Atheism discussion

Again a perfect man is not able to throw himself off of a cliff without suffering the consequenses.[

You can take this 1 of 2 ways:
1) A perfect man would not throw himself off the cliff in the first place, thus avoiding the "consequences" of hitting the ground; therefor, the perfect man who throws himself off the cliff really isn't perfect... or

2) The perfect man who throws himself off the cliff is still perfect if he was made to fall off the cliff.

Since a perfect man wouldn't willing throw himself off of a cliff.

Says who? This is your (and modern society's) definition of perfection. who says it is God's?

 

It is you who are confusing absolute perfection with relative perfection.

what you're not getting is that "relative perfection" is an oxymoron. perfection is, by definition, absolute.

God did not design them to live for 900 years and then die. He designed them to live forever. It was because of decided to live apart from God, that they died.

so they made the wrong choice, which means they had the capacity to make a wrong choice, which means they're imperfect, which means that God cannot be perfect. in which case, his perspective on morality and such is just as subjective and limited as ours is, and as such God's claims to transcendent moral authority, and the attendant right to judge and test and set standards, are by definition false.

unless it wasn't really the wrong choice, because it was what they were designed to do as part of God's Master Plan (tm). in which case, they can be perfect, and thus God can be perfect by extension. however, if that's so, then we're all perfect, and as such everything we do and every choice we make is inherently right simply by virtue of the fact that we're doing it. it also means that we have no need for salvation, since we're already perfect.

these are the only two options you have if you are going to contend that Christianity and reason can cohabitate peacefully, and both deeply violate Christian belief. either we're flawed, and God's flawed because he made something flawed, or we're exactly what we're supposed to be, in which case God is perfect but we are, too.

which is it?

please note that it's not enough to say that it's beyond reason, because acceptance of Christian theology in the context of the dilemma above is not merely arational but actively irrational, and as such acceptance of Christian theology requires actively rejecting reason.*

so which horn of this dilemma would you like to be impaled on? (that's philosophy jargon, not a threat or an insult, btw)

EDIT:

* which is fine, you're free to have irrational beliefs, but in the context of an open debate you're compelled in the name of intellectual honesty to concede that you're holding to a belief in active defiance of reason.

 

So Adam and eve, by your perception, were imperfect, yes?

They were created perfectly in that they were created to accomplish what God had intended for them to do.

They became imperfect when they sinned, (which means missing the mark that God had set for them)

How can a perfect being [god] create imperfection, unless they were designed to do exactly what they did--hence making them perfect... which negates the need for redemption?



Free will is not imperfection.

Do you believe god is perfect? If so, do you believe god is omnipresent, ominpotent, and omniscient?

Perfect yes.


Onmipresent no. God dwells in a specific location, heaven. However he is able to see everywere.

Omnipotent yes.

Omniscient, he can be when he wants to be but does not always choose to be.


if so, how can he create a being that would choose something other than what they were meant to choose?

Its called free will.

If you have kids, don't you find it extremely gratifying when they say "I love you" from their heart for no apparent reason instead of when you give them something, or tell them I love you first?

God does not want mindless predestined robots worshiping him.

 

what you're not getting is that "relative perfection" is an oxymoron. perfection is, by definition, absolute.

Wrong perfection is limited to the purpose for which its created.

A pefect man can still not breath water.Then you say then it is not perfect.

But you can argue it wasn't designed to breathe water.
It is perfect for what it was designed for.


Perfection for what the original purpose of the design is relative.

You can have a perfect man and you can have a perfect fish.

The fish dies when breathing air, likewise the man dies when breathing water.

 

Free will is not imperfection.

not in and of itself, no. but a perfect man would have perfect judgement, and perfect resolve to follow that judgement, and perfect capacity to follow through on that resolve, and as such given a free choice, would always make the perfect choice.

as a result, free will is not imperfect, but it's inherently and necessarily superfluous if the possessor is perfect. furthermore, free will exercised to make a wrong choice is evidence of flaw in the design, which means there's a flaw in the designer.

If you have kids, don't you find it extremely gratifying when they say "I love you" from their heart for no apparent reason instead of when you give them something, or tell them I love you first?

