What if there is a God and that God is perfect?...

[Munch]

God can't be perfect, because the definition of perfection is completely abstract and bias.

I might imagine my idea of perfection is a hairy bear adonis with 12 inch tackle, where as someone elses idea of perfection is a big busted lass with an 11 inch tackle.

[josephpalazzo]

In what way is God "perfect"? Is it perfectly good, or perfectly bad? Is it perfectly beautiful, or perfectly ugly? Is it perfectly big, or perfectly small? Is it perfectly perfect, or perfectly imperfect?

He's perfectly perfect, dumb atheists... :25:

[GSOgymrat]

He's perfectly perfect, dumb atheists... :25:

I'm glad we've finally reached inevitable conclusion that Mary Poppins is God.

https://youtu.be/SBXPKA6i4Zg

[Baruch]

I'm glad we've finally reached inevitable conclusion that Mary Poppins is God.

https://youtu.be/SBXPKA6i4Zg

There are two general strategies in theology, both dead ends ;-)

The positive way, enumerating all of G-d's superlative qualities ... which this string is about ... and the negative way, enumerating all potential qualities as not being what G-d is like.

[bfiddy100]

Hey, finally got around to replying to your reply. Sorry it took so long, have been rather busy with stuff… Due apologies.

No problem.  Sorry it took me so long to reply this time.  Thank you for the civil discussion.  I can see that you're truly trying to understand my points, which I certainly appreciate.  Whether we agree or not, is something else, but I appreciate at least being able to have the conversation.   

I must admit I still have a hard time understanding what you mean with the crimes against a hypothetical perfect God being infinite offenses. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your points. If so, point it out.
But in the first of your two ways, you seem to imply that the offense is infinite because of the characteristics of the offended party, in this case the supposed deity. But this to me seems like a horrible way to measure the 'worth' (for the lack of a better word) of a crime. The awfullness of a crime should not be measured by the characteristics of the victim, rather by the act itself and the intentions preceding it.

I suspect you wouldn't argue that we should punish someone who kills an ant in the same way that we would punish someone who kills a human.  I also suspect that you would say it's far more evil to kill a good man who is contributing to society and caring for his family than it would be to kill a man after he was convicted of heinous crimes (even if you disagree with capital punishment).  My point is that you often do determine if an act is evil (and how evil it is) based on the offended party.  And since your argument isn't consistent we can dismiss it as false.  Only when an argument is consistent are we dealing with something true.  The truth is always consistent.     

And if anything, one could argue that a perfect god can not be harmed or wronged (as in damaged) by disobedience and suffers no lasting trauma or internal conflict because of said perfection. So even if one were to say that it's the characteristics of the victim that come in to play to determine how bad a crime is, being all-knowing and all-powerfull would I think lessen the 'worth' of the crime. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

I have to point out that your contradicting yourself here.  I point this out once again with the hope that you'll recognize that you aren't dealing with the truth and abandon this line of reasoning.  First you said that the awfulness of a crime shouldn't be measured by the characteristics of the victim, but now you're saying that if the victim isn't really damaged by your actions (a characteristic of the victim) then it's not such a big deal.  What if a man is too rich to even notice that you're stealing some of his money?  Are you doing nothing wrong because the man isn't damaged by your actions?  The issue, however, is that God does hate wrongdoing with an infinite hatred because He is perfect and has an infinitely great love for what is good and right.  Would it matter to you if people did things to you that you hate more than anything?
 

