfect, or if it is not perfect. The semantic backflips you are attempting to pull off are staggering. What point are you trying to prove?

 

[Gottservant]

Again, potential has absolutely nothing to do with perfection.

What matters is if something is perfect, or if it is not perfect. The semantic backflips you are attempting to pull off are staggering. What point are you trying to prove?

Potential is the only way to judge it, without time - you clearly have no idea what perfection is when you are forced to just wait (and how can that be objective?)

No I think your head is full of judgments of things you think are perfect to varying degrees, but there is no clear definition of perfection in your mind - let me give you one, brother

Perfection is that which obeys its potential, to the full extent of the law (selah)

As you can see, there is no minimum condition for this definition, as such your discrimination between more and less potential is purely based on imagination

I'm not saying its wrong to use your imagination, but since God is definable as imaginary, using imagination falsely to discredit Him is evil

 

[Messy]

I'm not sure how that flows from what I said but... ok.

It's not our fault, all the evil in the world. He just shouldn't have made us with a possibility to make bad choices.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It's not our fault, all the evil in the world. He just shouldn't have made us with a possibility to make bad choices.

That is, if there's a God who can be said is the source of this universe. If not, we are fully responsible for the things we do.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If God was omniscient and omnipotent, then he wouldn't have knowingly created a flawed creation. However, creation is obviously flawed, so one of the following must be true:

1. While God is compassionate and loving, he is not omniscient (he could not see the results of his action), or
2. While God is compassionate and loving, he is not omnipotent (he could not create a perfect creation, or he did not have the power to sustain perfection in his creation), or
3. God is omniscient and omnipotent but uncompassionate and unloving (towards his creation he originated, dooming many to hell which he foreknew).

What saith ye?

Netzarim,

If we travel this well-worn route of criticism, wouldn't we have to include the dynamic of human choice within the definitional parameters of 'the Big Flaw'?

For me, to answer the [Epicurean style] questions above with a simple "God should be able to do anything" statement is a kind of non-analytical answer, really a non-answer, that is used to attempt to simplify and sweep the floor without having to work through and resolve the underlying issues found in the biblical creation narrative.

Maybe we need to finally take a 'Red Pill' on this one.

 

[Ken-1122]

its called being reasonable

Please explain how leniency with words is warranted for all actions that does not merit the death penalty.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

An admission of guilt justifies perfection because it justifies the potential of that which is not the guilt, by implication

No, a lack of guilt has nothing to do with perfection. A lack of guilt is innocence. Just because you are innocent does not mean you are perfect.

Ken

 

[FireDragon76]

Who says creation is imperfect? Maybe it's the best of all possible worlds.

No, a lack of guilt has nothing to do with perfection. A lack of guilt is innocence. Just because you are innocent does not mean you are perfect.

Ken

FWIW, the Bible doesn't suggest human beings were necessarily created perfect. Only innocent. This debate about why God would create a seemingly imperfect world is a much later issue, one that can only be answered by philosophy and theology.

Either way you slice it, God is ultimately responsible for any shortcomings in His creation. Not us. We did not decide to create a universe, we were cast into this existence against any will we might have had.

It's more correct to say that we are cast into existence without any will on our part. Unless somehow you believe in pre-existence or reincarnation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Who says creation is imperfect? Maybe it's the best of all possible worlds.

Do we have any reason to think that it is? And "best" for who or what?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Potential is the only way to judge it, without time - you clearly have no idea what perfection is when you are forced to just wait (and how can that be objective?)

No I think your head is full of judgments of things you think are perfect to varying degrees, but there is no clear definition of perfection in your mind - let me give you one, brother

Perfection is that which obeys its potential, to the full extent of the law (selah)

As you can see, there is no minimum condition for this definition, as such your discrimination between more and less potential is purely based on imagination

I'm not saying its wrong to use your imagination, but since God is definable as imaginary, using imagination falsely to discredit Him is evil

You can't judge perfection based on it's potential, you judge perfection based on results.

If something has never made an error, or it does not contain a flaw of any kind, then it can be said to be perfect.

That's all there is to it, and it doesn't matter how hard you try to redefine the word.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Who says creation is imperfect? Maybe it's the best of all possible worlds.

Can you imagine a way the world could be better?

If so, then this is not the best of all possible worlds.

 

[FireDragon76]

Can you imagine a way the world could be better?

If so, then this is not the best of all possible worlds.

How I might see the universe as better is not necessarily how God would see it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

How I might see the universe as better is not necessarily how God would see it.

That's a cop out.

 

[bhsmte]

How I might see the universe as better is not necessarily how God would see it.

Ok. Then you really can't claim to know how a God would see anything and any description placed upon him is guesswork.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ok. Then you really can't claim to know how a God would see anything and any description placed upon him is guesswork.

Well, I know from reading the Bible that God sees the world as good.

 

[Messy]

No, a lack of guilt has nothing to do with perfection. A lack of guilt is innocence. Just because you are innocent does not mean you are perfect.

Ken

Well maybe creation isn't perfect because God wasn't perfect.
I don't believe Adam was perfect. God only said it was good.
Adam was created in God's Image, which I think means that God was innocent too, not knowing good and evil and had no idea that an angel would fall and try to ruin His creation. He knew good and evil it says in Genesis, know means: know by experience. Since He didn't sin (know evil by doing evil) and it says Jesus who is God was an innocent Lamb He must have experienced evil when satan rebelled.