Is God Perfect? [Archive]

ThisYouWillDo

12-04-2007, 11:32 AM

Is God perfect? Can he be a god if He is not?

Reading the thread on the Holy Tinity reminded me of when I was studying part of Milton's Paradise Lost and I was fascinated by a question put to the class by the teacher.

First, she spoke of the concept of Free Will and how God allowed all beings He created the freedom to do as they wished, even if that was evil or led to failure. Thus, when Satan rebelled, he did so because he was using his free will to choose whether to rule in Hell or serve in Paradise. And when Eve was persuaded by the snake to eat the forbidden fruit, she knew she had been told not to, but did so all the same; she used her free will.

Why did God place the tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden, yet forbid Adam and Eve to eat from it? That's easy, we thought. God wanted to test them. He wanted to see if His new creations could exercise their free will judiciously.

But was it a test? Or was it a trap that Adam and Eve were destined to fail?

First, if God could see into the future, which I am told He can, then He would have seen that they would fail the test. But maybe He could only see outcomes of things that were inevitable or which had already been set in motion - so maybe He did still need to carry out the test.

In that case, did He intend them to fail the test. He knew that the temptation would be too great to resist and, sooner or later, the desire to taste the fruit would be greater than their obedience to Him. Well, if that's the case, God would have deceived Adam and Eve into believing they were perfect creations that were allowed to make their own decisions whatever the consequences. If they were doomed to fail, then they did not really have free will. Deception is not what we would expect of a good God, is it?

The fact that God needed to test them is curious. After all, they were His perfect creations. If they were perfect creations, they would never be able to decide to do wrong or to do evil, despite having free will. But they did decide to disobey. Therefore, they could not have been perfect creations, but flawed in some way. The test, then, was just an excuse to punish. (Where have I heard this before, I can here some subs muttering.)

But this leads to the big question. If God is perfect, He is incapable of imperfection. Perfect means without any faults whatsoever. A perfect God cannot create imperfect beings. Thus He was unable to create Adam and Eve with flaws or imperfections. But as they were flawed or imperfect, it must mean that God Himself is less than perfect too.

Going further, He created Satan. If Satan was perfect, why did he rebel? Surely that was not possible either?

I've not had a religious education, and my RE lessons consisted of a Cook's Tour of Roman Occupied Palestine. There was no discussion of concepts such as this. However, this question has remained with me ever since. I'm also not a particularly deep thinking person, so I have been unable to develop these thoughts on my own. I wonder if anyone here has anything they can contribute on the topic.

TYWD

Thorne

12-04-2007, 02:11 PM

I only have one, brief comment regarding any perfections or imperfections of God.

Religion tells us that we are made in God's image. Most hard liners will tell you that means that God looks like a man. Some say that God looks like a woman. The really stupid hard liners will tell you that God resembles a WHITE man.

My belief, however, is that God was made in OUR image. He is imperfect only because we are imperfect. He is a construct of man's fear of the unknown. Everything else is fantasy.

_ID_

12-04-2007, 04:40 PM

Could he not create something that wasn't perfect on purpose, thus creation of an imperfect human was perfect because it was conceived perfectly?

There are many arguments to the notion of a perfect god. The easiest being that of outcomes. What about obscurity or confusion? What about creativity in humans that he created? Leaving the unknown for us to discover means that by our own imperfections our discoveries will therefore be imperfect. Thus our conclusions about god and his intentions would never be accurate. So any argument had would be null from the beginning.

ThisYouWillDo

12-04-2007, 05:38 PM

Thorne: I disagree with you. How come that doesn't surprise you? Well, the reason I disagree is only to keep this thread alive. LOL

IDCrew: I don't know how to answer you, I can see how your suggestion works, but I would have to answer that logic prohibits a perfect God conceiving an imperfect creation. And this is just a logical game really: a chicken-and-egg conundrum. Trying to work out, on a reasonable basis, what the supernatural is. You could cut through the question by saying God is a creation of Man and is therefore no more perfect than Man is, which is Thorne's position, or you could just say, the ordinary rules of logic don't apply to the supernatural.

That would mean a perfect god can do imperfect things, a good god is also a bad god, god is love and hate. It would also mean that a supernatural Being could also be a natural person. Opposites would be the same: to bless would be the same as to abominate. In other words, everything would be chaos and totally inexplicable. And that would be intellectually unacceptable.

So what do we do? Give in and trust to blind faith, or do we, as rational creatures, carry on trying to understand?

TYWD

In other words, everything would be chaos and totally inexplicable.

... I wonder if there's a Quantum Theory for religion

Logic1

12-05-2007, 03:50 AM

Which God?
Is there a God?
What is perfect?
Perfect for whom?
Perfect in relation to what?
Would we want a perfect God?

ThisYouWillDo

12-05-2007, 05:52 AM

The one in Paradise Lost; there is in that poem; absolutely without fault; for all; to everything; He is supposed to be perfect whether we want Him to be or not. The question is, is He?

Guest 91108

12-05-2007, 05:55 AM

I think it's a flawed concept for an imperfect being as we are .. to think that we can conceive and understand the Divine and any cause and effect reasoning that the Divine would have.
Is very similiar to a worm understanding what I think on metaphysical healing -- Not conceptually possible.

ThisYouWillDo

12-05-2007, 06:12 AM

With respect, it's not the same. The worm has no concept of metaphysical healing: we do have a concept of perfection.

It may be that there is a "higher" logic than we are aware of which enables what we perceive to be flaws to be perfections, and by examining questions such as these we may be able to catch a glimpse of divine reasoning. Such revelations or discoveries could have profound and far-reaching effects on one's faith or lack of it.

Or it could just be fun to pick over logical inconsitencies such as these and to consider how people accomodate them in their arguments about the nature of the divine.

Guest 91108

12-05-2007, 08:44 AM

hrm I think the worm does have it's own concepts. I always root for the underdog.
Besides.. the worm wins in the end much like the cockroach.

ThisYouWillDo

12-05-2007, 09:16 AM

Logic1

12-06-2007, 08:35 AM

?

he means that the worms (and cockroaches) will outlive us all.

TomOfSweden

12-06-2007, 01:26 PM

This is totally based on the western tradition of interpreting Aristotle's the "unmoved mover" theory of god. ie, god as omnipotent.

The Pagan god Balder, (alt Baldr), what could he do that was so special? As far as I know it was nothing. He had ordinary human powers, he was just good at them. Like Batman. God is an extremely wide and I'd dare say has a limitless scope. It doesn't even need people worshipping him. Loki's the prime example of that one.

Pantheists believe god is the naturalist and very much un-supernatural known universe. It's the worlds fastest growing religion today.

Hindu's don't share this world view at all.

This is all philosophic and theological theories from two centuries ago. I would have thought/hoped we, (as in humanity) should have moved on by now. It's a very ethno-centric way to see philosophic thought.

I'm not saying we shouldn't believe this god theory. But it's far from the only one.

There's also the issue with mysticism. It's only one part of Christianity that believes the nature of God can be reasoned about. Mystics argue it is impossible to understand God and to reason about it is heresy. Which was pretty much the all pervasive attitude until the Gnostics broke the tradition.

And this idea is still around. The ancient mystic phrase, "God works in mysterious ways" is still used today.

religion doesn't have to make sense or be logical. Not on any level. We cannot demand this of believers.

ThisYouWillDo

12-07-2007, 07:43 AM

-Deleted-

ThisYouWillDo

12-07-2007, 07:44 AM

Now this is very interesting, Tom. Thanks for your thoughts.

I agree we are discussing a western concept of an omnipotent god, and whether that concept stands up to scrutiny according to its own terms. I did not anticipate we would also review other religions' concepts of godhead too ~is godhead the perfect blow-job?~, but if it helps, it is certainly worthwhile doing so.