In the second of your ways, again I'm completely lost. Again it seems to imply that the characteristiscs determine how bad a crime is, rather than the crime itself. But apart from that I'm lost at the jump you make from perfection implying being infinetly worthy of honor. For instance, I find many of my cliënts as a social worker to be worthy of honor for because they do their best despite being so clearly as far from perfect as one can get. (Same goes for anyone I meet, nobody is perfect.) To use an example from work; Is a divorced mom who's new, illegal partner has gotten throat-cancer thus needing vitamines to gain weight for the treatment but which are too expensive and who lives without the allemony being paid for her three kids and who works for below minimum wage an still struggles to do everything right worthy of less honor as a another woman in the exact same situation who has more wisdom, patience, intelligence, strength, multi-tasking skills and other capabilities and usefull life-skills? Isn't it the effort that she puts in and the virtue that she shows despite imperfection a better way to measure how much honor and respect she deserves?  Even if your perfect god were to exist, any honor I'd bestow it would be measured not by it's characteristics but by what it was trying to do and the way it was doing this to the best of it's capabilities. Which, hypothetically, are infinite. Which would imply that if this world is not perfect, which I would argue it's not, your perfect God would not be giving it it's all.

I see your point.  Doing something good with little means is worthy of honor.  But I don't think it's a "jump" to go from God being perfect to God being infinitely worthy of honor.  If God were not worthy of as much honor as possible then He would not be perfect.  If in any way God could be more worthy of honor than He is then He would be less than perfect.  This world is exactly what we should expect if God is perfect.  If God loves what is good and right then we should expect Him to be angry about us doing things that we know are wrong.  We do see that in the suffering that we experience in this life, but we also see many good things in this world, which tells us that God is also patient, kind and merciful. 

Basically, what I was trying to say is in a summerized way: We have the need to punish because we can not take the necessary steps to nullify the effects of crime or to prevent it all together. Were our race/society all powerfull we could. We could in advance make sure that everyone of their own free will would not chose to do something awfull. And that even if they had done something awfull, we could undo it or at least the damage and then be certain that with the certain approach said offender would never offend again and thus allow them to participate in society without blemish because we know (s)he will never be a risk to others ever again. But we can't because we're not all-knowing nor all-powerfull. 
I don't know how to make it clearer. If you still don't see what I mean, I'll try.

I do see what you're saying, but I just don't think it works.  Yes, if you were omniscient then you would know that a man was going to commit a crime beforehand and you could prevent him from doing so.  But preventing the man from doing what he wants to do (commit the crime) IS punishment.  The only way there can be no punishment is for people not to desire to do evil in the first place.  We do not have such a world, as evidenced by our own desires to do what we know is wrong.  God promises to change anyone who repents and believes in Christ so that they will no longer desire to do anything wrong.  That is why heaven will be heaven.   

I believe you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I'm not saying the problem lies within a lack of wisdom or knowledge in the criminals. But if our governing body was all-knowing and all-powerfull it would know exactly what to do and teach and say to make sure everyone of these would be criminals would chose not to do anything criminal. I think this is where you misunderstood me. It's not the lack of knowledge in the criminal party that is the problem. I understand that people do things they know are bad. For example, a lot of rapists or murderers or thieves know what they do is wrong, but they do it anyway. The problem is that if I were omniscient and omnipotent I would know what to say and do to guide anyone to not go down such a path of their own free will and be certain that my actions and influences have made it so that this person would never do such a thing, without taking away their free will. If I could not do this, I would not be omniscient and/or omnipotent. Which I'm not, of course. Which is why I can't prevent crime. Or at least can not prevent it totally nor be certain that I'm preventing it at all.

Again, you could prevent crimes by keeping people from doing the wrong things that they want to do.  But keeping someone from doing what they want IS punishment.  The only way around this is to actually change the person's desires.  And that is exactly what God promises to do for anyone who comes to Him and desires to be changed. 

But would a perfect omnipotent and omniscient God not create a world in which everyone that would ever be, be all-loving and harmonious themselves? Why would this perfect god willfully create a world in which strife and hatred would blossom and people would need to be shunned or punished and fall short of his grace when he can create a world in which everyone chooses to accept his divine authority, his guidelines to life, of their own free will and who feel no natural emnity towards one another?
In any case: no. All-loving does not necessarily mean giving everyone what they want. That's not the way I use it. I don't even use it that often myself. The way I understand it as how most religious seem to use it is that it means god is an ultimate force for good (and love) and wants the best for his creation.

