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

[BornReady]

loling at the candide quote. Voltaire was ridiculing Dr. Pangloss' leibnizian rhetoric, not embracing it.

Good call. I looked up the Candide quote. It's clear this passage is satire from the text that follows the quote.

Observe how noses were formed to support spectacles, therefore we have spectacles. Legs are clearly devised for the wearing of breeches, therefore we wear breeches. Stones were formed to be hewn and made into castles, hence his Lordship's beautiful castle, for the greatest baron in the province must perforce be the best housed

 

[Minor Axis]

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.

Are you saying that to perfect, the universe would have to be a utopia and no one ever dies or something like that? This would be a point of reference and it is a lot more demanding than my definition of perfection which is just a functioning system, with rules that dictate how it works, like physics.

This was the poll I was referring to. Tis yours.

Ok, I understand and was getting confused with the official poll in the first post of this thread.

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.

I agree with B! For A, it seems like perfection is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Panacea]

Are you saying that to perfect, the universe would have to be a utopia and no one ever dies or something like that? This would be a point of reference and it is a lot more demanding than my definition of perfection which is just a functioning system, with rules that dictate how it works, like physics.

I'm just saying perfection is not a natural concept, and I cannot predict a perfect world, because it likely involves concepts and events a human brain cannot even come up with. Also, it would seem that there is always one "step" better from whatever exists; one more piece that works better, etc. Something can only get close to perfection; never all the way there.

Same goes in the other direction of course, which is why the absolute worst and absolute best cannot exist. (Sort of the way there is always someone better looking and smarter or dumber and uglier )

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm just saying perfection is not a natural concept, and I cannot predict a perfect world, because it likely involves concepts and events a human brain cannot even come up with. Also, it would seem that there is always one "step" better from whatever exists; one more piece that works better, etc. Something can only get close to perfection; never all the way there.

Same goes in the other direction of course, which is why the absolute worst and absolute best cannot exist. (Sort of the way there is always someone better looking and smarter or dumber and uglier )

Correct me if I am wrong. I have the feeling your position is to discredit the notion that a perfect Universe is due to the work of our perfect God? If so, in contrast I say that a Universe, perfect or not provides no evidence of a perfect or imperfect God. That which is responsible, which could be intelligent for our Universe is an unknown.

I still don't have a clear feeling for what characteristic the Universe would need for you to call it "perfect". As another example of "perfect", as a point of reference, it could be said that a perfect Universe would include no human suffering. That would be great for us, but what about all the poor critters around us? The Universe is what it is.

In defense of it's imperfection (if that is what you want to call it), there is an intriguing notion that this life, the one you and all of us share is a learning simulator to be followed by transition and existence on a spiritual plane, which if not perfect, maybe better than what we experience here. I'm not mentioning this because I believe it, but because I find it intriguing and desirable in contrast to oblivion and eternal darkness. This is a great example of why people have this attraction to the concept of a God that takes care of us.

 

[Panacea]

Correct me if I am wrong. I have the feeling your position is to discredit the notion that a perfect Universe is due to the work of our perfect God?

In short, you're wrong, yes. The OP has two points a) "perfect works" b) god. I'm choosing to not address b since my problem is with a first, and my opinion on b is of no importance to a.

I still don't have a clear feeling for what characteristic the Universe would need for you to call it "perfect".

That is because one could not exist in my opinion, I choose not to even speculate. The reason I feel it could not exist (a characteristic to make the universe perfect) is because it seems logical there could always be one more thing to add to it, that wouldn't exist at the time, to make it "more perfect" and therefore it exists on a continuum, not an absolute.

As another example of "perfect", as a point of reference, it could be said that a perfect Universe would include no human suffering. That would be great for us, but what about all the poor critters around us? The Universe is what it is.

We are of such minuscule importance to the universe, my opinion that there is no perfection in nature is not supported by relatively petty human suffering. It's not an opinion from an emotional standpoint like "oh, we suffer so much, yanno, hot cheese burns our mouths, there can't be perfection!"

My argument is solely that listed above this quote.

In defense of it's imperfection (if that is what you want to call it), there is an intriguing notion that this life, the one you and all of us share is a learning simulator to be followed by transition and existence on a spiritual plane, which if not perfect, maybe better than what we experience here.

I think for someone (anyone, I see your disclaimers) to support the idea this life is a training wheel bike for a more perfect life only weakens the argument that the universe as we know it now is absolute perfection, right?

 

[Pet Sounds]

In short, you're wrong, yes. The OP has two points a) "perfect works" b) god. I'm choosing to not address b since my problem is with a first, and my opinion on b is of no importance to a.



That is because one could not exist in my opinion, I choose not to even speculate. The reason I feel it could not exist (a characteristic to make the universe perfect) is because it seems logical there could always be one more thing to add to it, that wouldn't exist at the time, to make it "more perfect" and therefore it exists on a continuum, not an absolute.