I wonder if Milton was trying to deal with the question of gnosticism; but I don't think so. I don't believe that anywhere in the poem is there any reference to a Monad or that God is a demiurge. And Milton would certainly not thank Satan for freeing Mankind from the control of a being who was either evil or only of limited goodness. Although Milton has been described as a heretic, that was not because he held gnostic beliefs, but rather because he was a monist and believed that all things, animal, vegetable, mineral and divine were the same. He was also anti-episcopal and a republican, which would have made him very unpopular in England before and after the interregnum and would have increased the antipathy the Establishment held for his religious views. I'm sure he believed God to be absolutely perfect.

Furthermore, I'm not sure we're considering what moves the prime mover. Only the notion of divine perfection. Is that different?

I don't think any modern religion - even fundamentalist ones - thinks that reasoning about the nature of God is heretical, although it might be concerned that heretical ideas could result from "incorrect" reasoning. But I don't think we should let that stop us. Do you?

TYWD

TomOfSweden

12-08-2007, 02:47 AM

Furthermore, I'm not sure we're considering what moves the prime mover. Only the notion of divine perfection. Is that different?

Aristotle has this all covered. It hinges on the assumption that a pot can never make a potter. According to the prime mover has by necessity be perfect since the harmony of nature is in such perfect balance. Thomas Aquinas explored this extensively. Darwin cracked it, so now Aristotle's theory isn't necessarily the only logical way to go. Philosophy is still exploring where Darwin's new paradigm of thought will take us.

I don't think any modern religion - even fundamentalist ones - thinks that reasoning about the nature of God is heretical, although it might be concerned that heretical ideas could result from "incorrect" reasoning. But I don't think we should let that stop us. Do you?

TYWD

If you read various histories of monotheism you'd be surprised. Thinking it's morally okay to reason about the nature of god is fairly modern. It's historically been frowned upon. Karen Armstrong's "History of God" is a good one to read about that. In Islam, I forget his name. But the main Islamic philosopher in the Wahabist branch of Islamic thought did extensively argue that it was heretical. It was/is fanatically anti-science.

I don't believe in heresy or hell so I'm not bound by any constrictions to argue about anything.

Beatrice

12-08-2007, 03:24 AM

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has." -Martin Luther

;)

TomOfSweden

12-09-2007, 05:41 AM

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has." -Martin Luther

;)

But Martin Luther's whole point was to question religious authorities and make up your own mind...and since he's a religious authority then....I think you can see where I'm going with this.

rce

12-15-2007, 06:41 AM

Aristotle has this all covered. It hinges on the assumption that a pot can never make a potter. According to the prime mover has by necessity be perfect since the harmony of nature is in such perfect balance. Thomas Aquinas explored this extensively. Darwin cracked it, so now Aristotle's theory isn't necessarily the only logical way to go. Philosophy is still exploring where Darwin's new paradigm of thought will take us.
...

I believe you are wrong on the importance of Darwin. The "Copernican" change of views from Aristotle to modern day science and philosophy was Immanuel Kant's Kritik der reinen Fernuft.

Kant described why you could not look at the world in the way Aristotle did. Th science in Aristotle's tradition was about explaining everything as a cause of the "first immovable mover". Kant, however, claimed that logic and mathematics where the only two areas where we can know what is right, thus the only two areas open for real science.

Later on, scolars of other sciences managed to save science and developed the way we look at science now, where something is scientifically proved if it is by far the most probable answer to a question, for instance through statistical measurements and empirical tests.

rce

12-15-2007, 06:44 AM

With respect, it's not the same. The worm has no concept of metaphysical healing: we do have a concept of perfection.
...

Still, there could be concepts which are so advanced that the human cannot even understand that they may exist.

ThisYouWillDo

12-15-2007, 05:34 PM

I'll own up to being baffled by some of the above. But I have a question for Tom and an observation for rce:

Tom: If Aristotle's potter must, by necessity, be perfect, how did imperfections come into being?

Rce: I did allow for a form of logic that was beyond human comprehension and I wondered if it was possible, by examining what appear to us to be logical flaws regarding the supernatural, that we might discover something of it.

TYWD

Domination King

12-16-2007, 03:26 PM

Is God perfect?

Rhetorical Question. No need for an answer.

ThisYouWillDo

12-16-2007, 06:07 PM

Most definitely not.

TomOfSweden

12-17-2007, 03:11 AM

I believe you are wrong on the importance of Darwin. The "Copernican" change of views from Aristotle to modern day science and philosophy was Immanuel Kant's Kritik der reinen Fernuft.

Kant described why you could not look at the world in the way Aristotle did. Th science in Aristotle's tradition was about explaining everything as a cause of the "first immovable mover". Kant, however, claimed that logic and mathematics where the only two areas where we can know what is right, thus the only two areas open for real science.

Later on, scolars of other sciences managed to save science and developed the way we look at science now, where something is scientifically proved if it is by far the most probable answer to a question, for instance through statistical measurements and empirical tests.

I think you are right in down playing the importance of Darwin in a strictly scientific/rational sense. But almost nobody got it back then. What I mean is that it wasn't until Darwin came with his theory people in general started putting two and two together. It wasn't until then the religious community reacted.

This is still today the major issue. The laws governing the universe are so distant that it's hard to see how they aply to us directly. So what if we don't any longer need 13 angels correcting the orbits of planets, (which where required for the earth in the middle thoery). But when it comes down to me and my body and my origins, it gets personal. I think the reason why the focus is on Darwin and creationism rather than the Kopernican revolution is 100% emotional. I'm pretty certian that if you ask any devout to-the-letter Christian who belives in creationism, they'll have no problem with Kopernicus or Kant.

Anyhoo. Let's replace "Darwin" with "new science" and I've said the same thing. But it's a lot less clear what I mean.

TomOfSweden

12-17-2007, 03:37 AM

Tom: If Aristotle's potter must, by necessity, be perfect, how did imperfections come into being?

According to the theory there are none. The world is perfect and just like god intended it to be. An important feature in the theory is that the goal was to explain why the world is perfect, or rather in perfect balance. If you don't think the world is perfect then this theory isn't for you.

Don't forget that this is way before the Theodicy paradox and the myrriad other problems with it's basic assumption were formulated.

Aristotle didn't actually have faith in this theory. It was just a theory. He also formulated the theory of abiogenesis, which is pretty much its oposite. He didn't have faith in that one either.

ThisYouWillDo

12-17-2007, 05:25 AM

Tom said: Aristotle didn't actually have faith in this theory. It was just a theory. He also formulated the theory of abiogenesis, which is pretty much its oposite. He didn't have faith in that one either.

ROFLMAO ... I'm a fan!

TomOfSweden

12-17-2007, 07:20 AM

ROFLMAO ... I'm a fan!

You and the whole western world. He's famous for a reason.

edit: The first guy who had faith in the "unmoved mover" theory in the religious sense was Sophia of Alexandria. He was the one who incorporated the theory into Judaism and laid the foundation for Christianity. Everything attributed to Jesus having said is all stuff first penned by Sophia. How Sophia has managed to become less of an important figure to Christians than Jesus himself, is just one of life's little mysteries.

Kevin100

12-18-2007, 05:40 PM

ThisYouWillDo

12-18-2007, 06:29 PM

Who in god's name would put juicy fruit in the middle of a playground and insist that it not be eaten.

Bringing us nicely back to my original question.

Thorne

12-18-2007, 08:49 PM

P.S. I do think the god of the Genesis story is a real sadist.

The Old Testament God is a petulant child with infinite power. Very reminiscent of the character Anthony Fremont in Jerome Bixby's story, "It's a Good Life." (It was made into a Twilight Zone episode in the '60s, starring Billy Mumy.)

_ID_

12-19-2007, 04:21 AM

Sadist, don't know. Mean spirited bully, and practical jokester most definitly.

TomOfSweden

12-19-2007, 04:33 AM

Aristotle could not account for infinity. I think this is a problem for him, and us today in explaining non cause and effect. In short: if you accept that time is infinite you do not need a first mover. Language does not accommodate infinity terribly easily. (If it took an infinite amount of time to get to here today, we would no be here today.) Children have no problem with "it has always been, and it will go on forever", some philosophers consider this to be immature thinking. I am not sure that it is. I think that the older we become the more thought is controlled by language. We cannot think that which we cannot express, or is simpler terms thought is language driven. I think children do not think in this way. They solve problems by imagination rather than by thought.
Kevin

But science hasn't discovered anything that's infinite yet. It's still just theory. As far as I can tell from the science literature I read, it's getting increasingly unlikely that we ever will.

