• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did God Create Perfection?

Did God create perfection?


  • Total voters
    32
God works in mysterious ways is the just a huge cop out, a cheap way of attempting to create an excuse of why things are the way they are.

You should read the first few chapter of the old testament (the book of genesis). Its not that long. I am not saying it will change your mind, but I think you fundamentally misunderstand how christianity approaches this topic.
 
I'm still curious as to why he needs us to believe in him, isn't living a life in which you treat others well with respect good enough to go to Heaven? I picture the whole God situation being like Monsters Inc.

He needs belief to fuel the massive consumption of electricity in Heaven!!
 
I'm still curious as to why he needs us to believe in him, isn't living a life in which you treat others well with respect good enough to go to Heaven? I picture the whole God situation being like Monsters Inc.

He needs belief to fuel the massive consumption of electricity in Heaven!!

If you are really curious you should read the bible. It tells you these things, as far as te why you have to believe in him and not just be a good person. It is another important part of understanding christianity.

Sorry, I was responding to the bold. I don't think you'll find much about monsters inc and electricity in heaven in the bible.
 
Last edited:
I'm still curious as to why he needs us to believe in him, isn't living a life in which you treat others well with respect good enough to go to Heaven? I picture the whole God situation being like Monsters Inc.

He needs belief to fuel the massive consumption of electricity in Heaven!!

Goes doesn't need anyone to believe in Him. In fact, belief isn't really what he desires. The Bible says even the demons believe in God yet tremble. People are sent to hell not because our bad outweighs the good, but because they have sin and sin separates one from God and merits judgement. What is "good" but a personally objective term? Why should God honor what we hold to be "good?" Why should we be able to judge ourselves when we are not the law maker? We can't forgive our own sins or atone for them. God desires for people to repent so that they may receive mercy and forgiveness of sins because God as the judge has already taken the punishment (death on the cross). God doesn't need people to believe in Him like some emotionally starved teenager.
 
I think the OP should have defined ‘perfection’ first.
I define ‘perfect’ as entirely without any flaws, defects or shortcomings.
If so, I voted NO.
 
Goes doesn't need anyone to believe in Him. In fact, belief isn't really what he desires. The Bible says even the demons believe in God yet tremble. People are sent to hell not because our bad outweighs the good, but because they have sin and sin separates one from God and merits judgement. What is "good" but a personally objective term? Why should God honor what we hold to be "good?" Why should we be able to judge ourselves when we are not the law maker? We can't forgive our own sins or atone for them. God desires for people to repent so that they may receive mercy and forgiveness of sins because God as the judge has already taken the punishment (death on the cross). God doesn't need people to believe in Him like some emotionally starved teenager.

But if God were a real thing I think he would do so much better, he would care about every last living thing. He would provide bountiful evidence that he indeed existed, last I checked Christianity is extremely sparce on evidence. I for one can look at nature and the universe and conclude that no "God" that we know of is real. Far too easy of an explanation that doesn't even attempt to explain the next question that begs to be answered "Where did this so called God come from". Thanks for trying to help me understand though.
 
God created mankind with free will. The ability to choose good or evil. The freedom to choose God or not. Otherwise, how could love be genuine if there was never a choice?
Mankind sins, i.e. disobeys God, and is therefore imperfect. God is perfect, heaven is perfect. If you aren't perfect, you don't get in. Seemingly, this creates a dilemma. God is just and God is merciful. I'm sure he'll forgive the joke, but God is the first lawyer because he presented a loophole, allowing him to remain true to justice and mercy.
 
A perfect being could chose to make something that was imperfect so long as it's reasons for doing so was perfect.

How? How can something limited to creating perfection by its own constrictions create imperfection? A perfect will is by definition perfect, therefore without flaws. How can it will something it cannot do?
 
If man was made in god's image, then god is far from perfect. The notion that humans are perfect, biologically speaking, is farcical. Anyone who has studied medicine, whether holistic or western, knows this. Our bodies do things that make no sense for survival, like going into shock from injury, or going into anaphylaxis from an allergy attack. People who think humans are done developing and that we are all that we are ever going to be simply baffle me.

The human body is still evolving and it's plainly obvious. We are organisms that have had millions of years to gradually adapt to a variety of environments the best we can, but there is still a lot to be desired. It's the whole reason why we need medicine in the first place.