It comes down to whether or not God's grace is something that should be demonstrated.  If it is a wonderful thing then it should be treated as a wonderful thing and it should be displayed, not hidden.  But without people doing bad things we can never see God's grace since He doesn't need to show grace to people who haven't done anything wrong.  And the suffering that is necessary to demonstrate how great God is, is not something that God just makes humans go through (even though we are fully deserving of it).  Nobody suffered more to show how wonderful God is than Jesus Christ.  Jesus suffered infinitely because of our sins and to make known how magnificent God's love, grace, and goodness are.   

In a perfect world? No, we would not have life-sentences. Even in a world in which crime can not be avoided, which in a perfect world it could be, but in which the governing body of society were all-knowing and all-powerfull they could be absolutely certain that a certain action or treatment could make the sentenced person never commit another crime ever again and be able to be a productive member of society of his/her own free will.
But we do not live in a perfect world. We do not have omnipotence and omniscience. We can not be certain. So we need punishment. Because we're not perfect.
And, I'd like to add. Even in sentences in which people are to never get out of jail, we still tend to try to make them understand why what they did was wrong. And if possible, give them some way to repent for their crimes. At least that's the way it is in Belgium, I don't know how it is where you come from. But even jail is or at least ought to be more than throwing someone in a dark hole, shutting the door and melting the key down without ever looking back.
Locking up the person in your example would not be cruelty. It would be necessary. But that is because we have limited capabilities. We were not able to prevent the pick-uptruck driver from becoming a racist or a murderer of his own free will. We are not able to restore the damage done to the victim. We can't be certain our actions following the crime convince the offender that what he/she did was wrong. We can't be certain the offender will never do it again. All because we are not perfect. We, and our governing bodies, are not unlimited. They are not perfect. That's why in some cases WE need those kinds of punishment. WE, not a hypothetical PERFECT BEING.

God has given us all an understanding why what we have done is wrong.  Our conscience, given to us by God, informs us of right and wrong.  The problem isn't that we don't know that things we do are wrong or that we can't figure out why they're wrong.  The problem is that we suppress the truth and don't want to think about these things because we want to believe that we are good people worthy of praise instead of evil and in need of mercy from our Creator.  And regarding repentance, God not only offers to forgive us if we repent, but He actually commands us to repent.  God is actually commanding you to be forgiven of all of your wrongdoing!  But you refuse.  A man shouldn't be let out of prison if he refused to change his ways and stubbornly declares that he will continue in his evil deeds. 

And why would God need to show his mercy? Is it not better not to have need for mercy than to display perfect mercy? And does he really need to show his perfect hatred for wrongdoing? Is it not better to not have a need for this perfect hatred? I'm sorry, but I simply do not agree that having these personality-traits means they should be displayed if their need can be avoided.
You are right. The notion does repulse me. I see not why these need to be demonstrated. What would you think of a judge in high court who manipulates and influences people into committing crimes only to show how well he knows the law by dealing out the appropriate punishments? What would you think of a government that would enable terrorists, just so it could show how much it cared for it's own citizens when it came down hard on them after they'd slaughtered thousands of the innocent citizens?
If your hypothetical perfect god had perfect hatred for wrongdoing, he should be one hell of a selfloathing bastard. And if your hypothetical perfect god had created me to dissobey him, to refuse him, then that's what I'll do, I suppose. But unlike what you said before; he'd have earned no honor or respect from me. Nor should he have earned any from anyone.

I already answered why God desires to show His mercy.  I'm not sure if you have children or not, but if you do then I imagine you want them to know how much you love them.  If your children never did anything wrong it would be reasonable for them to assume that your love for them is based on their performance.  You might say that you'd still love them even if they did something you really hate, but they'd never just how great your love for them is unless they actually did something you hate and saw how you continued to love them and showed them mercy.  Having done what God hates and yet experiencing God's love, those in heaven will be assured forever that God will continue in their love towards them and have a joy that is complete and that could not be known otherwise.  We simply disagree, however, regarding whether or not God manipulates or influences people in a way that causes them to do wrong.  We show, however, that our thinking is just like Adam's when we blame God for the wrong things that we've freely chosen to do.   