Also I think you've mixed up your terminology when it comes to time. Time is a relative function of movement. If we accept the theory of the Big Bang, then "before" it there was no time. Impossible for us to comprehend, but not in any way infinite.

I'm not an ace at general relativity so please correct me if I got anything wrong here.

I've stopped picking on religious, (from the popular supernatural religions). They're wrong on so many levels. Why nit pick about details and degrees of wrongness? It's just cruel.

ThisYouWillDo

12-19-2007, 08:05 AM

I’ve done a little more reading around the subject (yep: I wiki’d it). But don’t imagine that what follows is at all scholarly, correct, or even sustainable. It simply reflects my current, limited understanding

First: Paradise Lost. Milton used the Garden of Eden allegory as a metaphor for England’s fall from grace after the dissolution of the Commonwealth and the restoration of the Crown. That’s what I’m told. Maybe this means that God in the poem was King Charles in reality. And while appearing to be perfect, i.e., good, He in fact was evil and trapped Eve into taking the Forbidden Fruit. Thus eating the Forbidden Fruit is participating in an evil regime - the monarchy - and the expulsion from Eden is the demise of the Commonwealth. Although in reality, the Restoration happened after the Commonwealth crumbled, not the other way round.

Second: As to perfection, the ancients did not understand the concept in the way we do today. For them, perfection was “endless” or “great”. Later Parmenides regarded perfection as complete, or entire, and finite. Plato considered the world to be perfect because it was spherical and moved in a perfect circle. It was also in a state of harmony because it had been created by a good demiurge (a creator god who is not necessarily supreme). Thus “perfection” has limits: the creator does not. Aristotle appears to have held the same view – the world was perfect, but the creator was not.

Not even when the Christianity came along was God held to be perfect. He could not be, because He was not finite. Only a finite being lacks nothing and is therefore perfect (I don’t follow that idea at all! Aquinas put it this way, "That is perfect, which lacks nothing of the perfection proper to it" which is a little easier to understand, I think). Also, the divine is beyond human comprehension and is beyond anything we can imagine, including perfection.

It was Descartes who attributed perfection to God. Descartes was a contemporary of Milton, and I think it is likely that the latter was aware of his ideas. I do not know if he was influenced by them, though. According to Descartes, God possessed “perfections” which implies that He was greater then any one perfection and probably greater than all of them together.

Thus, the apparent paradox in Paradise Lost may be resolved if you allow that God is above perfection (we have already considered this in earlier posts), and that Milton did not even consider it necessary to consider perfection. It still leaves open the question whether God was good or evil to “test” Adam and Eve, knowing that they could not possibly pass that test, and then to cast them out of Eden for failing.

TYWD

TomOfSweden

12-20-2007, 02:01 AM

Also, the divine is beyond human comprehension and is beyond anything we can imagine, including perfection.

This is also known as Christian mysticism and can only work once the paradigm of thought is been shifted to only include "the unmoved mover". The reason for this is of course that it is "argument from ignorance". When in doubt insert God, since it's the default faith. This was just as much a logical fallacy in Aquinas day as it is now. Today we say "God of gaps" and smirk a bit when ever it's brought up.

We can't say anything about something beyond our imagination. It effectively prevents us from having faith in it. We can't take a leap of faith if we don't know to where were leaping. It also makes it impossible for us to deduce God's perfection.

That's the thing I love about Aquinas. He spent his whole life dedicated to proving Gods existence and all he did was to prove that it rests on circular argumentation from the lack of evidence.

I love religion.

ThisYouWillDo

12-20-2007, 12:19 PM

TomOfSweden

12-21-2007, 05:20 AM

Tom: I do not want to believe that divine perfection is beyond human contemplation - and I would not disagree with you for saying divine perfection depends upon human contemplation.

However, I have trouble with the suggestion that perfection depends upon a prime mover, as you appear to hold. Is this because you consider the prime mover creates everything, including concepts like hard and soft, abstract and concrete, early and late, perfect and imperfect? I am of the view that these concepts do not get created and would be the same in any other universe as they are in this one.

We have discovered (or I have anyway) that the early Christians and the Ancients did not link the two things: God was not perfect because he was not limited, and to be perfect, a thing had to be complete, entire or finished. But they also believed He was the prime mover notwithstanding his "unfinished" condition.

So why is it necessary for perfection to depend upon a prime mover?

TYWD

Actually I think it does. The prime mover has to set up the rules. The whole point with the idea of the prime mover is that it was nothing before it at all. Compare it to the Hindu god Brahma who not only had the power to create the world but also itself. It must be the same deal with the Christian concept of god. They just ignore anything "before". What is considered perfect is relative and strongly dependent upon the universe it exists in. It's also dependent on context, but let's ignore that for now. All the concepts: hard and soft, abstract and concrete, early and late, perfect and imperfect are all highly context sensitive and are of course not the same regardless of universe. I'm sure you'll agree if you just gave it a little extra thought.

ThisYouWillDo

12-21-2007, 08:32 AM

TomOfSweden

12-25-2007, 01:03 PM

I have tried, but I cannot see why perfection must be linked to a prime mover, even in the context of our earlier posts (only after Descartes was God, the prime mover, held to be perfect and the chances are that Milton did not regard Him as such at all).

It is agreed that perfection only came into being after the Creation, but not that it might be something else had the universe been made differently. I still think that, whether in a divinely created, three-dimensional universe, or an eleven dimensional one brought into being by some colossal explosion out of nothing, and tied together with bits of string, up is still up, and not left, or right, or having the characteristics of Swedishness. Likewise, first will always be followed by last and, to my way of thinking, perfect will always be flawless. If these concepts are the same in any universe, they are not created by God, they just ARE.

Abstract semantic containers are always different depending on what you put in it. For every Christian there's a different "god" concept. For every person there's a different "perfection" concept. It's just play with words. These concepts only have value when you talk about concrete manifestations of them. You can discuss that in relative terms, but not it's "perfection".

ie The entity that controlled the pen of all the authors and editors of the Bible, that voice in my head when I pray, that entity that guided my car away from the collision and that force that made sure my baby was beautiful..etc. What can I deduce about the entity from these manifestations? I can't even deduce they're the same entity, so whether or not it's perfect or not doesn't really enter in to it.

Whether or not god is perfect or not is just double abstraction. It's like saying the words, "Complete and unhinged greatness" and pretending you've made a statement or even a complete sentence.

edit: just to be perfectly clear here, I'm not talking about whether or not "God" exists or not. I'm simply talking about what the concept of "God" includes. Which is the step before exploring any possible existence.

ThisYouWillDo

12-30-2007, 08:37 PM

If we deny words a common, precise meaning, how can we consider the question at all? Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.

TomOfSweden

12-31-2007, 06:38 AM

If we deny words a common, precise meaning, how can we consider the question at all? Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.

I'd argue that abstract words are very valuable. The whole point with abstract words is that they are containers to be filled with meaning. They are like variables in programming. A very powerful tool.

It only becomes a problem when the content of the container is erroneously inferred.

According to the linguist Stephen Pinker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Pinker) we cannot actually imagine anything abstract and will always see everything as concrete. So when we talk about it we translate it from the abstract to concrete and then the receiver needs to do the opposite for it to make any sense.

Compare it to talking about a car. If I say, "You will be able to transport the garden table in your car". I always have one image of a car in my mind which I fit the table in, while you in your head will have another image of a car which you are trying to fit the same table into. If it won't fit in your image you'll have to think of another concrete car in which it will fit. This is not a problem with the abstract word "car", this is a strength. One word, ("car") can mean any car which saves a lot of time and energy.