Perfection is a subjective notion, and I am not saying I don't endorse it. If you believe in determinism, then you know that everything happens for a reason, and believing that can bring a certain harmony to your life. But in terms of thinking of ourselves as perfect beings... I don't know... that somehow doesn't seem very humble or practical.
 
How? How can something limited to creating perfection by its own constrictions create imperfection? A perfect will is by definition perfect, therefore without flaws. How can it will something it cannot do?

The issue needs to be looked at from multiple levels. While individual peices may not be individually "perfect" the lack of indiviodual perfection could be, in theory, a factor in creating a perfect system where the imperfect peices work together creating a perfect, synergistic whole.

For example, using an admittedly weak analogy just to get the point that sometimes imperfections can be beneficial, Imagine a manufacturing company that could create a perfect product that would never break down through wear and tear. If this company wanted to create the best system for maximizing profits, creating a "perfect" product that never broke down would not be the best approach because the product would onley be purchased once and there would never be a need to re-purchase said product. There would be an initial influx of sales, but they would eventually decrease to a point approaching zero because the product would be passed on over and over agian to successive generations.

But if they chose to not make the product perfect, and instead choose to add imperfections ot the product, they can maximize the profitability of the product.

In truth, the logical debate here really does depend on the goals of the perfect being designing the system. If the gols are something where perfect parts are a detriment ot the system, then the system itself woulfd be imperfect if all of the parts were perfect. But if the perfect system requires imperfect parts, then the perfect action would be to design those parts with imperfections.

Your limitation of saying that a perfect being cannot create imperfection is a false one. The actual limitation that would exist is the following:

A perfect being cannot create imperfection unless it is done willfully by that being to achieve it's goals.

In essense, a perfect being could not accidentally create imperfection, but it could create imperfection on purpose.
 
There are two philosophical problems that spring up immediately with the notion of a 'perfect god'.

1. Since design is flawed, any deity creating it must be flawed as well. For all the talk of 'perfect' creation, from an engineering and biological standpoint, the design of life leaves a lot to be desired. The human body evolved through mutation and selection over a long period of time, and as a result, we are filled with a number of quick fixes to ongoing problems. Take the human eye blind spot, for example. If someone built a camera with such a design, they'd be fired from their job immediately. And we don't have to stop at these. Brain structure, prostate gland, layout of the digestive system, wisdom teeth, the appendix - all poorly designed evolutionary fixes designed to get us to puberty so breeding can commence. Beyond that, nature cares little. So, seeing as how human engineers can propose much better layouts than this so-called 'creator', what does this say of such a deity? He's imperfect. In fact, he'd be rather lazy as well, relying on random chance to repair problems in his design that he was too lethargic to fix from the get-go.

2. Free will is incompatible with omnicience; therefore, either your deity knows your actions before they happen - meaning no free will - or he is not omnicient. For all the talk of God, Allah, and <insert deity here> being all-knowing, there is a lot of talk about humans having free will. 'Free will' means that you as a person can choose to do good or evil whenever you want, or make any morally neutral choice, for that matter. It's all up to you. Unfortunately, free will creates a problem for said deity. If humans can make any random choice that they want to, that means the all-knowing deity doesn't know what choice you are going to make. This means he is not omnicient and all powerful, and therefore, isn't worthy of anyone's worship. However, if you believe that your deity is, in fact, totally omnicient and all powerful, then free will flies out the window. God/Allah/etc. would know what decision you were going to make long before you made it. Decide to go to the bar to watch football rather than mow the lawn? God/Allah/etc. already knows you'll do this because he's omnicient, therefore free will is an illusion. An omnicient, omnipotent deity leads to further problems, too. If Your Worshipfullness is really omnicient, why did he not do away with a lot of the evils before they even started? Why not give Hitler an early heart attack, or throw a lightning bolt at the Spanish Inquisitors? If you are going to use the 'free will' defense, then so much for an all-powerful diety.
 
Last edited:
So God wills evil? That more or less refutes the notion that God is perfect.

Go beyond that.....

Part 2

Heaven is union with God. Hell is separation from God. Since the soul is immortal, that is forever. It is not ruled by the Devil/Satan. He gets to go there too. The references to fire are to give you something you can tangibly understand. Our bodies are mortal and die. Salvation does not keep you from physical death, it saves you from spiritual death, i.e. separation from God, i.e. Hell.

