Why do christians put limits on their gods's power?

Biro

Biro wrote: »

No, read my example again. The student deciding not to be perfect any more is different, they're ceasing to be perfect. In my example I showed you that they are taught that one of the questions needs to be answered incorrectly (or imperfectly) in order to achieve the perfect result to that obscure test. The student does what is necessary and in doing so achieves exactly what was required of him, thus remaining perfect. It doesn't matter that the answer is imperfect, he was required to answer it imperfectly in order to achieve the perfect result.

Yes, I know what you meant by your post. I wasn't basing my reply on your post, I was using your analogy of a student in a different way.

santing

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

If that's all you took from my post, then you've missed my point entirely.

I don't think so, you are judging God's quality by what He does, according to your standards. With that you make His creation an exam and God fails your exam criteria.

However, you fail to notice that you are not qualified to make an exam, or even to judge what "perfect" is. As I said in an earlier post (borrowed from Wikipedia) imperfection of parts may not make the whole imperfect, but that in case the imperfections in parts may be because of our wrong criteria.

TO bring this threat forward, I propose that we define first all aspects of Perfectness that God needs to measure up to, and then we need to come up with tests for each of these criteria. We may need to buy some time and dimensions as God most likely must be perfect at all times and in all dimensions - even the ones we still don't know about.

=====================================================
Isa 29:16 ESV You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me"; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?

Call Me Jimmy

Even though I have been involved in this discussion previously, reading the last few pages there's only one pattern that emerges. The argument gets smaller and smaller and smaller until we're looking up dictionaries. Having said that, I'm gonna reply as well

On the point of God being perfect in every single way - well if that's what christians claim then it is impossible for him to create anything imperfect because it means one of God's abilities is imperfect. But hold on, he could have made something imperfect on purpose, so he isn't imperfect. Well in that case he's cruel. Isn't he supposed to love us?

If I had a glass case and two mice, and i put cheese, an exercise wheel and water in there (everything they needed to survive and enjoy their lives) then it isn't cruel.
But then I decide to throw a piece of cheese in with a hidden poison capsule, am I cruel? Am I loving towards those mice?

santing

santing wrote: »

However, you fail to notice that you are not qualified to make an exam, or even to judge what "perfect" is. As I said in an earlier post (borrowed from Wikipedia) imperfection of parts may not make the whole imperfect, but that in case the imperfections in parts may be because of our wrong criteria.

I can't see myself getting anywhere with the absolute perfection must lead to perfection argument. So I'm going to persue another, related line of argument with regards to perfection.

You claim that God is absolutely perfect, in all respects. Yes? I don’t think we’ll have any argument whatsoever about that. You must also concede that absolute perfection entails entirety, wholeness, completeness in all possible senses, at all times. A perfect entity is free of deprivation whatsoever, and therefore lacks nothing, ergo, wants and needs nothing.

A perfect entity cannot have any needs to satisfy, if it does, it surely cannot be perfect. It is a contradiction to say a perfect being has needs or desires. If it has needs or desires, how can it be perfect, as it lacks entirety, completeness, totality. So, I argue, by definition, a perfect being cannot have needs or desires, without a need or desire there can be no purpose (dictionary.com’s definition of purpose: “an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.”; it follows that if a being has no needs or desires, it cannot have an aim, or a goal).

How can you reconcile this with your constant allegations that God has purpose for us all? Either God has no purpose, or he is imperfect.

Zombrex

Biro wrote: »

Just because we can't imagine it, doesn't mean it can't exist!

Well yes that is my point.

The argument that we can't imagine how God would have created a better universe than this one (which isn't a particularly good argument anyway, because I certainly can) doesn't imply he couldn't have.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Repeating your logical error several times does not, alas, make it valid.

Aye, but it might make it a religion

PDN wrote: »

There is no reason why a perfect Being should not be able, if He chooses, to make an imperfect object.

I'm not at all sure that Plato -- the man who developed much of what would become the later christian ideas of perfection -- would agree with you on that, but your point is largely correct for many meanings of the word "perfect".

But since nobody's defined what "perfect" means to everybody else's satisfaction, it's quite unlikely that any discussion about the implications of their own personal definition of perfection will reach any useful conclusion any time soon.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Aye, but it might make it a religion

Wait a minute, if I learnt anything from the odd troll that pops up here, you'll need deluded followers for that! Wait... it seems you are in luck,though!