The word "god" is the exact same thing. If I say "god listens to your prayers", I have imagined a concrete physical way I'm effected by that god, and also a concrete way I'm praying and for these words to be transferred. It may not be conscious, but we all do it. It needs to be translated to a physical way you feel when there is god-human contact.

"God" has not been given a common precise meaning for Christians so no Christian knows they are talking about the same god as another when they are referring to this abstract entity. I think they are on purpose avoiding this because it will create a stronger perceived unity between Christians. It's a bit like a national flag. We all try our hardest to keep the symbol as free as possible from anything concrete. It's all rubbish like "the land of the free" and other abstract expressions. This may be a very powerful reason, and even very positive. But we shouldn't work backward from this and start assuming that just because many people stand behind the same symbol, that the symbol symbolises the same thing for each supporter.

This is why reasoning about any concrete physical properties of god always will fail. Thomas Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas) has taken this and run with it as far as we could, and it didn't go very well.

ThisYouWillDo

12-31-2007, 11:35 AM

I wish I'd started this thread before I'd taken my English A-Level exam. But I'm 40 years too late! However, I suspect the examiner might have said I'd strayed too far away from Milton's Paradise Lost to pass.

I'm filled with admiration and respect for you, Tom.

TYWD

Widget

01-05-2008, 02:21 AM

Is God perfect....hmm interesting,

Now Satan and his devils weren't always evil. Satan before his fall was one of the bigger heavenly creatures and his name was Lucifer «he who carries the light». His position was on the highest place of the unbody creatures and spiritual perfectio

Before his fall he was the first in the angelic hierarchy having power, brilliance, wisdom as well as the kindness of the angelic nature. He was Gods right hand man and yet tried to over throw God. Now if God was perfect would he have not seen this coming? Would he have not allowed Satan such power in the first place? Evil and imperfection was there before man and the temptation of Eve.

Perhaps God tested man with the forbidden fruit as he had been betrayed by one so close already. Hence he is not perfect as he knows doubt and betrayal.

ThisYouWillDo

01-05-2008, 06:19 AM

Thank-you Widget. Very nicely put.

Now, we have all heard references to an angry God in the Old Testament. And He admits to being a jealous God too (although the meaning of "jealous" might be up for debate). Man has experienced the wrath of God many times. My question now is, does God have the right to punish Man for any transgressions of holy writ that he commits? If God is not perfect Himself, can He expect us to overcome our failings?

Someone trawled through the Bible and counted how many deaths God is responsible for: well over 2 million* (and I think that excludes "uncountable" events like the Flood). Were these the acts of a fair and just God, I wonder (I notice some wag commented, "They all deserved it." Maybe they did. What do you think?).

And someone also asked how many deaths Lucifer was responsible for. Wouldn't that be interesting to know?

TYWD

* http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html

Widget

01-07-2008, 11:53 PM

And someone also asked how many deaths Lucifer was responsible for. Wouldn't that be interesting to know?

TYWD

* http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html

But how does this compare with Satan? How many did he kill in the Bible?

The only direct reference to Satan killing in the bible is in the book of Job, and even these he shares with God, since God allowed him to do it as a part of a bet.The seven sons and three daughters of Job.

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job ... And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.
...
And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the LORD ... put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
...
And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house...And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. -- Job 1:1-19

Now come to mention it, God was gambling with his people like we bet on horses or dogs. Is this also an act of a perfect God? One who casually bets with another over his "children's" actions and thinks nothing of seeing everything taken from Job, his family, home, health, status and respect. Then gives him back a new family as if the old family meant little or nothing to replace like one would put a bull in a new heard of cows. Talk about adding insult to injury.

TomOfSweden

01-08-2008, 02:38 AM

I thought Satan just was a misunderstanding. Armstrong spells it out in her, the History of God.

If I remember correctly. The root of the word is from erroneous worship. If you do it wrong you worship "Sheitan". So let's say God thinks suicide bombing really is wrong and you blow yourself up in gods name. Or even as something as simple as going to church on a Saturday. Then you're worshipping Satan.

So Satan isn't an actual entity or force. It's a misunderstanding, (on several levels). As far as I know it's only Catholicism who believe in Satan as a guy with horns. All the other Abrahamic sects have stuck with the original interpretation. So being corrupted by the devil isn't being talked into doing bad. It's just you being confused. Which is a much more beautiful world, isn't it?

It's also a very old term that is pre-pagan even.

edit: and reverting to the classic interpretation also evaporates a whole bag of theological paradoxes.

Thorne

01-08-2008, 04:06 AM

So Satan isn't an actual entity or force. It's a misunderstanding, (on several levels). As far as I know it's only Catholicism who believe in Satan as a guy with horns. All the other Abrahamic sects have stuck with the original interpretation. So being corrupted by the devil isn't being talked into doing bad. It's just you being confused. Which is a much more beautiful world, isn't it?

Except that then one can only blame God for the evil in the world, not a dark, depraved Nemesis. Either that or we must all take responsibility for the evils that we do. No more, "The Devil made me do it!"

Widget

01-08-2008, 04:11 AM

Thus, the apparent paradox in Paradise Lost may be resolved if you allow that God is above perfection (we have already considered this in earlier posts), and that Milton did not even consider it necessary to consider perfection. It still leaves open the question whether God was good or evil to “test” Adam and Eve, knowing that they could not possibly pass that test, and then to cast them out of Eden for failing.

TYWD

Ok well you may also add on that since God is all knowing is aware of how everything will unfold before it happens, then he was testing them knowing they would fail. Then he laid the smack down on the descendants of man, not just the offending parties and singled out the woman for the extra bit of punishment. God would have been aware of the presence of the serpent that will be Eve's tempter and seducer into disobedience. Sort of makes the whole thing seem like a cruel game.

TomOfSweden

01-09-2008, 01:38 AM

Ok well you may also add on that since God is all knowing is aware of how everything will unfold before it happens, then he was testing them knowing they would fail. Then he laid the smack down on the descendants of man, not just the offending parties and singled out the woman for the extra bit of punishment. God would have been aware of the presence of the serpent that will be Eve's tempter and seducer into disobedience. Sort of makes the whole thing seem like a cruel game.

It's one of the reasons I'm not Christian. Not because evil exists. I don't believe in evil. Christianity itself creates a universe where it's good vs evil struggle, but the creator is good. So Christianity has set itself up as its own logical inconsistency. But this can all be solved by reading the Bible liberally. I read it so liberally that it becomes irrelevant. It also helps if you assume god is free from the shackles of logic that constrains humanity.

DOMLORD

02-12-2008, 08:44 PM

i once read "CHOKE," a book by Chuck Palaniuck
in the book it was proposed that Christ had to learn how to use miracles.
maybe God had to learn to use forsight? even if he knew the outcomes, probability of outcomes, and repracautions of each outcome (because life is like dominos) you have the choice to muck with God's plan, or at least try.
take a smoker for example, with every cigarete he is giving God a dead line for his death potentially messing with his plan.
so no i can't say God is perfect

Red Dragon {mpellegrino}

02-13-2008, 05:12 AM

Maybe if He were a SHE he would be perfect?

Dragon

ThisYouWillDo

02-13-2008, 06:46 AM

If He were a She, we'd know it!!!

deva

02-16-2008, 11:17 AM

sir, it feels to me you are a bit too influenced by your conditionement. why and wish a perfect god? anything perfect dies and our wonderful, ever changing universe is very alive. the easy way to make all the bit fit looks to me as being able to accept the unity of the universe and of the divine. and no strings attached. we may or may not get it, perfection is all inclusive, inperfection included.
deva

mkemse

02-16-2008, 01:01 PM

very simple, no he is not, my opnion anyway, sorry if anyone is offended by this but I do not believe he is perfect

wmrs2

02-16-2008, 02:30 PM

To the original thread in the question,"Is God perfect?" the answer is "yes." But God's perfection does not depend on how we define perfection or even how we view God. It depends on what God really Is. God cannot be made different than He Is by saying, "can God make a rock bigger than He can lift?" That's stupid.

