Can you know God without understanding or recognizing his perfect works?

Users who are viewing this thread

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Sorry but that has nothing to do with what I said and is just a distracting post to get away from you not answering the question. No one is talking about god being perfect at just one thing. Christians widely accept he is perfect at everything. So once again, seeing the evil people I mentioned are supposed to be gods creation and are clearly far from perfect, how do you still validate that god is perfect?

I'm short of time. What question am I avoiding? I've never ever accused God of being perfect much less acknowledging a God "we know" even exists. All I said (from my point of reference), the universe appears to be perfect. It is something theists use to validate the existence of their God. What is the definition of perfect?

Talk to you tomorrow.
 
  • 134
    Replies
  • 3K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
DD, if you believe that, then you don't believe that god knows all. You can't have it both ways
 

Diggin Deep

Active Member
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
DD, if you believe that, then you don't believe that god knows all. You can't have it both ways

That's why in the original thread where I posted that in my discussion with you, I said it was one question that I wrestled with...even still.
 

Pet Sounds

Member
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
How can a god test anyone/thing? Wouldn't he ALWAYS know the outcome before the test was ever started?
The problem with these type of questions is that we ask them from the perspective of god then we try to answer them from a human perspective.

A god that is all-knowing cannot create something that has free will, it will only have the illusion of free will since every action was fully known before the creation.
Of course an all knowing can create something with free will. How are they mutually exclusive? The fact that the outcome was known, says nothing about the choice in the matter. It just says the outcome could be predicted. I could probably predict many things you would do today, it doesn't mean you had no choice in the matter. It just means you are predictable. Which is why there is a concept of philosophy called compatibilism, in which determinism and free will both co-exist.

Leibniz:

Suppose I know that next Christmas my mother will cook dinner for me. I am certain of it, and in fact I know it. Knowledge has three requisites: belief, reason for belief, and correctness of belief. Very few would deny that I in fact know that my mother will cook dinner for me next Christmas. Perhaps it could be argued that I do not know this absolutely, but if we should make the rules for knowledge that strict we are arguing epistemology. In order to avoid a digression that will probably not bear real fruit to our discussion and make us either solipsists or bring us right back to where we are, let us grant that I know my mother will cook dinner for me next Christmas. For the point is this: that the fact that I know this does not take the freedom from my mother, who freely chooses to cook me that dinner. We may argue till the cows come home whether I can actually know the future; but the point is that, should we suppose I do know this, my knowledge does not take the freedom from my mother and her free choice. Thus, a given event can be true and certain, without being determined. God too was certain from the beginning of time that my mother would cook me dinner last Christmas; but the mere fact of his knowledge did not take the freedom from my mother's choice to cook me dinner, any more than my own knowledge of this event takes the freedom from my mother's choice.
 

HK

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,410
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.05z
That just looks to me like another example of using human perspective to explain a Godly aspect.

Just because you can 'know' something (as far as we can 'know' anything about the future) and can therefore say that even though we know it, the free will of the subject isn't affected, doesn't mean that even if there is a God the same would be true for Him. Considering this is a being that can potentially create whole worlds, why would it be subject to our laws and truths?
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
God could just said to be testing them in those cases. Nothing to do with a lack of his own perfection. God clearly only uses the power of persuasion, simply forcing things on people kind of defeats the purpose of what is trying to be accomplished. Just because he doesn't stop people from eating apples, or killing others, doesn't mean he can't.

"To say it another way, God has a will in everything, but not everything that occurs is God's will."

i.e. god is a sadist

I'm short of time. What question am I avoiding? I've never ever accused God of being perfect much less acknowledging a God "we know" even exists. All I said (from my point of reference), the universe appears to be perfect. It is something theists use to validate the existence of their God. What is the definition of perfect?

Talk to you tomorrow.


If you dont think god is perfect, fair enough, I can understand that thinking
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
Are zoologists and cameraman on nature shows sadists because they allow a lion to tear out a gazelle's throat without doing anything?


Its natures balance so some creatures dont run riot and others get extinct.

Can you explain the balance of, say, Hitler trying to exterminate the Jews, bin Laden trying to exterminate Westerners? There's enough room on earth for everyone and I think humans are more intelligent than animals, enough to work that out.
 

Pet Sounds

Member
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Its natures balance so some creatures dont run riot and others get extinct.

Can you explain the balance of, say, Hitler trying to exterminate the Jews, bin Laden trying to exterminate Westerners? There's enough room on earth for everyone and I think humans are more intelligent than animals, enough to work that out.
That is an appeal to nature fallacy. Just because things happen in nature, doesn't mean they are moral or we should allow them to happen. Being "natural" is not a justification of anything. We have no problems with manipuating/interfering with other parts of nature for man's benefit. Your housing, your transportation, nearly everything in modern society is at the expense of ecosystems and other organisms.