Everyone disobeys God, creating imperfection, meaning you can't get into Heaven. So God sends Jesus, who lives a perfect life, never sinning. Yet he is put to death and "goes to hell", in other words, being punished for something he didn't do. He rises from the dead and then goes to Heaven.

None of us can get into heaven on our own. But, if you acknowledge that Jesus paid your price, and you acknowledge him as boss, then the slate is clean. Yes, you deserve the punishment, but he took it for you.

Very simple.
 
Go beyond that.....

Part 2

Heaven is union with God. Hell is separation from God. Since the soul is immortal, that is forever. It is not ruled by the Devil/Satan. He gets to go there too. The references to fire are to give you something you can tangibly understand.

Our bodies are mortal and die. Salvation does not keep you from physical death, it saves you from spiritual death, i.e. separation from God, i.e. Hell.

Everyone disobeys God, creating imperfection, meaning you can't get into Heaven. So God sends Jesus, who lives a perfect life, never sinning. Yet he is put to death and "goes to hell", in other words, being punished for something he didn't do. He rises from the dead and then goes to Heaven.

None of us can get into heaven on our own. But, if you acknowledge that Jesus paid your price, and you acknowledge him as boss, then the slate is clean. Yes, you deserve the punishment, but he took it for you.

Very simple.

Simple, yes. Accurate, no. You are reading a book that has no basis on fact. But it does has logical efforts on how society should live. BUUUUUT it also has foolish rules. It also has contradictions up the ying-yang.
The Bible is a great instruction manual for life IF you scrape all the BS and illogical crap and contradictions out of it. The Bible is relevant NOW because people havent changed. Love, hate, greed, lust, power...... only the technology has changed. That is the MEAT. The fat is everything else. I used to be a Born Again Christian but Ive seen how goofy the Bible really is outside of the common sense life-instructions. My atheist friend lives closer to the Bible than my pastor does.
 
The issue needs to be looked at from multiple levels. While individual peices may not be individually "perfect" the lack of indiviodual perfection could be, in theory, a factor in creating a perfect system where the imperfect peices work together creating a perfect, synergistic whole.

Well that pretty much renders our definition of perfection shot. And therefore the rest of the discussion. I do believe I stated this in the my original post. Still, your argument runs into the problem of a perfect being as the creator. If the perfection being was in fact the creator, then its will would be perfect as well. A perfect will is without flaws. Creating flawed creations is in itself as a flaw as such a will would need the ideas of imperfection to start with, thereby rendering itself imperfect. Granted, this runs head first into a brick wall of omnipotence, but that's another thread.

For example, using an admittedly weak analogy

But the analogy doesn't address the fundamental nature of that perfect will. A perfect will by definition would be free of all flaws. How can something which is free of flaws have ideas of flaws and actively create flaws when itself is completely free of such flaws in any way, shape or form? True, the cooperation of otherwise imperfect devices may produce a perfect outcome, but that does not address the very origin of their creation. It merely addresses their functional nature. The company is capable of producing both imperfect and perfect devices. A perfect being as a creator would not.

In truth, the logical debate here really does depend on the goals of the perfect being designing the system. If the gols are something where perfect parts are a detriment ot the system, then the system itself woulfd be imperfect if all of the parts were perfect. But if the perfect system requires imperfect parts, then the perfect action would be to design those parts with imperfections.

Your limitation of saying that a perfect being cannot create imperfection is a false one. The actual limitation that would exist is the following:

A perfect being cannot create imperfection unless it is done willfully by that being to achieve it's goals.

Not if we are using the definition of perfect. A perfect being would be free of flaws. That includes its will. It's will is little more then enacting the ideas and desires of such a being. If that being was indeed perfect, it could not have flawed desires or ideas as it would be perfect in all aspects. Therefore, it could not create an imperfect creation as it would not possess the flawed idea in the first place. Again, this is diametrically opposed to an all powerful God. A perfect being would not be able to possess the flawed ideas that would if created, act to create perfection.

In essense, a perfect being could not accidentally create imperfection, but it could create imperfection on purpose.

I can't agree with that logically. Possessing only perfect ideas would eliminate the accidental creation of imperfection. Furthermore, as a perfect being would possess no flawed ideas in which to act upon, it could not create imperfection on purpose either.