The Bible teaches that God is a verb noun. God is a process, a method. an all-knowing Way. Once you understand this, it can be seen that evil is used like a weed to require farmers to to use better "methods" to improve the creation of a perfect garden. The imperfections (weeds) is not the garden but with cultivation the garden can be perfect.

God did not say "let's make man once and for all" but rather He said, Let us make man in our image," which is a process. If you say God is not perfect because you are full of sins, know this, God is still working on you to even make you perfect. The thing about free will is that you can either help God in the process or resist Him. The choice is yours.

I hope this helps!

wmrs2

02-16-2008, 02:49 PM

wmrs2

02-16-2008, 03:00 PM

One more thought on this subject of the perfection God, notice the relationship between God and man. It is very much like the relationship between a dom and a slave (sub). To be truly happy man must submit to his Master just as a sub must submit to his dome. Somewhere on the net I read the twenty five requirements of how a dom's slave had to commit to the BDSM lifestyle to be a true sub. It sounded like a profession of faith of a Christian to God.

wmrs2

02-16-2008, 04:10 PM

ThisWeWillDo:
You have raised many interesting questions. You say you are not a deep thinker. I think you probably are a deep thinker, which is why you ask for help. The problem might be that you are too close to your religious training and not able to see the big picture. Some of the following may help or at least contribute a different point of view.

If you think of God as a process, it is easier to see him as perfect and always becoming more perfect. Sometimes it takes several tries for the scientific method to produce true facts. Scientists not attack the method when they fail, they keep trying and eventually they learn how to send a man to the moon.

A short statement on Free Will. God did not place man in the garden to Test him but to give a safe haven while He thought man how to live. God was spreading light and wisdom so man could leave the garden and not corrupted the rest of God's creation. That shows man how God expects man to use free will.

God didn't deceive Adam. Adam was not ready (readiness) to exist outside the garden. Don't eat there of is what preached Satan said differently. Don't blame God. You say there is good or evil Blame evil.

The theory behind Christian theology is that Christ came to restore light so mankind can live in the world properly. Again here is that free will of which you speak. The choice is up to you. If you choose evil, don't blame God's imperfection. If you choose good (your wife, children, and friend's well being), be thankful that God allowed the choice.

WMRS2

Mr.J

02-16-2008, 10:41 PM

depeche mode said it best " i think that gods got a sick sence of humour and when i die i expect to find him laughing"

TomOfSweden

02-17-2008, 02:07 AM

The second part of your question is "can God be God if he is not perfect?" which I don't think is a logical question. One can not fault God for not being what man says God is. God is still creating the universe with man a part of the universe. God does not have to be man's view of perfection but man must become what God thinks man should be.

He he. You're very insightful. I don't often hear Christians having realised this. Of course it also makes God unknowable and makes everything humanity has ever said or believed about God questionable. It defeats the point of having faith in God, doesn't it?

Thorne

02-17-2008, 08:58 AM

He he. You're very insightful. I don't often hear Christians having realised this. Of course it also makes God unknowable and makes everything humanity has ever said or believed about God questionable. It defeats the point of having faith in God, doesn't it?

It doesn't necessarily defeat the point of FAITH. It defies those who proclaim to know the will of God, which is religion, which is a whole different thing.

TomOfSweden

02-17-2008, 09:12 AM

It doesn't necessarily defeat the point of FAITH. It defies those who proclaim to know the will of God, which is religion, which is a whole different thing.

It actually does. If you don't know what it is you have faith in, then what exactly is it you have faith in/believe? You can't have faith in an abstract concept. If you do, then "faith" is the wrong word for it. You might have faith in that there is something more than what science can prove. A widely abused platitude, but is none the less correct usage.

Christian mysticism and any mysticism cult, were political compromises. They never did make any sense. Nobody educated has ever claimed that. And all these usages of "faith" hail from there. If Spock was here, he'd call it illogical.

ThisYouWillDo

02-17-2008, 10:59 AM

TomOfSweden

02-17-2008, 12:08 PM

I wonder if what hoi polloi believe in is a vague and general "goodness" perhaps personified by a man or an elephant. No dogma, no real preconceptions. Then along come people who crave power and hijack this general concept as a tool or a weapon, saying, "You must believe this way, or observe these rites (and pay these dues or tithes to me) if you ever hope to attain salvation."

I've never believed this to be the case. I think it's the other way around. People have used their education, observations and intelligence to piece together a model of the world that looks coherent. We have up until quite recently had quite good reasons to believe in some sort of supernatural power.

Why God is such a popular theory still today I think is because it requires the least amount of work. A bit like biological organisms are very complex, therefore God must have done it. By claiming it is too complex to have come about spontaneously, we make it unnecessary for our selves to study it. Since we already know the answer. It's a method of doing away with the unknown and explaining it. I think the God theory is for people who don't like not knowing and don't have the patience of finding out. Today with the body of scientific work being the way it is, the only way to "know" it all, is to be religious. But that's just my own private theory.

People often want leaders, people who take charge, and who have done their homework. That's why I'm against direct democracy. I vote because I don't have the time and energy to devote myself to politics. I trust my doctor, estate agent and so on. This isn't a sign of weakness, but necessity. If we believe in God, we'll want somebody who's studied it more than us to inform us.

It's about who you trust. If you're a Catholic, you trust the pope more than scientists. Nobody hijacked anything. The popes power is enforced from the bottom up. Nobody today is forced to believe in God. They might be forced to go to Church, but faith is an intensely private matter. It's only in the head. Also religion changes. The Christian church's most important foundation used to be the "great chain of being". Nobody believes in that any more. Nobody. Christianity from just a few hundred years ago is dead. Nothing remains except it's name. Not even the Bible. It's simply interpreted completely differently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chain_of_Being

The problem of religion isn't that it can be hijacked by spiritually corrupt men. It's the religion itself. What if you do get 72 virgins if you blow yourself up? The problem is it's followers who make far too low demands on evidence and logical consistency. People who have opinions on things they haven't studied. The various moral messages are of no consequence. They aren't the reason anybody uses to support their faith. But that's just my highly personal opinion.

wmrs2

02-19-2008, 01:00 PM

The problem of religion isn't that it can be hijacked by spiritually corrupt men. I think the next statement:It's the religion itself. should be stated like this: it is also the religion itself. There is tremendous insight in Tom's statement. I think this statement summarizes all the good pints on which he has already commented.

The Christianity we have today is not the Christian religion of which history tells us. But I don't think the majority of Christians are aware of this fact. Maybe because God said "I change not" Christians came to believe that they should not change, thusly making no effort to change. (I don't want to raise the old question of whether or not God is the only absolute and does not change.)

True Christianity has outgrown the old model of history. Too many Christians have been too slow to reject the behaviors of past Christianity. Racial prejudice is an example that comes to mind. Slavery should have been abolished before 1865 as with many other behaviors. True Christians should have and did lead the charge in the abolition of such evils.

As man sees the model better, he needs to change to reflect the model. That's called walking in the light. Many churches are dominated by spiritually corrupt men. These men lust stayed there like frogs in slow to boil water unit they cooked to death without knowing it. Some have escaped, though, and are doing just fine.

I ignore burned frogs and admit the problem with religion as being unable to make religion relative to the present day. One of the recent threads here says "Christians scare me. I have not read that thread yet. But the author is talking about the old corrupt religion that has been stolen away. My religion is not like that.

I hope this helps

ThisYouWillDo

02-19-2008, 06:52 PM

To be honest, I got lost in this thread many postings back, and I started it! In fact, that just about marks the point I got lost - lol.

In this debate we should start out by accepting that God exists, if even if we don't believe it, at least until the only logical argument left is that he cannot. (I realise that Tom will say something like, all arguments ultimately prove his non-existence ... but please be patient.)

As I see it, the weight of argument here was that it is logically impossible for God to be perfect, and the consensus also seemed to be that God was either evil or not omniscient (he is unable to know what he has determined to be unknowable). Either way, it was wrong of him to "test" mankind if he knew in advance we would fail - if that's what he did, or it was wanton of him to play dice with our fate, knowing us to be imperfect creations.

wmrs describes a new religion with the same God. How has Jehova been reformed?

