Why would a perfect being make an imperfect world?

[Fake Messiah]

OP, depends which God. If you take Christian and Jewish god then because he is evil. Like in Isaiah 45:5–7 God indeed describes himself being as much evil as he is good. He brags that he created evil—not as the absence of good, but as a creation that he was proud of.

Isaiah 45:5-7King James Version (KJV)

5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

[HairyCyclist]

Fair enough

That was implying that an explanation was  needed.

What do you mean by "a perfect God could not have created the universe" ?

I was going by your logic... That perfection can't exist without imperfection. So to be clear.. Either God is not perfect or God came into existence at the same time as the universe. What you seem to be saying is that imperfection existed before the existence of the universe.

[SteveII]

Determinism is a doctrine that stems from a metaphysical naturalism worldview--there only exists material properties and causes. This is most definitely a philosophical position.

Your question: "Show me evidence of a choice made that was not affected by prior causes, ever, in all of human history." does nothing to undermine the argument of Free Will. Of course every choice is informed by our past...and our present.  The question remains do we have a choice to act. 

I think the best evidence is the mind/brain relationship. What evidence does neuroscience provide that the mind is identical to our brain, and therefore material? 

Not everything that goes on in our mind is causally determined by our bodies. Sometime what goes on in our bodies is a result of what goes on in our mind. I am choosing to reply to you and do the necessary chores of getting sentences down on the screen. We have mental-to-physical causation. The explanation of both the choice I made and the physical events going on in my body is for the purpose of defending my position. A purposeful explanation is a teleological explanation and a teleological explanation is not a deterministic one. 

Secondly, electrodes can be used to stimulate the brain to do different things (make a noise, raise a hand, etc.). However the patient always says something like "I didn't do that, you did that". There is no place that can be stimulated to cause a patient to decide to do something. 

Lastly, while there is a causal dependency of the mind events on the brain events, you cannot confuse correlation with identity. It does not follow that if two events are correlated, that they are identical.

Everything that goes on in your mind may not be caused by the body, but it caused by something.  You think you are "choosing" to reply to me, but it is just output based on input.
Everthying we have observed is caused (or perhaps random), but in the macro world, caused.  You don't get to insert magic if you cannot find the exact cause.  This is just God of the Gaps inserted into the free-will argument.

You have demonstrating nothing but weak arguments based on presuppositions that are themselves unproven (Duality of Mind is BS, and presupposed the supernatural to explain the mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(p...y_of_mind)) for free-will, no evidence, and not even strong logical arguments.  Show me evidence for the supernatural, now.  Every statement you make is just based on one more unsupported claim.

No, I gave three points that certainly were not "god of the gaps" arguments or "unsupported claims". Body/Mind Dualism does not presuppose the supernatural--it is evidence of the supernatural AND evidence of Free Will. 

Intentionality is the property of being about something or of something. Our thoughts are directed at objects. For example, I can think about my dog, I can think about my sailboat. No physical object has intentionality in this sense. A rock or a coffee cup is not about or of something. Only mental states or states of consciousness are about other things. On your view, there are no mental states so you are really not thinking about something--you are just reacting to stimulus. 

So, it seems your worldview causes you to ignore the arguments because it would become unraveled if you did consider the possibility. Who here is ignoring evidence?

---

So you admit that the Bible teaches that we have free will to "choose or reject God." So then regarding all 10 commandments and the 1000 other rules in the OT, that would just be more "choosing God?" The prophets and psalmist that lament the choices that people have made was more "choosing God?" The proverbs that tell you the best way to live, were more "choosing God?" Paul's teaching on the fruits of the spirit and chapter after chapter of Christian living were just more "choosing god?". So, you simply defined everything in the Bible as "choosing God" and then exempted it from the "overall free will theme". You don't seem to have a firm grasp on the issue. 

Are you really distinguishing between "Christ" and "God" as an argument that we are making things up? Ugh.

Now you're just being a dick.  I would like to have a serious conversation like an adult.  What are you, fucking twelve?  "So you ADMIT that I'm right and you're wrong because you used a word that I used proving that I'm right and you're wrong!"  Grow the fuck up and you'll get a serious response, putz.

I apologize. However, your claim (in your previous post) that we can "...choose or reject God, but again, that is a single choice, not an overall "free will" theme." just makes no sense. To say that the Bible, which is literally filled with instruction on how to live, teaches we only have one choice, is simply to not understand what free will is or not to understand at all what the Bible is. 

---

---

You say there is no evidence for Free Will. Isn't your conclusion that there is no Free Will based on naturalism--a philosophical position, and not based on science or other concrete 'evidence'? Why should I believe your ideology that there is nothing but natural properties and causes when I have very good reason to suspect there is more than that? In case you are going to ask what are my reasons, I would reply that Naturalism does not address why:

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Not sure about B and C, but the rest are clearly the case.

Neat little video on B: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMC...dex=1&t=7s

Another one on C:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwim...aRoX&t=26s

[Asmodee]

Using Huggys logic, common sense would also tell us that if perfection can't exist without imperfection, then a perfect God could not have created the universe.

What's the opposite of Lobster?

That's not logic at all.  In fact it is diametrically opposed to literally every other Christian belief I know.  It means one of two things that, so far as I know, no Christian anywhere believes.  If perfection cannot exist without imperfection then either God was not perfect before creation, becoming perfect only by fucking up creation and making creating imperfection so that she is now perfect, but only by comparison or God is not the only eternal being.  She didn't create "everything".  Other beings, imperfect ones, already existed.