:pac:

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

But since nobody's defined what "perfect" means to everybody else's satisfaction, it's quite unlikely that any discussion about the implications of their own personal definition of perfection will reach any useful conclusion any time soon.

Nail on the head to be honest.

I would imagine that Jammy is working of the idea that a perfect being is a being that does perfect things, which isn't a totally outrageous definition of "perfect"

PDN possibly uses the definition that a perfect being is a being that can do perfect things, even if he doesn't. Again not a totally outrageous definition.

While both definitions are largely incompatible with each other I can't really see any way of saying one has the correct definition of perfect in this context.

Dades

Forget perfection for a moment. The bible doesn't specify that perfection was required. Instead we have:

Gen 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good.

The problem is I wouldn't class the our chaotic planet as "very good". More like "could do better". In fact perhaps should do better given omnipotence.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

But since nobody's defined what "perfect" means to everybody else's satisfaction, it's quite unlikely that any discussion about the implications of their own personal definition of perfection will reach any useful conclusion any time soon.

Wicknight wrote: »

Nail on the head to be honest.

I would imagine that Jammy is working of the idea that a perfect being is a being that does perfect things, which isn't a totally outrageous definition of "perfect"

PDN possibly uses the definition that a perfect being is a being that can do perfect things, even if he doesn't. Again not a totally outrageous definition.

While both definitions are largely incompatible with each other I can't really see any way of saying one has the correct definition of perfect in this context.

I'd totally agree with that too. We're just running rings around each other, playing over slightly different interpretations of perfection. I can't see the perfection line of argument going too far.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

The bible doesn't specify that perfection was required.

Well, the OT generally doesn't -- things had moved on by the time the NT showed up.

As above, the idea of deistic perfection, souls and so on, seem to have been imported wholesale from ideascapes like as Plato's Theory of Forms which claimed that the real world we live in is nothing than a shadow of a higher perfection.

This is quite an appealing notion to anybody who believes that this world is inherently banjaxed, and, quite possibly contributed to christianity's evolutionary fitness in the religious memepool.

rockbeer

Wicknight wrote: »

PDN possibly uses the definition that a perfect being is a being that can do perfect things, even if he doesn't. Again not a totally outrageous definition.

I don't know, I still think this definition is problematical. If we cite a being who is perfect in every conceivable way but allow him to do imperfect things then right there, surely, we have defined at least one way in which he is imperfect? If nothing else, he is imperfect in that he doesn't do his best every time he does something.

A totally perfect being would do perfect things all the time. Otherwise it's only potential perfection.

Besides, why would a being capable of perfection fail to achieve it?

I know, I know, time to let it go.

rockbeer

rockbeer wrote: »

I don't know, I still think this definition is problematical. If we cite a being who is perfect in every conceivable way but allow him to do imperfect things then right there, surely, we have defined at least one way in which he is imperfect? If nothing else, he is imperfect in that he doesn't do his best every time he does something.

A totally perfect being would do perfect things all the time. Otherwise it's only potential perfection.

Besides, why would a being capable of perfection fail to achieve it?

I know, I know, time to let it go.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make all along. In doing something imperfect, he's imperfect as he isn't perfect in every possible respect.

But, yah, I think we've argued the perfection debate to the point that it is no more.:pac:

Biro

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That's exactly the point I was trying to make all along. In doing something imperfect, he's imperfect as he isn't perfect in every possible respect.

But, yah, I think we've argued the perfection debate to the point that it is no more.:pac:

With due respect, post 129 that you agreed with should be the final word, but in this post you drag it down again by harping on with your point.
In any case I'm not sure where it's defined that God is absolutely perfect in every way. Infinitly better than humans still isn't perfect!

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Forget perfection for a moment. The bible doesn't specify that perfection was required. Instead we have:

Gen 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good.

The problem is I wouldn't class the our chaotic planet as "very good". More like "could do better". In fact perhaps should do better given omnipotence.