TomOfSweden

02-20-2008, 03:18 AM

True Christianity has outgrown the old model of history. Too many Christians have been too slow to reject the behaviors of past Christianity. Racial prejudice is an example that comes to mind. Slavery should have been abolished before 1865 as with many other behaviors. True Christians should have and did lead the charge in the abolition of such evils.

But you still haven't answered the question on how you tell the difference? What is the difference between true and false Christianity? How can you tell whether somebody is following the correct message of Jesus or not? Isn't there the possibility that all Christians are wrong? Isn't there a possibility that God exists but everybody that has ever lived has so far misunderstood him and his message? What if it really is the Greek that will inhibit thy girth?

TomOfSweden

02-20-2008, 03:47 AM

In this debate we should start out by accepting that God exists, if even if we don't believe it, at least until the only logical argument left is that he cannot. (I realise that Tom will say something like, all arguments ultimately prove his non-existence ... but please be patient.)

I have no problems discussing hypothetical theories. The Christian theory of God is in philosophy known as the "Unmoved Mover" theory. It was thoroughly explored long before Christianity was invented. So I don't think there's a conflict between exploring a specific facet of a God theory and being atheist. My end goal isn't to attack religion, but to kill off logical dead ends. So we can spend our time exploring/debating paths which hypothetically can lead somewhere. Dead ends are just a waste of time for everybody. Religious and secular alike.

If we accept that the Bible is not a finished product, but simply an attempt to write down how far we'd come so far in the exploration of God ca AD 350. If we do, there are solutions.

For example, if I'd be Christian, a solution to the theodicy paradox I might use is to reject good and evil as concepts. Reject that evil is a motivator for humans. And see humanity as solely motivated by fulfilling base human needs. And then see the labels of good and evil, as a method of grouping behaviour into ranks depending on how helpful it can be to society at large. If we have this interpretation then God is freed from what humans label as good and evil. But it of course means that God is neither good nor evil.

But if we cling to the Bible as free from fault there are no solutions as the one I described. Then the Christian theory of God is just plain broken/incomplete with irreconcilable problems. Hence the Christian paradoxes. Another word for it is false faith. And this is by logical necessity. You could go the other way and reject logic. But I doubt that is much of solution in the long run.

ThisYouWillDo

02-20-2008, 05:16 AM

Which of the mainstream Christian faiths continue to hold the Bible as free from fault? A quick skim over Wikipedia indicates that the main faiths hold the Bible to have been inspired by God, and this is represented in both tradition and in scripture. I believe that this means that conflicts are recognised and that the Pope, Council of Bishops, Holy Synod or some other authoritive body will then determine what the correct interpreation is.

It is clearly recognised that the Bible, to be "properly" understood must be "properly" interpreted, and, where there is doubt, the Church must give its definitive guidance.

Other faiths - more fundamentalist in nature, it seems, believe the Bible to be without error ... mostly, the King James Bible, or its equivalent in other languages.

But having said that, it is no help with my original question. Although Tom's "solution to thodicy" might be. There is no good, and no evil. Indeed, before Adam and Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit, they had no concept of such things. But then the "subtil" serpent said to Eve, "For God doth know that in the day ye eat [the forbidden fruit], then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:5) And so it transpired, they ate, and knew good and evil (ie, they became aware of their nakedness, and were ashamed).

As a result, God banished Man from the Garden of Eden, and posted Cherubims to guard the way to the Tree of Life:

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ...
Gen 3:22-23

I conclude God was jealous of his divinity and wished to prevent mankind becoming immortal and omniscient.

TYWD

TomOfSweden

02-20-2008, 06:15 AM

Which of the mainstream Christian faiths continue to hold the Bible as free from fault?

Exactly. Here's more on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

I'd call your attitude very modern.

BTW Christian fundamentalism by definition means they believe in Biblical inerrancy and is a philosophical and logical dead end.

I conclude God was jealous of his divinity and wished to prevent mankind becoming immortal and omniscient.

Anthropomorphism per chance? Aren't you now starting to read in human qualities in God. Why would an omnipotent entity be jealous? Isn't jealousy expression of man's competitive nature? Why would anything omnipotent compete with anybody ever about anything? It'd win every time.

Let's assume God exists. Maybe it's more like this. God speaks the "Truth" to people. But what they hear/understand/interpret is an adapted version to the culture they live in. This is including the authors of the Bible and any other holy text. As human culture evolves and the more we hear the same divine messages we will eventually get it. And now human spiritual evolution is somewhere in the middle. How about that theory? It holds together logically, doesn't it? It doesn't offend anybodies religious sensitivities either, does it?

I personally don't think this is very satisfactory since it doesn't answer the question why God would do it. But then again, neither does inerrant Christianity either. And none of us could even begin to reason about what an omnipotent being would or wouldn't do, so anything could be true.

ThisYouWillDo

02-20-2008, 06:34 AM

TomOfSweden

02-20-2008, 07:50 AM

[QUOTE=TomOfSweden;562764]

Aren't you now starting to read in human qualities in God.

QUOTE]

Very probably I am. But I used the term "jealous" to mean "protective": God wanted to protect his divinity from becoming commonplace by preventing Adam from eating from the Tree of Life. I was not suggesting competition between God and Adam.

I am begining to think of God as a rather insecure divinity who needed to be oppressive to demonstrate his power.

Couldn't that simply be down to human interpretation? If we interpret Gods activities and messages as humans we're bound to insert all kinds of unwarranted judgements on why God did what and his motivations. If God lies beyond our scope of good and evil it is very hard for us to make any judgements as to what Gods character is.

Thorne

02-20-2008, 02:18 PM

[QUOTE=ThisYouWillDo;562765]If God lies beyond our scope of good and evil it is very hard for us to make any judgements as to what Gods character is.

Our concept of good and evil comes from God, does it not? At least in the Western world, those areas once dominated by the Catholic Church, our laws and morals are derived from the Bible. And the Bible is God's word, is it not? So we must conclude that God's character is similar to our own.

Of course, it could be that God is more like American lawmakers, passing down his commandments as they pass down laws, but absolving himself from adhering to those commandments, as our lawmakers will absolve themselves.

More likely, though, is that God evolves over time just as humanity does. As humanity became more "civilized" so did God, or our perception of God. As the Church fragmented and developed into multiple religions, so did God. Now each religion has their own concept of what God is and what he wants us to do. The only thing they are even remotely united in is their fear and hatred of nonbelievers.

ThisYouWillDo

02-20-2008, 07:59 PM

[QUOTE=ThisYouWillDo;562765]

If God lies beyond our scope of good and evil it is very hard for us to make any judgements as to what Gods character is.

But I don't believe he does lie beyond our scope of good and evil: and the passage I quoted form Genesis supports this view because it says that, after they ate the Forbidden Fruit, they knew good and evil.

wmrs2

02-20-2008, 11:27 PM

In the USA about 80% of the adult population believes in God. A good percentage of these believers are un-churched. A smaller percentage of those who do attend church are really dogmatic about their beliefs. Most of the population of our country is rather casual about the belief in God. It is my opinion that most believers prefer to avoid such labels as radical, fanatical, close-minded, etc. These people can be called the middle of the road group that both political parties must appeal to in order to win elections.

Most of the middle of the road persons think of themselves as fair minded, thoughtful, and discrete in behavior. But I doubt that very few of these people have thought out and then accepted the system of ethics, ontology, cosmology, epistemology, logic or science. Most people seem to be programmed to be pragmatist from birth. Baby cries. Baby is fed. Baby learns crying is good. Latter in life this behavior must be changed. Eventually to get what it wants the chjld must learn to talk and to ask for what it wants. The baby grows to this mature stage without thinking out the complete process.

In just as a real process a mature adult has worked out fundamental beliefs about the universe and the God in that universe. He may not have taken time to consciously think through his ontological belief about God, but this does not mean that his belief about being does not work for him. Problems will occur when his beliefs competes or interferes with other peoples' belief system. Then comes war, fights, murder, etc.