God does not want mindless predestined robots worshiping him.

if God is perfect, then anything he creates is perfect, and anything he wants is also perfect. if he wants us to be able to choose freely, then all the options he lays in front of us, including the "wrong" choices, are, by definition, perfect, because they're necessary for us to have choice, and since he wants us to have choice whatever functions as part of providing that choice is doing exactly what it's supposed to in pursuit of a perfect aim, which makes it perfect. that means that if God wants us to have free will, everything we choose is perfect, and so there really aren't any "wrong choices."

Wrong perfection is limited to the purpose for which its created.

A pefect man can still not breath water.Then you say then it is not perfect.

But you can argue it wasn't designed to breathe water.
It is perfect for what it was designed for.

but if God is perfect, whatever goal he's designed it for is also perfect. a perfect God cannot have imperfect goals. if we were designed to fall from grace and be cast out of Eden, because that's what a perfect God designed us to do, then falling from grace and being cast out of Eden becomes a perfect action because that's what the perfect God wanted to have happen.

to look at it another way, if God is perfect, then he can't make something that screws up, because a craftsman's work reflects back on the craftsman's skill. if we did it and it's objectively wrong, that means that there's a flaw in God's design, which means there's a flaw in God. conversely, if God's perfect, then whatever we did cannot be construed as screwing up. it's a Catch-22.

to use the programmer's credo "Garbage in, garbage out" which is equally true when reversed "Garbage out, garbage in." if you're looking at bad code, that means there's a bad coder. if you insist that the coder can't be bad, then the code must not be either, and whatever seems wrong about us is not a glitch, it's a feature.

you still haven't escaped the dilemma. try again.

 

They were created perfectly in that they were created to accomplish what God had intended for them to do.

They became imperfect when they sinned, (which means missing the mark that God had set for them)

But a perfect being who does something considered to be imperfect (against it's purpose) is imperfect, not perfect. So they were never perfect. Had they been perfect, they would not have gone against god's design--i.e. sinned.

Onmipresent no. God dwells in a specific location, heaven. However he is able to see everywere.

Where is he? If heaven is a specific location, surely you can point to it, or at least define its location. Where is it?

Omniscient, he can be when he wants to be but does not always choose to be.

Really? Where is it written that god turns off his all-knowing radar whenever he sees fit? How does this hold true with everything taught in Christianity?

God does not want mindless predestined robots worshiping him.

If god is a perfect being, as you've so noted, and he wanted to create humans with Free Will, as you've suggested, then by creating humans with said free will, he has created humans exactly s he meant to... meaning they are perfect.

Yet you keep saying that humans are imperfect.

The two ideas do not/cannot coexist in reality. One negates the other in every case.

 

God does not want mindless predestined robots worshiping him.

It's not the either/or you're making it out to be. The factor you're forgetting is that in the Christian myth (I know some people might take offense to this, but there really is no better word) God controls all the factors of the experiment. It's not like he makes humans and tosses them out into some world he has no control over. He creates humans with free will, but he also intentionally creates the very device that will bring about their fall (and being omniscient, he knows full well that this will happen). He doesn't just give them free will, he actively gives them a way to break his law. It's a nice bit of entrapment. So, why even make that a choice? Why give them a way to break his law, when he can simply leave them be, with free will and all, just with no evil to exercise it on? Why provide the temptation, especially when he knows that by their very design they'll give in?

To use your kid example, while you want your kid to have free will, you don't intentionally leave a gun lying around to test him.

 

To use your kid example, while you want your kid to have free will, you don't intentionally leave a gun lying around to test him.

or if you do, you're responsible for any the consequences (whatever they may be), not the kid.

 

But a perfect being who does something considered to be imperfect (against it's purpose) is imperfect, not perfect

Again, the ability to make choices does not consutitute imperfection!

Again, the act of choosing does not make them imperfect. It was the punishment that God imposed what made them imperfect.

As far as the rest, since you don't even believe in God, why are you asking me to provide you with answers that for all intents and purposes you will never accept?

The fact of the matter is, pefection is and has to be relative for the purpose in which its creator created it for.

you cannot deny this.

 

Again, the ability to make choices does not consutitute imperfection!

it does if you make the wrong choice.

or rather, if you weren't imperfect already, you wouldn't be capable of making a wrong choice, unless making wrong choices is part of God's perfect plan, in which case there are no wrong choices.