While it is possible another being not perfect and out of the jurisdiction of the perfect being could act upon such creations and thereby strip them of their perfection, that has at the moment, not been added to the discussion.

But this whole notion relies upon God being logical and sensical. And that is a mighty large assumption.
 
Go beyond that.....

Part 2

Heaven is union with God. Hell is separation from God.

Which then suggests that God is not perfect. Is God created everything, that includes hell. And thereby God is rendered imperfect.

Everyone disobeys God, creating imperfection

Which further suggests that God itself is not perfect as its will carried the idea of potential imperfection via free will.

Very simple.

This is a logical discussion. Keep your emotional pleas to another thread.
 
Simple, yes. Accurate, no. You are reading a book that has no basis on fact. But it does has logical efforts on how society should live. BUUUUUT it also has foolish rules. It also has contradictions up the ying-yang.
The Bible is a great instruction manual for life IF you scrape all the BS and illogical crap and contradictions out of it. The Bible is relevant NOW because people havent changed. Love, hate, greed, lust, power...... only the technology has changed. That is the MEAT. The fat is everything else. I used to be a Born Again Christian but Ive seen how goofy the Bible really is outside of the common sense life-instructions. My atheist friend lives closer to the Bible than my pastor does.

Just for ****s and giggles, you ought to read "Evidence that demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowel. It isn't going to convince you of anything, but you'll probably still find it interesting reading.

It looks at the proof from a different angle than you normally do. You look at everything from a scientific standpoint, i.e. can you reproduce it experimentally, do you have something hard and substantial in front of you.

McDowell approaches it more from a lawyerly approach. Present the evidence and judge it.
 
Just for ****s and giggles, you ought to read "Evidence that demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowel. It isn't going to convince you of anything, but you'll probably still find it interesting reading.

It looks at the proof from a different angle than you normally do. You look at everything from a scientific standpoint, i.e. can you reproduce it experimentally, do you have something hard and substantial in front of you.

McDowell approaches it more from a lawyerly approach. Present the evidence and judge it.
Im not going to buy the book but can you imbibe his book into the conversation? I would be very interested. :)
 
Well that pretty much renders our definition of perfection shot. And therefore the rest of the discussion. I do believe I stated this in the my original post. Still, your argument runs into the problem of a perfect being as the creator. If the perfection being was in fact the creator, then its will would be perfect as well. A perfect will is without flaws. Creating flawed creations is in itself as a flaw as such a will would need the ideas of imperfection to start with, thereby rendering itself imperfect. Granted, this runs head first into a brick wall of omnipotence, but that's another thread.

This still views the individual parts as the creation instead of viewing the sum of the parts as the creation. The perspective needs to be shifted from the small-pictuire to the big picture. While flaws may exist on individual parts, this might be a neccessary thing in order to create the perfect system. IF the creation is the system, and in order to be perfect it must have individual parts that are flawed, the perfect action is to make imperfect parts.



But the analogy doesn't address the fundamental nature of that perfect will. A perfect will by definition would be free of all flaws. How can something which is free of flaws have ideas of flaws and actively create flaws when itself is completely free of such flaws in any way, shape or form? True, the cooperation of otherwise imperfect devices may produce a perfect outcome, but that does not address the very origin of their creation. It merely addresses their functional nature. The company is capable of producing both imperfect and perfect devices. A perfect being as a creator would not.

The perfect will would be free from cflaws. Creating imperfect parts by design is not a flaw if the imperfection leads to a perfect creation.



Not if we are using the definition of perfect. A perfect being would be free of flaws. That includes its will. It's will is little more then enacting the ideas and desires of such a being. If that being was indeed perfect, it could not have flawed desires or ideas as it would be perfect in all aspects. Therefore, it could not create an imperfect creation as it would not possess the flawed idea in the first place. Again, this is diametrically opposed to an all powerful God. A perfect being would not be able to possess the flawed ideas that would if created, act to create perfection.

The analogy states that the creation itself is not imperfect. It is indeed perfect. It would be imperfect if the parts that go into that creation were perfect, though.

Possessing only perfect ideas would eliminate the accidental creation of imperfection.

That's what I was saying. It eliminates accidental creation of imperfection. The situation I'm describing is puroposeful creation of imperfection for the parts of a perfect system.