It is at this point that reassessment of values and beliefs of being need to be made. The person who does the reassessment is the philosopher. The philosopher of religion has a big job and must use all his tools. His tools are reasoning, logic, intuition, science, experience, and objectivity. Closely related to intuition is revelation, innate knowledge and self evident truths (see the Constitution of the USA).

After having used all the tools of philosophy, the philosopher still must admit that God or truth can not be defiantly proven to be. He will have discovered much evidence through a careful study of history, man, an man's reaction to what man called God, but the true philosopher will admit that there is good arguments against whatever has been chosen to be the truth.

In the end the true philosopher will be forced to chose the theory of the universe that makes the most sense to him, all this while he continues to study ontology and cosmology. He choses because life must go forward while searching to know more about God.

I hope this helps.

wmrs2

02-21-2008, 12:36 AM

Do I believe in miracles? Yes! Do I believe in God? Yes!

Many years of thought and study has gone into my philosophy of religion. I have done this study NOT to be able to make smart ass remarks to others about their experience with God. It has been a study to help me understand how I should live and behave.

In justifying my belief in God, the first step was to determine what cosmological world or universe was this in which we live.There is no need for me to tell you what I think the universe is like. Certainly any of you could come forth with an argument against this view and also there are many Sophist out there willing to tare down others to win an argument or show how smart they are.

First, admitting the universe was like such and such, then God would be like this in that universe. For example, in Determinism the belief is that everything in the universe was predetermined when God first moved the first atom. Determinism was predisposed to the belief in a cause and effect universe. God did not even have to be aware or conscious to be the prime mover or God. Even your resistance to Determinism was predetermined.

I believe in cause and effect but my universe allows for, and in fact, requires reasoning. So, what would my God be like? From the basic belief in a particular universe, what ethical code should I follow? That was easily determined after deducing what God was like and how God intended for man to behave in his universe. The process is so simple that I am amazed that so many philosophers who search for the truth about God have overlooked it. This is the method used in schools of philosophy in colleges and universities to study religion throughout the world. There is plenty of information out there to help any serious person to build his conception of the universe.

I hope this helps.

TomOfSweden

02-21-2008, 12:48 AM

The man who invented/discovered the Christian notion of God was Aristotle. The theory of the Unmoved Mover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover). He makes a rather complex argument for this theory and that argument is called the cosmological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument). This is the logical foundation Christianity still is dependent on. The universe has to have a beginning. According to Christianity, this by necessity, has to be God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_view_of_God

Aristotle reasoned that since God was the initiator of all movement and actions he was also the originator of thought.

God is omnipotent and had everything he wanted. This is supported by a rather complex argument. This argumentation is also critical for the Christian theory of God. But here is where Aristotle differs a bit from modern Christian thought. He reasoned that all our emotions are based on things we lack. God doesn't lack anything therefore has no emotions. God is pure thought. His theory is a lot more complex than this. This was just a short run down of it. I didn't find the complete argumentation, but I'm sure I can dig it up if given enough time.

Philo of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_of_Alexandria) shoehorned this theory into Judaism, and hey presto we've got Christianity. We actually also got Judaism as we know it today. It wasn't monotheist before this.

Anyway... This was a long winded way of saying that there are plenty of philosophical arguments for God being neither good nor evil, and this is the roots of Christianity. By claiming God is good you're standing up in the boat inserting all kinds of logical inconsistencies. It's a very complex theory and best not tampered with if you want coherence.

How do you know whether the goodness of God is just not wishful thinking from your side? Are there any logical arguments supporting God being good? Anyway... this is very complicated. Every act has a consequence and by being good to somebody God is bound to be evil to somebody somewhere.

The theory that God is good is not an easy theory to support. I don't know any philosopher who has managed. Thomas Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas) just made the statement that God is good, because God is perfect and goodness is intrinsic with perfection. I personally can't see how that follows logically. I'd love to be enlightened.

ThisYouWillDo

02-21-2008, 06:00 AM

Every act has a consequence and by being good to somebody God is bound to be evil to somebody somewhere.

Is that necessarily so? Is there always a consequence? If so, is it always "equal and opposite"?

I think that by being good to someone, he is simply favouring that person above others (and that he probably wants something in return, such as worship).

TomOfSweden

02-21-2008, 07:11 AM

Is that necessarily so? Is there always a consequence? If so, is it always "equal and opposite"?

I think that by being good to someone, he is simply favouring that person above others

There's a couple of logical problems here. If God is love and loves everybody, (possibly equally as much) he wouldn't favour one person above another. Ever... Humans are social creatures. Our status and happiness is relative to our peers. If God is favouring one over an other he is being cruel to those who don't get the extra help, isn't he?

The second problem is financial. Let's say you're a baker or a fishmonger in Jerusalem ca AD 33 and a no good hippie turns up, magically conjures up bread and fish and distributes it for free. What happens to your sales? What if you're dependent on your sales to feed your family? The economy is very delicately balanced, if God does anything to effect the financial market, no matter how minute, there will always be a loser somewhere.

Of course he could simply be focused on saving people from having accidents which would save them from losses that nobody counted on, which will probably have a very slight impact. But that brings us to the next problem. If he loves all of us and is omnipotent, why would any of us ever have any accidents? He's omnipotent! It wouldn't cost him anything. It would be no effort on Gods side. He's beyond time itself. He could be at every point in time and place at all times. If anybody has an accident it must be because it is in Gods plan. It is what he wants. In a universe with a omnipotent being, everything that happens, happens because that is what God actively lets happen. It is what God wants, if that is even the correct term for it.

One solution could be deism. God never does anything. He started time and movement with one big bang and then went back to doing what he'd been doing prior to creating time, (how's that for logical conundrum?). This way God could still be good but understanding the implications of the impact of his own meddling he does nothing.

Yeah... this is pretty ranty. But this is the land of the hypothetical spirals of limitless imagination.

(and that he probably wants something in return, such as worship).

Why would an omnipotent being want to be worshipped? What could he/it possibly gain from that? He has everything. He's omnipotent! Why would an omnipotent being want anything at all? What needs could the desires of an omnipotent being possibly fulfil? Aristotle travelled down this philosophical road a long time ago and you'll be hard pressed to argue against him.

The God theory is only simple if you anthropomorphise God, but that would in turn would imply that God isn't omnipotent. So that's out of the question. There is no way God can have human emotions and still be omnipotent. The unmoved mover is philosophically a very complicated solution to the origins of the Universe. But in this area science really doesn't have any better explanation so it's a bit premature to rule out the possibility of there being no unmoved mover at all. As far as science is concerned it's just as a likely, (or unlikely) theory as any other.

I'm not making any claims that my understanding of the logical implications of the Christian theory of God is complete. Many much more intelligent men, (and women) than me have explored this much more fully. I'm sure there's a whole host of things I haven't thought of. But for Christianity the sad fact is that nobody has yet been able to tie up the bag. Nobody has been able to present a complete hypothetical model for how a universe with a Christian God will work. We're still in the fact finding stage. And God doesn't seem to be in a hurry to help us out in solving this problem.

ThisYouWillDo

02-21-2008, 07:27 AM

TomOfSweden

02-21-2008, 07:51 AM

And then of course there's the possibility that God isn't omnipotent. But this is just the limited picture we get from our little corner of the universe. We have no idea where it ends, do we?

TomOfSweden

02-21-2008, 08:28 AM

I don't quite buy the idea that helping one person over all others means he is being cruel to everyone else. If he takes something away from all the others to give to the favoured one, then, yes, I agree.

I like the idea of deism.

As for God's quid pro quo, I agree, what could an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity possibly want from us? Yet the accounts we have seem to speak of his anger when disobeyed and of the harshness of his retribution; of his tantrums where he meets decadence, such that he destroys cities, and, worse, how he floods the whole world, killing virtually every single person alive at the time. And, according to those accounts, all he really wanted was to be loved.

And this reveals him to be less than omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent - or at least, it does to me.