We are of such minuscule importance to the universe, my opinion that there is no perfection in nature is not supported by relatively petty human suffering. It's not an opinion from an emotional standpoint like "oh, we suffer so much, yanno, hot cheese burns our mouths, there can't be perfection!"

My argument is solely that listed above this quote.

I think for someone (anyone, I see your disclaimers) to support the idea this life is a training wheel bike for a more perfect life only weakens the argument that the universe as we know it now is absolute perfection, right?

If I am playing basketball and I shoot 3 baskets and make all of them. That is perfect. Making 8 of 8 baskets is perfect, but I wouldn't say it is MORE perfect. Both are perfect. I also don't think perfection has anything to do with addition, but subtraction. As the quote says:

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

What is being taken away is error.

Miniscule by what standard? What is important? Hydrogen? Because there is a lot of it? Important to what?

Perfection is like gold. It is already there. It just has to be found, dug out, cleaned off, etc..

Francis Bacon said: "By indignities men come to dignities." You could apply that to humans and the universe. Through imperfections, we become perfect.

 

[Minor Axis]

In short, you're wrong, yes. The OP has two points a) "perfect works" b) god. I'm choosing to not address b since my problem is with a first, and my opinion on b is of no importance to a.

Ok.

That is because one could not exist in my opinion, I choose not to even speculate. The reason I feel it could not exist (a characteristic to make the universe perfect) is because it seems logical there could always be one more thing to add to it, that wouldn't exist at the time, to make it "more perfect" and therefore it exists on a continuum, not an absolute.

But "perfect" tends to be described in absolutes, 10/10 for example, a perfect score. And just because it could not exist in your opinion does not mean it could not be described. But again a point of reference is required. Base on my point of reference, "a functional system", the universe is perfect.

We are of such minuscule importance to the universe, my opinion that there is no perfection in nature is not supported by relatively petty human suffering. It's not an opinion from an emotional standpoint like "oh, we suffer so much, yanno, hot cheese burns our mouths, there can't be perfection!"

Hmm. I was just using that as another point of reference. I would not consider that as a gauge for describing perfection, but it could be used if that is all that is important to the individual.

I think for someone (anyone, I see your disclaimers) to support the idea this life is a training wheel bike for a more perfect life only weakens the argument that the universe as we know it now is absolute perfection, right?

The universe exists and can be judged to perfect or not (depending on point of reference) regardless if we are around or not. If we experience a spiritual existence or not after physical death of the body is irrelevant to its perfection.

Thanks for your input to this thread. I'm enjoying it and hope you are too!

 

[BornReady]

But "perfect" tends to be described in absolutes, 10/10 for example, a perfect score. And just because it could not exist in your opinion does not mean it could not be described.

If someone says I'm a perfect 10, she may not mean it's impossible to improve my appearance. She may only mean she's never seen a better looking man. (Actually, this happens to me less than you'd think.)

So I suppose a perfect universe could mean a couple things.

1) I've never seen a better universe.
2) This universe cannot be improved.

The first doesn't mean anything if you've only seen one universe. The second is not true.

 

[Panacea]

If I am playing basketball and I shoot 3 baskets and make all of them. That is perfect. Making 8 of 8 baskets is perfect, but I wouldn't say it is MORE perfect. Both are perfect. I also don't think perfection has anything to do with addition, but subtraction. As the quote says:

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."


What is being taken away is error.

I can see why you would say this, but your example doesn't take into account "error" of the technical sense. What if one shot wobbled and barely made it in? You could have thrown it straighter. There is ALWAYS a better way to achieve something, a better event, a better version of what happened.

Miniscule by what standard? What is important? Hydrogen? Because there is a lot of it? Important to what?

For starters, human existence, if mapped on a calendar year in comparison to the known beginning of the universe is a day old. We take ourselves far too serious. The time and space to differ

I don't say this out of hatred for mankind, but perspective.

Perfection is like gold. It is already there. It just has to be found, dug out, cleaned off, etc..

This is a whimsical play to emotions. As is the quote below.

Francis Bacon said: "By indignities men come to dignities." You could apply that to humans and the universe. Through imperfections, we become perfect.

I would assert the Bacon quote does not address the argument I have presented in terms of perfection being a continuum. Even scoring a 10 out of 10 (as MA pointed out), one could still have come to the answers better, or taken the test in a nicer room, or received the test answers quicker. This is a valid point, because even in testing and assessment, statisticians take these conditions into account in order to calculate estimated true answers and tease apart error.

I understand this is extremely nit-picky and technical, but that's the nature of the universe. Think about it all from a mathematical (probability) standpoint and it won't seem so unrealistic.