If th eperfect being is creating a perect system, and that perfect stystem requires imperfect parts in order to be perfect, the perfect action is to create imperfection in the parts.

Furthermore, as a perfect being would possess no flawed ideas in which to act upon, it could not create imperfection on purpose either.

An idea can can be unflawed even if it requires imperfect parts. If the perfect idea requires imperfect parts, then creating imprerfection woud, itself, become a perfect act.

Imperfection present in humans does not negate the idea that god can be perfect.

While it is possible another being not perfect and out of the jurisdiction of the perfect being could act upon such creations and thereby strip them of their perfection, that has at the moment, not been added to the discussion.

But this whole notion relies upon God being logical and sensical. And that is a mighty large assumption.

I'm looking at the debate as a purely logcial deduction. I don't believe in any deity at all.

In this situation, the conclusion "Perfect beings cannot create imperfection" is a flawed conclusion because the perfect being can create imperfection in certain circumstances. It simply cannot do so accidentally. If it is setting out to create somethign perfect, that thing would be perfect.

But the problem is that people are viewing this from a homo-centric perspective, i.e. God is our creator and cares for us and all that jazz.

I'm taking it up to the uiniversal perspective, where humanity is utterly inconsequential. If we start from the assumption that God exists, and God is a creator, we must look at what was created as a whole: the universe. Now, I can't tell you much about what is required to go into making a universe. Not could I even guess on what would make a perect universe. I can say that homo-centric concerns are completely irrelvent in a universal persepctive, though. Our imperfection does not have a discernable impact on the potential perfection of th eUniverse. But I am also assuming that we are an integral part of the universe because we exist.

I believe Orion pointed out that perfection is a fairly subjective term. What makes something "perfect" will differ from person to person. My perfect weather will be different from your perfect weather, for example.

So when we apply human perceptions of our own imperfection into the equation, we might see cancer and hurricanes and whatnot as being signs of imperfection, but these things may indeed be vastly important aspects of a perfect universe. So, while our perspective would say these are flaws, they have the potential of being part of a perfectly designed system necessary to create a perfect universe.

But to do that, the individual parts must have "flaws" in them. Things that prevent them from being, when viewed individually, perfect. But as a part of the whole, they would indeed be considered perfect because incividual perfection would itself become a flaw for the system as a whole.
 
Logically, it does not compute that a perfect God created this universe. But that is predicated on the notion that God is perfect.

Assuming that God is perfect in all aspects, God's will is therefore perfect. A perfect will is incapable of creating imperfection. Imperfection is defined as with flaws. A perfect will would be without flaws. While this creates restrictions on God that create more logical problems with Omnipotence, that's another discussion. To blame modern imperfect upon Satan is a poor argument as God created everything in the Universe (allegedly). Everything includes Satan. Therefore God, if perfect, would have created a perfect Angel who without imperfection could not have rebelled. Furthermore, by creating a perfect universe, there would be no outside imperfect stimuli to cause a change in a perfect Angel. Therefore, the capacity of perfect beings to change to imperfect would be impossible. Suffice to say, the Abrahamic God does not logically appear to be a perfect being. Or at least sensical.

If our definition if perfection is flawed, then how can we even have this discussion? The base term is undefinable and therefore there is no meaningful path of discussion here.

I would have to disagree with the bolded part. An artisan can create a perfect piece of work. But if he/she wants to they can create something with an imperfection.

I would have to say that yes, God did create a perfect universe. Every single thing that we know of has an opposite. Based on that then God would have also made imperfection. Which makes His creation perfect in that it is completely complete.
 
But the analogy doesn't address the fundamental nature of that perfect will. A perfect will by definition would be free of all flaws. How can something which is free of flaws have ideas of flaws and actively create flaws when itself is completely free of such flaws in any way, shape or form? True, the cooperation of otherwise imperfect devices may produce a perfect outcome, but that does not address the very origin of their creation. It merely addresses their functional nature. The company is capable of producing both imperfect and perfect devices. A perfect being as a creator would not.

You forget another part of God. His "knowing all". (another part of His pefection) He can't very well "know all" if he knows nothing of imperfection. Also being something, and knowing something can be two completely different things. A person can know something but never have experianced it him/herself. For example, I know what the Eiffel Tower looks like yet I have never experianced it myself.
 
Back
Top Bottom