TYWD

The problem with this is of course that well... who the fuck am I?!? The greatest minds of humanity has wrestled with just this questions for 2300 years and not gotten anywhere. So I wouldn't be surprised if I miss something important.

Still... it's not clear what is God's actions and what is human interpretations of God's actions. Let's say there's an earthquake which leads to one side winning a battle. Maybe the earthquake was completely unrelated to either of the battling forces? But the winning side might interpret it as God intervening on their behalf... if they're theists of course. But it would just be pure assumption from their part.

edit: I would like to make it perfectly clear that in the few previous posts I've just been philosophising freely. Shopenhauer (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer) managed to break the problem down and made the problems with the God theory very easy to understand. He made it perfectly clear that God as defined by Christians is at best unknowable. The Unmoved Mover theory doesn't have to exist by necessity as Aristotle claimed. It's just one possibly theory among an infinite of theories. Any other religion might have nailed that one. Or quite possibly, which is the most probable..we're all wrong. If the Cosmological Argument doesn't by necessity have to hold we can't deduce anything from it. BTW, for those who haven't read a boat load of philosophy. "By necessity" in philosophneese is a fancy schmancy way of saying that it's an absolute truth or constant given the scenario. Anyhoo... So if the Cosmological Argument isn't always an absolute truth because any other solution is unthinkable, we've pulled out the rug under Christianities most critical and fundamental argument. If this is up for debate... then so is absolutely everything else about Christianity.

That is why no philosopher after Shopenhaur is Christian. Either they made/make a big deal about being atheists, (the vast majority) or they simply said, "who cares. It's impossible to say anything about it or argue in any direction". And don't make the mistake of thinking, "who cares about philosophers. They'll just question anything for the sake of it". Christianity is the invention of Philosophers. Everything attributed to being said by Jesus was first penned by the philosopher Philo of Alexandria. The Christian theory of the universe is purely a philosophers model of the universe. It's impossible to link the alleged miracles in the Bible to any specific religion. Even if they did take place just as described, they don't strengthen the case for Aristotle's Unmoved Mover theory. It could be the result of any religions Gods, or none of them. And this is assuming they actually took place. No, it's not a question of faith. If you think it is, you haven't understood the word "faith". Even if you're one of those who have spoken to God and Jesus in person, or even have them as close personal friends... doesn't add to the Unmoved Mover theory. You still can't tell the God you're speaking to is omnipotent. Do you think the ants crawling around our feet think we're omnipotent... I mean if they could ponder about the nature of the universe. You have no platform from which to measure of make judgements.

I do enjoy having a little bit of cerebral exercise regarding the nature of God if he/it did exist. But we're pretty far from reaching a stage where anything can be deduced. And we're pretty far from a position where Christian faith is even worth considering. We're still in the fact finding stage.

wmrs2

02-21-2008, 01:38 PM

Somebody said it, I forget who, but it does make sense:

There are absolutely no absolutes!

The end.

TomOfSweden

02-22-2008, 01:19 AM

Somebody said it, I forget who, but it does make sense:

There are absolutely no absolutes!

The end.

It's still hard to argue for either side. But the relativists seem to be winning today. It's at least all the vogue nowadays.

But it's important to keep in mind that if we prove relativism we have proven God doesn't exist because nothing is more absolute than the Unmoved Mover. It's a critical part of the theory.

edit: I tried to track it down. But I think the specific quote is just one of those things that's been floating around forums for a long time.

edit2: The Christian God is the solution to Plato's problem of the source of moral and physical absolutes. If we reject that there are absolutes we've also removed the necessity of the Unmoved Mover. If we are relativist and Christian, we're simply lost the roots of our religion. Then it's a house built on mud.

wmrs2

02-22-2008, 04:20 PM

Silus

02-22-2008, 10:59 PM

TomOfSweden

02-23-2008, 02:53 AM

TomOfSweden with having pointed out these truths, you have assisted all Christians in what they must argue in defending their faith, if only we will listen to you. Plato's God was absolute. So is the Christian God. The Absolute does not change. Change is an appearance and not really real. The the secret is to continue to have a better revealing of the Absolute.

That is what history and the Bible does. History and the Bible should both be viewed as a revealing by those who believe in the Absolute. God does not change but our conception of God improves. There are serous consequences for the world if Christians do not view history and the Bible from their world system's point of view, that is. that God is Absolute.

Christians falsely believe the Book of Revelation in the Bible is prophesy. Thus, they come up with many self-fulfilling prophesies that even our nation's politics is conjoined. The belief by both the Muslims and Christians that there is to be one last battle in the last days is a very dangerous prophesy in a nuclear age.

The first chapter of the Book of Revelation states clearly that the book is a revealing of Jesus Christ, that is, the Absolute. Author of books and T.V. ministers ignore this fact as they create scenarios for the end of days that can not be found in the Bible.

Well, I have really stepped into shit now! To argue from the point of view of the revelation of God, the revealing, will not go well with many ministers and authors who are making millions$ by scaring people about the last days as they continue their possible self-fulfilling statements.

I said earlier that my goal wasn't to discredit religion. I really don't. I'd say your above account is completely correct. But it still hinges on there being absolute truths we can know. This is not a matter of belief or faith. This is science. And we cannot prove either side.

If you do think it is down to faith you haven't understood the word. Faith is when you've measured enough times to be sure that every time you measure the result will be the same. This is when we make the leap of faith.

Kierkegaard reasoned that humanity will never be able to know and therefore if we are to make any meaning of life, forced to make a leap to faith. But this was in the 1840'ies. I'd say he was probably a bit premature in his assessment. Science has progressed with leaps and bounds since then. There's no reason any more to make a leap to faith. Taking an informed leap of faith is actually possible in these informed times. The problem is of course that we're swamped by too much information and no single person can sort it our by themselves. But that is not the problem of truth/God. That is just the situation we find ourselves in and which we'll have to deal with. And the Christian theory of God is much to vague and abstract to be applicable to today's science. The Bible needs an update to be relevant in today's society. At least if you care about truth.

I personally see the Bible as a summation of what we knew, or thought we knew in 350 AD. But it was a snapshot of it's time. Modern science is the same Bible but for today. A snapshot of our time. Maybe truth is absolute. Maybe. Maybe science will find constants somewhere. Maybe. But it's not a matter of faith. Faith cannot change what is true. It is a matter of continued research by those who have devoted their lives to finding truth using the tools with which it is potentially possible. No, I'm not talking about Kukulcan priests smoking peyote or the Pope swigging wine.

But I'll admit that having this approach takes away the simplicity of getting the "truth" in easily digestible MTV formated packaging. It means you actually need to make an effort. You can't just sit and be opinionated on forums and read one single book.

ThisYouWillDo

02-23-2008, 07:31 AM

If you all get a moment, you should read this short story. It written by the writer of Dilbert (the comic) its called God Debris and it has alot of stuff in there to make you think.
http://fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/Entertainment/Books/Scott_Adams.Gods_Debris.pdf

Just to let you know, I'm already laughing out loud at p 9 ... and it's a funnier and easier read than summaries of Shopenhauer!

Thorne

02-23-2008, 08:47 AM

Just to let you know, I'm already laughing out loud at p 9 ... and it's a funnier and easier read than summaries of Shopenhauer!

I've only read the introduction and I'm already hooked. Sounds like it's right up my alley!

silver9

03-20-2008, 10:34 AM

I may not believe in a Christian God myself, but I do think that the point of God is that he is perfect; as in he is all-knowing, all-loving, omnipresent and all the rest of it.

God created a world which was allowed to 'Fall' not because he was wasn't perfect and therefore incapable of creating a perfect world; but because he wanted to create a world with free will, and without the possibility of sin and the option to sin there is no freedom. Which in turn means there is no faith and no choice with religion, meaning that people cannot become Christian and choose to go towards God.

It's a difficult debate, but I do think that it's in the very nature of the Christian God that he is perfect. It may not always seem that way but that's my understanding of it.

I think it's rather that us as humans can't understand what perfection is, and that's the main problem when deciding what is and isn't perfect - because everyone has their own definition of what the 'ideal' is.