That can be answered in one of two ways.

a) God saw that what He had made was good before his tenant started sticking his fingers in the electrical sockets and pooping on the carpets.

b) The Christian concept of creation is of a process - a process that has not yet been completed. Last night I cooked a Chilli con Carne. My wife came into the kitchen and said, "That looks good!" In fact, at that stage, all I had in the pan was the onion, mushroom, garlic & olive oil. All the other ingredients were still waiting on the worktop. Heck, even the rice was still hard as rock. However, my wife could see that the dish was on target for turning out as a delicious meal (which it was). So, labelling the world as 'good' in Genesis 1 may simply mean that everything was on track and proceeding according to God's purpose.

You seem to be confusing my cryptic reference to natural disasters with one regarding natural resources!

No, I'm not confusing them. I'm pointing out that the same forces that create natural disasters may be the same forces that we can harness for alternative forms of renewable energy. Maybe that was their original purpose, one which we ditched in favour of deforestation (think Easter Island) and the rape of the planet through fossil fuels.

Unless by the above you mean that people should know better than to live near tectonic fault lines, coastal areas, or active volcanoes.

Anyone who knowingly builds a house on top of an active volcano should not blame God when the inevitable happens.

I think it very possible that humanity, as originally created by God (irrespective of the process or timescale involved in that creation) had the abilities to avoid such natural disasters. I have heard that animals often know in advance when a tsunami is coming, or when an earthquake is imminent. Maybe man orginially had this gift.

In one of Pearl Buck's books (I forget which) she describes how the inhabitants of a Japanese town simply climbed up into the hills a few hours before a tsunami because they were warned by animal behaviour. This is an example of people, living in harmony with nature, being able to live in a coastal area while not being killed in a natural geological event that, if we were wiser, could provide more energy than a thousand smoke-belching power stations.

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That's exactly the point I was trying to make all along. In doing something imperfect, he's imperfect as he isn't perfect in every possible respect.

But, yah, I think we've argued the perfection debate to the point that it is no more.:pac:

Call me stubborn if you wish, but I'm going to have one more try at getting this point across.

Let's say that a perfect teacher wants to teach me Pythagoras' theorem. So she draws me a couple of diagrams accompanied by the usual equation and mnemonic devices.

Now, it is not necessary that the diagrams are perfect in the sense that they are the best diagrams ever drawn. Nor is it necessary that the diagrams are drawn on the highest possible quality of paper. Indeed, if analysed under a powerful microscope it may be demonstrated that her diagrams are not drawn at precisely 90 degrees, nor are the lines of the triangle absolutely straight.

Despite all these 'imperfections' the diagram fully serves its purpose. It enables me to understand Pythagoras' theorem.

In fact, it would be OK if the diagram had been roughly scribbled on the back of an envelope, just so long as it fulfills its intended purpose of teaching me the principle.

Now, the teacher has produced something (a diagram) which is imperfect in the sense that it is not the most perfect diagram that could conceivably be drawn. However, that imperfection in the diagram has no logical bearing on whether the teacher is perfect or not.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

No, I'm not confusing them. I'm pointing out that the same forces that create natural disasters may be the same forces that we can harness for alternative forms of renewable energy. Maybe that was their original purpose, one which we ditched in favour of deforestation (think Easter Island) and the rape of the planet through fossil fuels.

People were dying from flash floods and drought long before man-made carbon emissions became an issue.

The planet has always been a hazardous place to live, and the fact we beginning to harness certain natural energies is, imo, a testament to science rather than to a forward-thinking creator.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

In one of Pearl Buck's books (I forget which) she describes how the inhabitants of a Japanese town simply climbed up into the hills a few hours before a tsunami because they were warned by animal behaviour. This is an example of people, living in harmony with nature, being able to live in a coastal area while not being killed in a natural geological event that, if we were wiser, could provide more energy than a thousand smoke-belching power stations.

I assume that's The Big Wave, one of Buck's kids' stories -- I don't believe it's a true account of a real event.

I recall reading somewhere that naturalists went to Aceh to investigate the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami to check out whether or not animals had been able to detect the earthquake or the wave and take some action, but they found no evidence that they had been able to. Animals there died no different to how humans did.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

Call me stubborn if you wish, but I'm going to have one more try at getting this point across.

Accepted. Now let me have one more try at this one...

You claim that god is perfect in every possible way. Correct?

Now, one way in which we can measure perfection is by the standard of his accomplishments. Does he achieve total perfection in everything he sets out to accomplish?