It also means Heaven won't be perfect to anyone but God.  Hell will be separated from Heaven so that only God can experience its existence.  To everyone in Heaven, imperfection doesn't exist, so perfection doesn't exist.

Not to mention that this whole claim is pure nonsense.  Eventually man will be able to manipulate individual atoms.  We will be able to build molecules for drugs, eventually even make parts with exact tolerances.  By this logic the machine which made these things would have to occasionally make something imperfect.  There is no mechanism in nature to enforce fucking up.

[Huggy Bear]

That was implying that an explanation was  needed.

What do you mean by "a perfect God could not have created the universe" ?

I was going by your logic... That perfection can't exist without imperfection. So to be clear.. Either God is not perfect or God came into existence at the same time as the universe. What you seem to be saying is that imperfection existed before the existence of the universe.

I already stated that the concept of imperfection already existed because God already knew the end from the beginning, hence why a sacrifice for sin was prepared before the foundation of the world.

Before creation, God was also a father, healer, savior etc. all these attributes were in God before creation. In order to be a Father, God needed children, In order to be a healer, sickness had to exist, in order to be a savior there needed to be something to save, and if God is perfect then imperfection also has to exist.

[Aroura]

My world view wouldn't unravel if I thought free-will was real, as I have nothing dependent on it. If there were evidence of it (and there are plenty of arguments against mind/brain duality, such as the fact the the mind is ALWAYS damaged if the brain is damaged, therefore there is no duality), I would accept it. It would really change nothing for me, because it would still be explained by evidence. I have no other major beliefs that are dependent on it. I spent the majority of my life thinking free will is real, after all. I'm not really different now, except I accept this very difficult truth.

Unlike some others, who actually have their entire faith in God apparently hanging in the balance of a single concept. Again project much? lol. But eve tough your current argument for God rests on the notion of free-will, I honestly don't think it would unravel your worldviews, either. I suppose you would fit God into your new paradigm, because that is what people do. To suggest that you think my whole worldview would "unravel" with one idea changed suggests you have very little understanding of how the human mind actually works.

[Neo-Scholastic]

This seems more like a theodicy thread than one about divine perfection.

[SteveII]

My world view wouldn't unravel if I thought free-will was real, as I have nothing dependent on it.[1] If there were evidence of it (and there are plenty of arguments against mind/brain duality, such as the fact the the mind is ALWAYS damaged if the brain is damaged, therefore there is no duality [2]), I would accept it [3]. It would really change nothing for me, because it would still be explained by evidence.  I have no other major beliefs that are dependent on it.  I spent the majority of my life thinking free will is real, after all.  I'm not really different now, except I accept this very difficult truth.

Unlike some others, who actually have their entire faith in God apparently hanging in the balance of a single concept. Again project much?  lol.  But eve tough your current argument for God rests on the notion of free-will, I honestly don't think it would unravel your worldviews, either. I suppose you would fit God into your new paradigm, because that is what people do.  To suggest that you think my whole worldview would "unravel" with one idea changed suggests you have very little understanding of how the human mind actually works. [4]

1. I think if your worldview was Naturalism it would. For there to be real free will, the mind, something immaterial, would have causal effect on the world and the notion of determinism undermined. I have not heard of an argument that preserves both Free Will and Naturalism. Feel free...
2. My third reason addresses the brain damage objection: Lastly, while there is a causal dependency of the mind events on the brain events, you cannot confuse correlation with identity. It does not follow that if two events are correlated, that they are identical.
3. I presented 3 reason that you have not addressed specifically. Why is this not evidence that for mind/body duality? 
4. A worldview is measured on how well it assimilates reality into a coherent framework. I think mine does that better than yours for a lot of reasons. This one happens to be the topic of this thread. If you are okay with a worldview that fails to address everything, that is your business.

[HairyCyclist]

I was going by your logic... That perfection can't exist without imperfection. So to be clear.. Either God is not perfect or God came into existence at the same time as the universe. What you seem to be saying is that imperfection existed before the existence of the universe.

I already stated that the concept of imperfection already existed because God already knew the end from the beginning, hence why a sacrifice for sin was prepared before the foundation of the world.

Before creation, God was also a father, healer, savior etc. all these attributes were in God before creation. In order to be a Father, God needed children, In order to be a healer, sickness had to exist, in order to be a savior there needed to be something to save, and if God is perfect then imperfection also has to exist.

So imperfection pre-dates the universe, thank's for clearing that up.

[SteveII]

I was going by your logic... That perfection can't exist without imperfection. So to be clear.. Either God is not perfect or God came into existence at the same time as the universe. What you seem to be saying is that imperfection existed before the existence of the universe.

I already stated that the concept of imperfection already existed because God already knew the end from the beginning, hence why a sacrifice for sin was prepared before the foundation of the world.

Before creation, God was also a father, healer, savior etc. all these attributes were in God before creation. In order to be a Father, God needed children, In order to be a healer, sickness had to exist, in order to be a savior there needed to be something to save, and if God is perfect then imperfection also has to exist.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I like to think of God's properties in two different buckets: 1) necessary properties: those properties that are necessary to be God like the omni-properties, uncaused, morally perfect, etc. and 2) contingent properties: those properties that are brought about by a relationship or interaction other things or events like father, healer, savior, etc. 

Knowledge of a future event cannot give you properties that only that event can give you. For example, the day before my wedding, I had knowledge of my impending vows, but did not gain the property of husband until the deed was done. 

As it related to perfection prior to creation, I think that God understood the concept of imperfection, but there existed no imperfection yet.