If god were perfect, we would not be. By creating the universe, god shows he wanted something he did not have, and this is surely not perfection.

Hmmm noone replied to this?


God is Love. And what do you do with love?
You share it.
He wanted to share his love with us!

"For God so loved the world , that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes Him shall not perish,but have eternal life." john 3:16

I refer you to the second law of physics, which very clearly points out that something can be perfect and become or create something imperfect.

but the existence of a "god" would defy the laws of physics. while there are things, possible within the limitations set by those laws, that we cannot see, yet, through human-devised abstracts such as mathematics, we can prove are there, sentience without mass is contradictory.

What makes you think God doesn't have mass? And how does it defy physics, when the nature of sentience itself cannot be defined in terms of physics?

to be honest, anything i suppose about "god" has to be entirely hypothetical, because to me he doesn't exist. if he did, however, what i do know of the world and universe we live in - and i can only go on what i already know as with all theorums - leads me to believe that she or he would have to have mass, as every sentient being that we, as a race, are aware of has mass in which to contain it. the mystery of sentience, i believe, is a different argument altogether. so, whatever sentience is, i would have to assume or presume that it needs to have something to hold it in. perhaps i should phrased it more specifically, in that it contradicts what we know of physics.

Very interesting points.. however they are not convincing enough for me to completely give up any beliefs that I have about a greater power.

People can be Color-blind and with out outside sources they have no hope of ever realizing that such a thing as color can be percieved.

People who give up totally and feel like they know all the secrets of the universe (and that there are none) are probably just as narrow minded as the religious people and their blind faith.

first point, why assume that we would not be perfect if "god" was? there is as much likelihood of someone or something perfect creating something perfect as there is creating something imperfect.

secondly, i don't see that you can make such a leap of supposition, and infer from the creation of anything from the universe to the atom that it is not something he/she did not already have. this may not be the only universe. it may be an exact copy of millions of others, or the only one. in our current state of technological development and intellectual growth, we cannot know either way.
also, theoretically speaking, you cannot even assume that the creation of the universe was something that was wanted at all. it could well have been a mistake. not the everyday kind of blunder, like oops i ironed my sandwich by mistake, or whoops i really didn't mean to hit that lamp post but it was obscured by human beings at the time; oops i've accidentally created a cosmos is a biiiiig fuck-up to make, but it's still possible - we're theorising about something where we cannot possibly ever know the answers, or at least all of them.

lastly, your definition of perfection and "god's" may be entirely disparate. also, it is solely your opinion, that this universe/world is not perfect, that you state here. i happen to agree with you, as would most people i think. however, some, or even just one, may not. this would leave room for the possibility that the generic definition of perfection widely accepted by the majority may be incorrect. unlikely as that may be, it is possible. while it is reasonably easy to reach an indistinct approximation of what is not perfect, the definition of what is perfect, is more complex still. i would imagine that you would find yourself hard pressed to find even two people on this planet whose ideas of what is perfect, and what perfection is, are exactly the same: the room for disagreement and variation is infinite.

no.. he means.. not be.. as in not exist..


Other than that.. wow.. u've got good points

You missed the point. It doesn't matter that we are imperfect. We could be perfect and it would still follow that a perfect being would not create anything, unless you want to argue with me that not being content is a sign of perfection.

Which law are you refering to? The second law of thermodynamics, second law of motion?

i see the original point now; the wording could be inferred as either that we would not be, in the sense that we would not exist, or that we would not be perfect. both are interesting roads.

this gives me new pause for thought, though, as i do not see how one can assume that something or someone perfect wants for nothing. should self-contained aesthetic enjoyment and self-sufficient intellectual and existent capabilities be part of this faultlessness, they do not necessarily denote a lack of need or desire for more than itself. i would venture so far as to say that being perfect, in the sense that i understand its basic tenet, would give the subject more cause to desire creation, not less. a perfect creature or being, if aware of its perfection, would wish to create in order to fashion beasts to appreciate its perfection, or simply its company. presuming that perfection does not include vanity in any way, one might wonder if it would create companionship in the far reaches to allay either boredom or loneliness. and i don't think that either of those would be impossible, as being perfect surely couldn't mean a lack of emotions; there would be no compassion, no love. i suppose the lack of positive emotions, or emotions at all, could be attributed to perfection if there was also a lack of negative emotions or evil. if this was the case, i at least would have to assume that a being that is born, created, or has always existed as perfect, must do something in order to maintain its perfection. if it were the only thing, it would have nothing to do unless it made other things. it is forced to create because not doing doing so means the presence of laziness, apathy, or self-absorption, ergo the cessation of perfection. if the being is to be perfect for more than an instant, it must create. and if it must create, it may just as well create us as a black hole or a coelecanth, a binary star or a flea, a quark or a virus, a gas nebula or a lifeform so wondrous that we could never imagine its form or its limits. it can imagine these things being perfect. would it not be far from flawless to know all and do nothing?

on a less empirical note, perhaps in our own imperfection though, our vices, our sins, our twisted desires and wanton foolishness. perhaps in this, we are the more imaginative. for all that i would argue that we cannot assume a being to be either perfect or imperfect, i would always long for imperfection. we are human and impossible to please, illogical to the core, childish in our desires and our wonder at what we can't possibly hope to grasp.

We are made in the image of God. God didnt make any mistake, and he certainly doesnt need us, he wanted us and there is a big difference.

Adam was made perfect, he never would have died if he didnt break the law.
You might say well, there is the mistake God should have made Adam not be able to break the law.

If he did that we would be nothing more than puppets.

Perfect?! HA! Of course God's perfect. The unquestionable infinite of all time and space. The incomprehensible, yet all-knowing, and omnipotent master of all. That God exists. God is everpresent and all-pervading.

God IS perfect.



Desirable? of course not.

Friendly? in a way.....

Humane? you've gotta be kidding.

And besides, who are you to proclaim the nature of Existence and God?



For that matter..... who am I to do the same?

Thats because you dont understand God at all.
I dont know everything about God, but thats why I am going to be learning for the rest of my eternal life about him and his ways.

God is the most desirable, friendly, and humane being there is.

You have free will, and everything in your life has an effect on you.
God gave us his word and you can choose to do it, or not to do it.

[The foolishness of man ruins his way, And his heart rages against the Lord.] prov 19:3

i will say this yet again though i know i have posted it in another thread at one time or another

I will put three things to you.

1. jehovah is all good
2. jehovah is all powerful
3. evil exsists

Two of the three things can co-exist, three out of three cannot. so since evil exists, that stands to say that either jehovah isn't all powerful, or he isn't all good.

Oy.... sorry, Mr. Light... I like to do things the simple way. When most folks are presented with a reason why their idea of God can't be real, they abandon their belief in God.... I just sort of say "Hm... good point" and then set about changing my idea in God.


I jsut realized that there's no point in me saying this..



Meh

This might be a more educated guess than anything else, but here goes.

In the bible it tells how God will let out the devil after a thousand years to test the new beings created in the new world.
David said many times, "God test your servant".
I dont know if God created lucifer to fall on purpose, but since he has fallen he will use him to help mold us into his image.
"to know the difference between right and wrong, and becoming like God"
It seems God is taking the same thing that the devil used for trickery and thrown it back into his face.