This is a valid measure of perfection. Not the only one, maybe, but an entirely valid one.

You freely admit that god does not do everything to a standard of absolute perfection.

Therefore, he is not perfect in every possible way.

What you're really doing is picking and choosing the ways in which god is perfect.

You're saying "god is perfect in every way except in the sense that he does not achieve total perfection in everything he does".

If he really was perfect in every possible way you would not need to do this.

You are also attempting to apply two definitions of perfect to god simultaneously. On the one hand you claim for him the absolute standard of perfection in every possible way. But when it comes to the standard of his accomplishments you hold him to the different standard of fit for purpose. "Perfectly adequate", as I said before, and which I think you denied at the time.

So which is it?

Is god totally perfect in every possible way? Or is he simply fit for purpose, which is an entirely different thing.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I'm pointing out that the same forces that create natural disasters may be the same forces that we can harness for alternative forms of renewable energy.

Natural disasters release vast amounts of energy, but the engineering challenges of harnessing this power are intractable. How does one extract electricity from an earthquake or a tsunami if you don't know when and where they're going to happen?

There has been a lot of progress with low-temperature-difference energy sources over the last few years, to the extent that it's now economically viable to use them. The environmentally-conscious monks in Glenstal have a reasonably large unit installed which, if memory serves, takes heat at around 8 degrees from a small lake and dumps it back at around 4 degrees, consuming around 75kW, and generating around 200kW for use within the monastery. You can get smaller units for residential use which use similarly small temperature gradients.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

People were dying from flash floods and drought long before man-made carbon emissions became an issue.

The planet has always been a hazardous place to live, and the fact we beginning to harness certain natural energies is, imo, a testament to science rather than to a forward-thinking creator.

OK, I'm thinking you've completely misread my post. Nowhere did I suggest that flash floods or drought are caused by man-made carbon emissions (although, thinking about it now, some of them probably are).

My point was that the things that you see as 'bad' because they are dangers may in fact have been, in the original order of things, 'good' because they provided potential sources of energy. However, man, by disobeying the maker's instructions, has turned these sources of good into 'natural disasters'.

I do not buy into Wicknight's idea of a possible perfect world where we are treated as total morons who need to be protected from ourselves by ensuring that our disobedience never produces any negative consequences - in effect a luxury padded cell, or a namby pamby state magnified to an infinite degree. I think a better world is one where I am treated like a rational moral creature who can make free choices and, if I make the wrong choices, deal with the resulting negative consequences. That, in my view, differentiates freedom from being a pampered pet.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

Accepted. Now let me have one more try at this one...

You claim that god is perfect in every possible way. Correct?

Now, one way in which we can measure perfection is by the standard of his accomplishments. Does he achieve total perfection in everything he sets out to accomplish?

This is a valid measure of perfection. Not the only one, maybe, but an entirely valid one.

You freely admit that god does not do everything to a standard of absolute perfection.

Therefore, he is not perfect in every possible way.

What you're really doing is picking and choosing the ways in which god is perfect.

You're saying "god is perfect in every way except in the sense that he does not achieve total perfection in everything he does".

If he really was perfect in every possible way you would not need to do this.

You are also attempting to apply two definitions of perfect to god simultaneously. On the one hand you claim for him the absolute standard of perfection in every possible way. But when it comes to the standard of his accomplishments you hold him to the different standard of fit for purpose. "Perfectly adequate", as I said before, and which I think you denied at the time.

So which is it?

Is god totally perfect in every possible way? Or is he simply fit for purpose, which is an entirely different thing.

You are confusing two things, by once again taking the same leap of logic. I absolutely deny that God is merely 'perfectly adequate' - but there is no reason at all why a perfect God cannot create things that are perfectly adequate to perfectly achieve His intended purpose.

Let's go back to our perfect teacher and her scribbled diagram. I think it is wrong to say that the teacher, by producing a diagram that is less than perfect (in the sense that we can conceive of a more refined diagram) has therefore failed to achieve perfection in all that she does.

She wanted to draw a diagram that would communicate a concept to her student. She achieved that perfectly because I, as her student, now understand Pythagoras' Theorem.