Basically, you admit that there are abstract, arbitrary concepts that you accept because you believe them to lead to a greater harmony down the road despite the immediate trauma they obviously cause in the here and now. Do you think a hyena could understand why a human would allow a lion to maul its club? That it is a preferable outcome by human standards? Justified by an idea wraped in a greater plan. If both the hyena and the club could think, they would think the human is a sadist, and couldn't understand the concepts of why we let that happen, anymore than a man can understand why God let Hitler happen.
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
Animals just do things by instict and for a reason. Therer are no evil animals. There are pure evil humans. This is getting off the point somewhat though. Getting back to the point, how could a perfect god create something as clearly flawed as Hitler, Stalin or bin Laden?
 

BornReady

Active Member
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Are zoologists and cameraman on nature shows sadists because they allow a lion to tear out a gazelle's throat without doing anything?

Nature is violent and cruel. Zoologists and cameramen can not fix it. If they stop the lion from killing then the lion will starve. If this system is the result of evolution then it is amoral. It just is. But if this system was intentionally designed by God then he is either cruel or a poor designer. Either way, he's imperfect.

It is true I am writing from a human perspective with human knowledge but that is true of all human judgments. A human judgment may not matter to God but it is what should matter to humans when they decide who to praise as perfect.
 

Pet Sounds

Member
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Nature is violent and cruel. Zoologists and cameramen can not fix it. If they stop the lion from killing then the lion will starve. If this system is the result of evolution then it is amoral. It just is. But if this system was intentionally designed by God then he is either cruel or a poor designer. Either way, he's imperfect.

It is true I am writing from a human perspective with human knowledge but that is true of all human judgments. A human judgment may not matter to God but it is what should matter to humans when they decide who to praise as perfect.
No, it isn't amoral at all. You are running into the naturalistic fallacy. Something doesn't get a pass because it is "natural." Evolution has nothing to do with morality. Hitler could wipe out the Jews and that would be no different than one species competing with another species, or competing within their own species, and winning. It is natural. The Jews couldn't surivive the selective pressures of the environment and are gone.
 

Pet Sounds

Member
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Animals just do things by instict and for a reason. Therer are no evil animals. There are pure evil humans. This is getting off the point somewhat though. Getting back to the point, how could a perfect god create something as clearly flawed as Hitler, Stalin or bin Laden?
Humans do thing for a reason too. They have ends in all their actions. But you decided to deem some of them evil. Yet when an animal does the same thing, it isn't evil. Why?
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
Humans do thing for a reason too. They have ends in all their actions. But you decided to deem some of them evil. Yet when an animal does the same thing, it isn't evil. Why?

Because an animal does things on pure instinct. An animal doesn't know whats wrong or right. Humans do.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
That just looks to me like another example of using human perspective to explain a Godly aspect.


This is what humans have done since the beginning. :)

Just because you can 'know' something (as far as we can 'know' anything about the future) and can therefore say that even though we know it, the free will of the subject isn't affected, doesn't mean that even if there is a God the same would be true for Him. Considering this is a being that can potentially create whole worlds, why would it be subject to our laws and truths?
Actually we'd be subject to its laws and truths. An all mighty deity could change our reality on a whim and keep us from even realizing. ;)

I want to get back to the OP. How many forum participants think that the perfection of the universe proves the existence of a supreme being? JC.
 

Panacea

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,445
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.01z
MA, can you tell my why you feel the universe is perfect, or point me to where you said it so you don't have to repeat yourself?
I'm a bit baffled by the ease with which people are saying the universe is perfect, god or no god.

To answer your poll, I a) don't believe the universe is perfect and b) do not believe the existence of a universe, perfect or not, necessitates the existence of a supreme being.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
MA, can you tell my why you feel the universe is perfect, or point me to where you said it so you don't have to repeat yourself?
I'm a bit baffled by the ease with which people are saying the universe is perfect, god or no god.

To answer your poll, I a) don't believe the universe is perfect and b) do not believe the existence of a universe, perfect or not, necessitates the existence of a supreme being.

View the universe like a software program, it's completely functional, there are no known glitches. Now may I ask, what would you require of the universe to call it perfect? Again this takes us back to the definition and the point of reference for "perfection". To clarify, I am not using this as an evidence for a supreme being. I mean it's possible, but this is not proof and I am not an advocate for God.

It's not my poll. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Panacea

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,445
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.01z
View the universe like a software program, it's completely functional, there are no known glitches. Now may I ask, what would you require of the universe to call it perfect?

I suppose "no known glitches" is extremely subjective, in the end. Anyone could argue there are glitches in the universe, because whether in space or in life on this planet- calamities happen. I would call extinctions and explosions in space glitches. The "blue screen of death" could happen at any time. It just hasn't yet, doesn't mean it won't, and doesn't mean the universe is perfect.

Because I believe perfection is not a natural concept, but one of fantasy from our human mind alone, I don't believe the universe could be perfect. It can only exist on the natural continuum functionality. I would argue it functions fairly well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
79,011Threads
2,186,912Messages
4,974Members
Back
Top