Again, the act of choosing does not make them imperfect. It was the punishment that God imposed what made them imperfect.

so you're saying they didn't make a wrong choice at all, but God decided to punish them arbitrarily? that's not what i learned in Catholic school, and i really doubt most Christians of any persuasion would accept that as an acceptable answer.

The fact of the matter is, pefection is and has to be relative for the purpose in which its creator created it for.

you cannot deny this.

yes, i can (in fact, i must, if i'm going to accept reason), unless you're willing to accept the necessary consequences of that, namely that if wrong choices are a perfect part of a perfect plan, then they aren't wrong choices at all, and we consequently have no need of salvation.

As far as the rest, since you don't even believe in God, why are you asking me to provide you with answers that for all intents and purposes you will never accept?

i am perfectly happy to accept that a theistic argument makes sense if and when it makes sense, and there are lots of issues where the theistic position makes sense and is at least internally coherent, even if i don't agree with it.

this, however, is not one of them. the Christian doctrines of original sin and the consequent need for salvation are incompatible with the idea of a perfect God. as such, Christian belief is inherently contradictory, internally inconsistent, and utterly impossible unless you completely discard reason.

look, you're getting frustrated, and you're spinning your wheels, and no matter how many times we break this down for you, you don't seem to be getting it. i propose we all take a break for a bit before things get too pointless. i have to leave anyway, so don't mind my silence.

 

Again, the ability to make choices does not consutitute imperfection!

I agree with ath. It is the ability to make the wrong choice that makes one imperfect. You said that Adam and Eve made the wrong choice.

As diz so eloquently put it: a perfect being cannot make a wrong choice.

Again, the act of choosing does not make them imperfect. It was the punishment that God imposed what made them imperfect.

Not exactly, but I think you'll agree with: it was the choice they made that caused them to be imperfect. God's punishment of that choice came because of that choice. It didn't cause that choice.

As far as the rest, since you don't even believe in God, why are you asking me to provide you with answers that for all intents and purposes you will never accept?

I can see why you might think I don't believe in God (it really all depends on how you define god, and what you call it), but let's not assume to know what I do or do not believe. Would you like to answer the questions, or would you care to let them sit out there in the void of cyberspace?

If you answer, I may learn more. If you don't, well, I won't know what you're talking about, or from where you're coming.

The fact of the matter is, pefection is and has to be relative for the purpose in which its creator created it for.

Perfection is always the ideal state in which something is meant to be created. If something does something it wasn't meant to do, then it is flawed, or imperfect as defined by its design specs.

EDIT: Diz, you and I seem to keep saying the same thing!! I'll let answer from now on.

 

Perfection is always the ideal state in which something is meant to be created. If something does something it wasn't meant to do, then it is flawed, or imperfect as defined by its design specs.

At least we agree on this despite what diz says, he is obviously wrong!


If you answer, I may learn more. If you don't, well, I won't know what you're talking about, or from where you're coming.

Against my better judgement, but I'll give you the befefit of a doubt.

If heaven is a specific location, surely you can point to it, or at least define its location. Where is it?

Obviously I cannot point to it however I can say that it is beyond our ability to see it. I've discussed this before, its like trying to see something in another dimension. We have no known physical reference to be able to see it so we cannot.
Think of the flatlander story were the 2 dimensional being cannot look up to see a thre dimentional bird flying above.

Really? Where is it written that god turns off his all-knowing radar whenever he sees fit? How does this hold true with everything taught in Christianity?

One example would be the testing of Abraham when he was to sacrifice his son Issac. If he had know he was going to be faithful, why make him go through with it.

If he knew Jesus was going to be faithful, why have him killed. Why not just skip to the end and bring his kingdon now?

It all has to do with the question of his universal Soveriengty. Gods right to rule, which was put in question in the garden of eden.

If he skips to the end, whats to say this question will never come up again?

If god is a perfect being, as you've so noted, and he wanted to create humans with Free Will, as you've suggested, then by creating humans with said free will, he has created humans exactly s he meant to... meaning they are perfect.

Yet you keep saying that humans are imperfect.

The two ideas do not/cannot coexist in reality. One negates the other in every case.


Well I said that he originally created them perfectly.
They chose to disobey him. That act in it self did not make them imperfect. Their decision to live there live apart from God caused them to get the boot.

