Why would a perfect being make an imperfect world?

[Huggy Bear]

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.

To be clear, the concept of imperfection existed only in the thoughts of God.

God knew there would be imperfection, hence imperfection existed.

Let's use another example. Eternal life means life that had no beginning or end. The only eternal being is God, yet the bible states that eternal life is achievable, how so when we clearly had a beginning? Through foreknowledge. Those that achieve eternal life existed in the thoughts of God from the beginning, this is the concept of predestination.

If the elect are those that God foreknew, and the thoughts of God are eternal, this means that everyone he foreknew is also eternal.

Romans 8
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

[Harry Nevis]

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, a perfect being needed something....?

[Huggy Bear]

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, a perfect being needed something....?

Not in the sense you're thinking, I'm speaking in the sense of definition.

If a perfect being has the attribute of a father then children are needed to express that attribute (one can't be a father without children), this has no bearing on perfection.

[Aroura]

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.

1. You make a lot of presupposed assumptions about me.  I fought very hard against the idea of determinism, for years.  I hated the idea, and had many debates about it.  I do not have a world view based around it, I just accepted it.  I already accept there are immaterial concepts and ideas.  I do think naturalism is correct, however, if it were proven incorrect, I would accept it and move on, just as I have done before.  I have no deep beliefs or philosophies based on it that would unravel.  I have no God or Soul or Afterlife to lose. 


(p.s. I've studied this in multiple college courses.  I know the arguments for and against.  I personally find the arguments for duality, free will, and a personal God all to be weak, and based on emotional attachment to the ideas, and little else).

How do you think you would react if it were proven that free-will did not exist?  Would it negatively impact your belief in God, or how you view yourself as a self made person, and how you view others as choosing to be sinful or good? 

2. No, it doesn't.  It also doesn't follow that they are not identical. There is no actual evidence that mind is not just an emergent property of the brain.  Illogical arguments are not evidence.
3. Fine, I'll address your 3 points.
 a 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. 

I already addressed this one.  I never said everything that goes on in the mind is determined by our bodies. But it is determined by something.  Just because you do not know the causation does not mean you get to insert magic. This IS essentially God of the Gaps. Also, if you are going to define free-will to mean purpose or desire, then just admit that and we can discuss compatibilism.  

 b. 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. 

Exactly!  Because there is no decision making, so there is nothing there to stimulate.  The feeling that you "chose" something is illusory, this example exposes that illusion.  This is actually evidence of the illusion, not something magically exists outside the brain in some "real" way.  
At any rate, your final sentence isn't true.  The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) appears to profoundly affect cognitive control, and feelings of "choice". Damage to this region of the brain can make people feel as if they are not making choices, but simply responding to impulses. They describe themselves as feeling "robotic" or as if they are simply a passenger in a vehicle, watching it all happen. People can actually lose the feeling of free will, because it is caused by the brain!

In any case, you are still inserting magic where there is a gap in knowledge.  Back to God of the Gaps, but with free will. 

c 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.

Right, but that also does not mean you get to entirely dismiss that they might be.  Correlation does not imply causation, true, but it in no way dismisses causation entirely.

If the mind existed outside the brain, then we would have the ability for the mind to exist when the brain is fully asleep (not REM), or dead.  But that isn't the case. When the brain sleeps, so does the mind. When the brain is dead, so is the mind.  (waits to hear about NDE's next)

(p.s. In case I was unclear, I am not attached to the idea of determinism.  I actually still find it difficult to accept, and rather detestable to think we are either basically robots or perhaps slightly random robots.  I struggle quite a lot with the notion, and it causes me more than a little anxiety. I would probably feel relief, if anything, to find evidence that it is not correct. That being said, I don't deny things simply because they make me uncomfortable.  I face what seems to me to be truths, even hard or difficult truths.  So please stop asserting I only believe this thing because I want to, that's so patently absurd in my case, it's not even worth a laugh.)

[Cyberman]

What attribute of a father is there other than 'has children'?

[HairyCyclist]

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

To be clear, the concept of imperfection existed only in the thoughts of God.

God knew there would be imperfection, hence imperfection existed.

Let's use another example. Eternal life means life that had no beginning or end. The only eternal being is God, yet the bible states that eternal life is achievable, how so when we clearly had a beginning? Through foreknowledge. Those that achieve eternal life existed in the thoughts of God from the beginning, this is the concept of predestination.

If the elect are those that God foreknew, and the  thoughts of God are eternal, this means that everyone he foreknew is also eternal.

Romans 8
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

You have done a grand job of moving the goal posts there Huggy, originally you said that perfection can not exist without imperfection.

So I made the case (based on your logic) that a perfect God could not have created the universe, unless imperfection existed before the creation. 

Now you are saying that imperfection only existed in Gods mind, that is not the same thing as imperfection actually existing is it?

[Socrates]

If you made a mistake on your homework would you throw the whole worksheet out, or would you fix the problems you got wrong?

If I were looking for complete perfection, absolutely!

Which is what you seem to think God was looking for, so again why didn't he throw the whole thing out and start again?

Well, he wasnt happy when adam ruined the garden of eden, a supposed perfect place. Obv he wanted perfection according to the bible.

[Huggy Bear]

You have done a grand job of moving the goal posts there Huggy, originally you said that perfection can not exist without imperfection.

I've moved no goal posts, I was speaking by definition, you cannot define perfection if imperfection doesn't exist.

It's a common sense question, perfection cannot exist without imperfection because imperfection is what defines perfection, therefore one cannot truly appreciate or know what "perfection" is without experiencing imperfection.

*emphasis mine*

Does the concept of a flawless diamond exist if there was no such thing as a flawed diamond? If flawed diamonds didn't exist then flawless would not be used in describing diamonds.

So I made the case (based on your logic) that a perfect God could not have created the universe, unless imperfection existed before the creation. 

Now you are saying that imperfection only existed in Gods mind, that is not the same thing as imperfection actually existing is it?

Imperfection is a concept as I have stated repeatedly, if God is all knowing then he always knew about imperfection, hence it always existed.

[Harry Nevis]

So, a perfect being needed something....?

Not in the sense you're thinking, I'm speaking in the sense of definition.

If a perfect being has the attribute of a father then children are needed to express that attribute (one can't be a father without children), this has no bearing on perfection.

Pulled that out of you ass, didn't you?

[Asmodee]

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. 

First, apology accepted and thank you.  It's always a pleasure to disagree with someone who can at least admit their mistakes.  I respect that very much.

Second, what you quoted was a response to someone else.  Godschild had said this:

...the only true will you have is choosing Christ or rejecting Him, outside that all bets are off.

What you quoted was a direct response to that and, in fact, it was quoted in the post you got my quote from, right above my response.  My response was simply an assertion that being given a single, specific choice is not "free will".  A choice is specific.  Multiple choice with only two options is as specific as it gets.  The concept of free will is a very general concept not well described by a single multiple-choice decision you are allowed to make.

So you see, it wasn't my claim, it was Godschild's claim.  So take it up with him if it doesn't make sense.  What I was actually saying there was that it didn't make sense, the same thing you just said.