I see no philiosophical or logical reason why a perfect God cannot create less-than-perfect objects providing that they perfectly serve the purpose for which they were intended. Nothing you have posted comes close to demonstrating otherwise.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

Nothing you have posted comes close to demonstrating otherwise.

yes it does, it demonstrates quite clearly that he is not perfect in every conceivable way.

I leave it to the forum to decide.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Natural disasters release vast amounts of energy, but the engineering challenges of harnessing this power are intractable. How does one extract electricity from an earthquake or a tsunami if you don't know when and where they're going to happen?

I think you've just jumped out of the discussion and are attempting to start a different one on totally different premises.

We are discussing this within the context of a philosophical argument that questions how God can be both benevolent and omnipotent. Therefore it is pointless to start calling something 'intractable' merely because it is beyond the baby steps that humanity has so far taken in respect to science.

I see no reason why man, in his original state where he talked to God face-to-face on a daily basis, could not know exactly where these events were going to happen and how to harness them. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that, before the Fall, what we now think of as 'evil' natural disasters were in fact 'good' features of the earth designed to enhance human existence.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

yes it does, it demonstrates quite clearly that he is not perfect in every conceivable way.

I leave it to the forum to decide.

Which is a bit like those BBC debates where the Labour and Conservative MPs spout their respective viewpoints and old Dimbleby says, 'We'll let the audience make up their own mind'. Then the Labour supporters make up their mind to agree with the Labour MP, and the Conservative supporters make up their mind to agree with the Conservative MP, irrespective of the strengths or weaknesses of either position.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that, before the Fall, what we now think of as 'evil' natural disasters were in fact 'good' features of the earth designed to enhance human existence.

I'm completely failing to see how earthquakes or tsunamis could possibly enhance human existence. Unless we're talking about our ancestors X years from now whose technology both protects and harnesses the powers for us.

Not much comfort for the millions of historic victims to date. I doubt they saw it as a design feature!

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

Which is a bit like those BBC debates where the Labour and Conservative MPs spout their respective viewpoints and old Dimbleby says, 'We'll let the audience make up their own mind'. Then the Labour supporters make up their mind to agree with the Labour MP, and the Conservative supporters make up their mind to agree with the Conservative MP, irrespective of the strengths or weaknesses of either position.

Yes, and the neutrals are usually left shaking their heads in despair

PDN

Dades wrote: »

I'm completely failing to see how earthquakes or tsunamis could possibly enhance human existence. Unless we're talking about our ancestors X years from now whose technology both protects and harnesses the powers for us.

Not much comfort for the millions of historic victims to date. I doubt they saw it as a design feature!

Yes, but you are looking at the house after the first few sets up tenants have ripped out all the electrical fittings and left exposed wires hanging out of the walls to electrocute the unwary.

If makind had, from the beginning, followed God's instructions then I see no reason why these sources of energy could not have been utilised fairly quickly and contributed to our living in the best of all possible worlds.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I do not buy into Wicknight's idea of a possible perfect world where we are treated as total morons who need to be protected from ourselves by ensuring that our disobedience never produces any negative consequences - in effect a luxury padded cell, or a namby pamby state magnified to an infinite degree.

Well that is hardly surprising since I never suggested such a ridiculous idea :rolleyes:

I've already explained why your idea of a padded cell is not an example of a perfect building, nor would a "padded universe" be an example of a perfect universe.

You have consistently missed the point on this and it is hard to avoid the feeling you are doing this on purpose because you don't have a response to what people are actually saying.

The idea that something is a perfect design if you incorporate imperfect design and then fix this with something else (imperfect hard walls fixed with padding) which is equally imperfect is nonsense. You are looking at how someone would fix the current universe, ignoring the fact that God wouldn't need to, he was there at the start.

All you are doing here is setting up a straw man that you can easily dismiss.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yes, but you are looking at the house after the first few sets up tenants have ripped out all the electrical fittings and left exposed wires hanging out of the walls to electrocute the unwary.

If makind had, from the beginning, followed God's instructions then I see no reason why these sources of energy could not have been utilised fairly quickly and contributed to our living in the best of all possible worlds.

Given that mankind has been around for about 500,000 years, suffering at the foot of mother nature, and God's "instructions" materialised about 4,000 years ago, and then only to a select few, it is hard to see how we could have been utilizing these energy sources from the beginning by following God's instructions.

There is also the fact that God never told us how to do this (the Bible is not a science book)