You see this all the time in everyday life. Kids are told by their parents, if they cannot live buy the rules of the house they can move out on their own and do anything they want,provided of course they are of legal age.

This moving out of the house so to speak (their own choice) separated from "divine protection", so the grew old and died and thus sinned or missed the mark of perfection that God purposed.


You are only seeing the picture from the various pieces of the puzzle and have no idea what the end result is supposed to be. I however have the box with the final picture on it, so I can see the end result.


look, you're getting frustrated, and you're spinning your wheels, and no matter how many times we break this down for you, you don't seem to be getting it. i propose we all take a break for a bit before things get too pointless. i have to leave anyway, so don't mind my silence.

i'm not frustrated, on the contrary I find it quite stimulating.

You claim the very thing I claimed many posts ago

It was I who said that you guys were the ones spinning your wheels.
For some time you argued that perfection was absolute, now you see to be getting some traction!

Now it is you who seem to be tired of the debate.

 

At least we agree on this despite what diz says, he is obviously wrong!

Actually, diz is saying the exact same thing. so we all three agree!

Obviously I cannot point to it however I can say that it is beyond our ability to see it. I've discussed this before, its like trying to see something in another dimension. We have no known physical reference to be able to see it so we cannot.
Think of the flatlander story were the 2 dimensional being cannot look up to see a thre dimentional bird flying above.

Thx for answering. This is much more in line with what I understand of Christianity's perception of heaven, as well as many others' views or ideas.

It all has to do with the question of his universal Soveriengty. Gods right to rule, which was put in question in the garden of eden.

But if he is perfect, then he cannot be "dethroned", as it were. Unless of course, God is intended to be overthrown, but that's a whole other debate involving God's creator, and just how perfect that was!

If he skips to the end, whats to say this question will never come up again?

We're still missing each other on this one point. God would know the question would come up again, because he's God. He would have created the very capability for the question to be raised. But, if God (and therefor everything) is perfect, then there is always only 1 solution to any given problem in everything he has created. Every scenario has an ideal outcome.

Do humans sin, or do humans remain in god's good graces? God wants us to be good, you say. If this is what he wants, and God is perfect, then the only solution for god is to make us the way he wants us.

Well I said that he originally created them perfectly.
They chose to disobey him. That act in it self did not make them imperfect. Their decision to live there live apart from God caused them to get the boot.

At the point they disobeyed him, they showed that they are imperfect. Imperfection even once means that they never could have been perfect. Had they been perfect, then when it came time for them to make their choice, they would have chosen "right" path (as defined by religious teachings). Since they did not, it proves that they had within them from the start a (previously unused/untested) flaw.

You see this all the time in everyday life. Kids are told by their parents, if they cannot live buy the rules of the house they can move out on their own and do anything they want,provided of course they are of legal age.

I have a hard time with the kid analogy, because in order to accurately reresent the model, you have to first assume that the parents are perfect. And if the parents are perfect, then why would the kids not be perfect?

You are only seeing the picture from the various pieces of the puzzle and have no idea what the end result is supposed to be. I however have the box with the final picture on it, so I can see the end result.

But how do you know you know? More to the point, how do you know you are correct?

i'm not frustrated, on the contrary I find it quite stimulating.

Indeed, I'm having fun, too. As long as we keep our friendliness, we've got no probs.

For some time you argued that perfection was absolute, now you see to be getting some traction!

But Perfection is Absoulte. There is "perfect", and there is "not perfect". The question is, what qualities makes one perfect? Is it some ideal scenario, some ideal attribute? Or is it: To perform exactly as designed?

I say the latter. And I think you've agreed to that.

So to add that to the debate <again>: You say Adam and Eve were created "perfectly". then they faltered, and chose an imperfect path.

One can't be perfect AND imperfect. You are pe

 

So to add that to the debate <again>: You say Adam and Eve were created "perfectly". then they faltered, and chose an imperfect path.

I see your point but you are attributing absolute perfection to being that are only relativly perfect.

Their choice did not make them imperfect.
Their punishment did.

Even though they chose they did so thinking it was the rigth choice. They were decieved. They were lied to. They were coersed into making the wrong decision.