We can certainly decide something is perfect, and that is within our rights, but I don't feel thinking something is perfect makes it so.

 

[Panacea]

But "perfect" tends to be described in absolutes, 10/10 for example, a perfect score. And just because it could not exist in your opinion does not mean it could not be described. But again a point of reference is required. Base on my point of reference, "a functional system", the universe is perfect.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely don't want to just say I'm right as like a "I love to hear my own voice" kinda thing, but I think it's interesting that technically, something can always be/go/happen better, in the most minuscule manner, from pure math alone. And from that knowledge I say perfection is not natural. Just kind of intriguing to me more than anything.

The universe exists and can be judged to perfect or not (depending on point of reference) regardless if we are around or not. If we experience a spiritual existence or not after physical death of the body is irrelevant to its perfection.

I agree, that's my frame of reference too...the universe, with us or without us.

Thanks for your input to this thread. I'm enjoying it and hope you are too!

No problem!

 

[Greatest I am]

A Christian would claim God created a perfect world but it became imperfect through no fault of God's. Christians usually blame women, a talking snake, or a magical fruit/apple/whatever. Anyway, even if you could get agreement from most Christians, that wouldn't mean much because, as you pointed out, they are doctrinally predisposed to believe God is perfect.

That is what scripture tells them as well as it tells them that his works are supposed to be perfect and that that perfection is not ever lost.
Unfortunately, the church knows that in the perfect world hinted at in scripture, guilt would not open the wallets quite as wide.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

If you believe that god created everything, it's a pretty weak argument to argue that it depends on your definition of perfect. I dont think any sane person would argue that "gods creations" of Hitler, Stalin, bin Laden and countless other evil people throughout history could be perfect.

Perhaps there is a lesson there in blind faith that we are to learn from. Unfortunately, Christians will not learn and follow a genocidal God.

Who is not learning their lessons?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I don't understand. Are you saying Hitler, Stalin and bin Laden were perfect?

Are all of us not doing the best we can with what we have. I think yes we are.
If so then we must say that Hitler and Stalin where also doing the best they could with what they had.

This does not mean we should not lean to hate such.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

If you could comprehend higher intelligence, you would be higher intelligence. We couldn't understand the thoughts or aims of an intelligence on the level of a God, anymore than an ant could understand ours.

Franics Bacon, the father of the scientific method and modern philosophy, and also in my avatar...thought that knowing god was to know his natural works work too. To study them. Like knowing how atoms work, how chemicals react, etc... the natural forces of earth and the universe. God is there too. Bacon, Newton, and others were scientists just trying to give the most accurate account of God's handiwork. To give justice to it by deciphering it properly. Which in Bacon's view was by studying the world empirically.



-Bacon

And have you seen the evolving perfection of nature?

I do not believe in I D but have an idea that that notion came from the apparent intelligence behind nature. Something that happens naturally, not divinely.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

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?

If you follow the thinking in Candide, they would likely say that without Hitler, we would not have the U N and could not, at present, take advantage and help those in the East who are presently fighting for freedom.

Breaking Hitler broke a long trend of genocidal dictators. Thank God for Hitler. So to speak.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Christian's get round the perfection thing by saying that Satan\the snake destroyed the perfection of man in the Garden.

But a perfect being wouldn't have accepted the apple.
And a perfect God wouldn't have left it in plain reach of an imperfect pair.

God is many things in the Bible, but perfect? He doesn't even come close. I bet Hitler didn't ask Goering to kill him a son.

You are likely correct on that.

I find it strange that Christians see our gaining of a moral sense as a fall.
The old Jews and Hebrew interpreted their scriptures as that being our elevation, not our fall.
Strange that Christians do not give much value to their moral sense.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Yup. Seeing that Satan/ the serpent is supposed to be gods creation too, that invalidates that argument as well.

That would depend on how you view heaven and Satan.
If heaven is a tyranny then you may have a point although I see rebellion against tyranny as good.

If you see heaven as more of a democracy where you can actually make choices, then you would know that God would have to assign a LOYAL opposition.

Check Satan's history and you will see that he was not considered evil in the past but other things.
The story of Job is telling here as it shows how close Satan and God really are.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

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."

Then his morals are in the gutter as compared to man.

Secular law has laws of omission. That means that if I sit back and allow some infraction that I can prevent and do not, then I am just as culpable as the perpetrator.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

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.

Where God is concerned, we do not even have the illusion from his ----do it my way or burn forever.
The very first time A & E show they are free and autonomous being, God threw his sissy fit on them.

They have become as Gods, now lets come down HARD.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

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?

Secular law call it mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or evil intent.
That is why the insane are not so much found guilty as sick.

Animals do not see evil in dispatching an animal for food.
It's intent is to eat and would likely take a dead offering over a live one.
Easy pickings are safer.

Regards
DL