This is not imperfection, it is choice.
The same one we use to choose to eat a brekfast burrito, or scrambled eggs for breakfast.

If the scrambled eggs are poisioned and we still decide to eat them not knowing they are poisioned, whos fault is it if we die? Ours for eating them? No. It would be the person who poisoned them. They would be responsible. However we would still pay the price and get sick or even die.

 

They are only "perfect" in the context of the creators plan for them, not in an ideal "no need for redemption, i'm perfectly perfect, thank you" kinda way.

That's the perfection we're talking about: the god's perfection, not our ideals of what perfection should be to us. If we are created to fail, and we fail, did we not execute our tasks perfectly?

I still don't see how you make the connection between this apparent "fact,"(I don't actually think you're right about this) and your idea that it makes redemption obsolete. If God's plan for perfect creation is not a one shot deal, "boom the perfect creation," but rather a process, then redemtion does not have to be obsolete. And I believe all the evidence points to a process. We do, after all, experience reality through this things called time, where one moment is present, many are passed, and many are still to come. It's a process. Redemption is a necessary stop on the journey from where creation begins to where it is complete. And those that don't want to be complete, because they'd rather not be than be subject to a higher beign, can turn away. But like I've said before,when you cut youself off from the waters that give life, you die of thirst. I do think we're going in circles. I've tried my best, I think, to address your quesitons, but I think you're not even really concerned about the answers I give. You're just insistant on seeing an unresolvable dilemma where there is none. That's how I feel about this topic, anyway.

 

Perfection?

I don't know that anywhere in scripture it says that God created Adam and Eve "perfect."

I believe, at least in the translations I've read, the word is "good."
(This may be a premature post as perhaps I should first resort to the actual Hebrew terminology and etiology specifically around which the discussion seems to revolve at this juncture.)


That Adam and Eve were created "good," seems to refer to the condition of their morality and the physical process of the initial conditions of their anatomical functions.


Were they "perfect?" That would seem something we couldn't agree on unless we are agreeing to agree on God's perspective.
Since, we aren't agreeing with God's perspective, we cannot possibly agree they were perfect based on our respective individual preferences and predilections as to what we individually regard as "perfect."

By contrast, whatever limitations they were created with offers no sustainable argumentation against the actuality of Deity or the "perfection" of Deity.

If Deity is, then no argument from anyone's opinion detracts from the "perfection" of Deity, rather expressing only an individuals preferences, from an individually imperfect position and an imperfect understanding.

In the movie The 5th Element by Luc Besson the actress/model Milla Jovovich playing the part of Leeloo is described repeatedly in the flicks dialogue as "perfect," although, I do think she is beautiful, she isn't my personal idea of the "perfect" woman. However, it was perfect casting on the part of Besson considering Milla was his girlfriend at the time, if memory serves correctly. To many she is certainly not the epitome in their minds of the "perfect" woman.

So, if God stated with blazing letters hanging over the Earth that she is indeed "perfect" how would that be taken? That any non-redhead, non-caucasian, non-female person was incapable of being "perfect?"

Here's the point of this illustration, we have in this thread a group of 'imperfect' individuals trying determine from argumentation what might have been the perfect scenario, and doing this from individual notions of what would have been "perfect."

That's kinda funny, isn't it?


God said it was "good."

Now we may argue over whether or not God was "perfect" enough in his intellect and appraisal to be capable of authoritatively determining whether or not it was, in fact, "good."
(Everytime I use the word "good" I hear the gutteral tones of Sonny Chiba from Kill Bill Vol.1, playing Hatori Honso, saying "goo-OO-dd." I loved those scenes.)



Another argument, would be whether something not being "perfect" is a sin. Can God create something "good" but not "perfect" and yet still be a "good and perfect" God?
I think definitely so.


The other issue inherent to this discussion 'responsibility.'

Need something be "perfect" to be accountable for responsibilities?

That answer is "NO."

Even from human standards, through virtually every judicial system in the world standards of imposed morality on fallible human beings by fallible human beings exist.

If a man (in this scenary he is not mentally incompetent) murders his wife, we don't argue about whether or not this murder is excuseable because the husband isn't qualitatively "perfect" in every sense of the term, from physically to intellectually, as though this has any actual bearing on the man being responsible for his choice to cold-bloodedly murder his wife to collect the money from an insurance policy.

We implicitly understand that this husband is guilty of a premeditated crime. His condition of being "imperfect" isn't considered a valid excuse for a willfully chosen criminal course of action.

"Perfection" isn't a prerequisite for moral responsibility or subsequent consequences.

God need not have made man "perfect" for man to be justifiably accountable to God.

The notions of "perfection" here again, seem to be arbitrary in the discussion up to this point, for absolute perfection, as it has been described actual pre

 

*sigh*

Then your supporting the atheists argument!

You are supporting the idea that God did not make perfect humans that somehow their was something wrong with them and that it was gods fault.

Just because scriptures do not say God created us perfect we can come to the conclusion that he did because of the purppose Jesus came to "save" us.

Jesus bought back for man kind what Adam had lost. Perfection. He was a perfect man who in the end remaind faithful and answered the challenge that man was somehow defective, and thus turned away from God.

He proved that man was not defective and despite trial and hardships could remain failthful to the end.

The idea that God did not make something perfect flies in the face of your creator, because these are the very same charges Satan is accusing God of doing, creating an imperfect creature, and therefore being imperfect himself!

 

Darth OB1,

Not at all, mon ami.

I am saying that their argumentation is flawed.

Reread my comments and ponder them.

I will endeavor to present them again more concisely and hopefully more clearly.


But, I am also staying with scripture.

Let me use a real life example from my conversion experience.

The Lord allowed me to see a group of individuals, both patrons and employees, in a truck stop as He sees them, at least in part.

(Isn't that what we wish to do, to see life as God sees it?)

Here were a group of people of various ages, pigmentation, both genders, of all weights and shapes.
A group of people I would never before have described as physically attractive.

Yet, when the Lord opened my eyes to see them, what did I see?

It made me hold a menu up to cover my face because of my weeping.

THEY WERE PHYSICALLY PERFECT IN APPEARANCE. Every line on every face was BEAUTIFUL beyond my ability to ever put in words.

When we see as the Lord sees we see differently indeed.

 

Darth OB1,

Remember this, Jesus was perfect, yet it also states in scripture He was nothing to look at by human standards. He wasn't recognized as a specimen of physical perfection, indeed, the Pharisees didn't see Him as intellectually or spiritually perfect do to their own rotten natures.

 

I am saying that their argumentation is flawed

Flawed, you say? Where? AFAIK, there is no bible of Atheism you can misquote like the Christian bible. If you've found a flaw, it's probably in a particular Atheist's argument, not in Atheism itself.

 

Your comment is beside the point.
I mentioned nothing about any sort of doctrinal atheism.

It should be evident that I was referring to argumentation presented within this forum.

Therefore, even this response is addressing a red herring of sorts, and following a rabbit trail.

In fact, if you are referring to words to OB1, I did not mention "atheism" or "atheists" at all;

"I am saying that their argumentation is flawed."

 

"Your comment is beside the point"

That may be true, but is in itself beside the point. I'm asking you what that flaw is, in your view.

 

Did you read my post previous to OB1's first post to me? The one where I mentioned The 5th Element?

Ideas of perfection is part of the flaw.

 

Thanks. I'll try to go back and figure out what your points are, but they don't seem to be very clear. Can you summarize them? Are you saying Atheists reject perfection? Is there anything more to it?

 

The idea that God did not make something perfect flies in the face of your creator, because these are the very same charges Satan is accusing God of doing, creating an imperfect creature, and therefore being imperfect himself!

Ok, so God did make us perfect. That would mean that everything we do is also perfect. (DONT GET CAUGHT UP IN OUR PERCEPTION OF PERFECT AS A HUMAN BEING) Right? If God created us exactly how he intended, how can he judge us for that? We are who we are because of nature and nurture, both factors that God supposedly created for us. The environment in which we're raised and the brain in which God created make us who we are.

Again, are your parents christians too? I'm assuming yes. That wasn't a free will choice of yours that was an implanted choice based on the environment in which you were raised. There are billions of non-christians who will never come to know christianity based on factors that God himself put them in. If someone is born in Iran there is a 99% chance they will be Muslim for the rest of their lives. God put them there, he made that choice, but yet he's damning him for it?

So what does this all mean? It means that a Christian God does not exist....