[Nonsensei]

What a confusing question. If God were perfect we would never have existed.

[pr126]

How can god be perfect when it was created by imperfect humans?

Note how god(s) have the same emotions (jealousy, anger, revenge, sorrow, gladness etc),  as their creators?
Even the same human 'form'? (Genesis 1:27)

[trdsf]

The truth is always consistent.     

This is not true.  The highest level of truth is that of mathematical truth, insofar as once something is proven it is proven forever, and there is no gainsaying it as a matter of opinion or alternate interpretation.  However, we also know via Kurt Gödel that mathematics may be consistent (in which case it cannot include all true statements) or it may be complete (in which case it cannot be consistent).  Truth in a precise sense cannot be consistent.

Furthermore, truths can be contradictory and still be true.  If we go to see a comedian perform, and I say he was hilarious, and you say he wasn't funny, both statements are true since a) we each carry our own definitions of what we find funny, and b) there is no external, definitive and objective definition of funny against which our definitions and the comedian's performance can be measured.

By and large, though, a functional truth requires evidence, and evidence stands on its own -- it's not a matter of being passed down through the ages or taking the word of a self-appointed authority figure, but is instead independently verifiable, either through multiple independent sources or by one's self.

I don't need to "believe" that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, I can electrolyze it for myself and demonstrate first hand that it decomposes into two gases, one much lighter than the other, the properties of which match those published in other sources, and it's exactly the same every single time I repeat the experiment.

There is no comparable experiment for whether or not there is any divine authority in the universe.  If I ask fifty different religious figures, I will get fifty different explanations of what the divine is, many of which are not only contradictory, but mutually exclusive.  Furthermore, there is no reliable test to determine which interpretation is the right one, nor is there any known process in the universe that requires an external sentient presence to bring it about.

Under those circumstances, the application of Occam's Razor is called for: without a definite reason to suppose there's an external sentient force, there's no reason to suppose there is one.  The idea that there is a god requires evidence, and there is none -- and no, the bible doesn't qualify as proof all by itself.  If it does, then so do the Iliad, Gulliver's Travels and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone -- and I suspect you're not willing to admit to the existence of Zeus, Lilliputians and/or Hogwarts.

[Baruch]

If humans keep grasping at straws, then the Scarecrow is G-d ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nauLgZISozs

Just stay away from fire ;-)  Also this disproves intelligent creation ;-))

[josephpalazzo]

This is not true.  The highest level of truth is that of mathematical truth, insofar as once something is proven it is proven forever, and there is no gainsaying it as a matter of opinion or alternate interpretation.  However, we also know via Kurt Gödel that mathematics may be consistent (in which case it cannot include all true statements) or it may be complete (in which case it cannot be consistent).  Truth in a precise sense cannot be consistent.

Just a few pointers:

Math is based on a single idea: the identity law, A = A, the substitution principle is just a glorified identity law. What Gödel found is that all math structures (set theory, group theory, algebra, etc)  need to start with axioms - unproven statements. If you try to prove those axioms, you would need other axioms, hence your system is always either consistent or incomplete (a combination of unproven axioms and logically consistent proven theorems).

Furthermore, truths can be contradictory and still be true.  If we go to see a comedian perform, and I say he was hilarious, and you say he wasn't funny, both statements are true since a) we each carry our own definitions of what we find funny, and b) there is no external, definitive and objective definition of funny against which our definitions and the comedian's performance can be measured.

You're talking about opinions, but true propositions (in both logic and math) are about factual statements. And the "true/false" are values applied to propositions. Even though people apply these values to opinions, strictly speaking from philosophy, they really don't. Hence it is misleading to consider an opinion on a comedian performance as being "true". It's a matter of taste: you liked it; someone else didn't. That has no bearing on what is considered as truthful. No one can really verify if you are truthful in expressing your opinion, not until someone invents 100%-proof mind reading apparatus ;-).

By and large, though, a functional truth requires evidence, and evidence stands on its own -- it's not a matter of being passed down through the ages or taking the word of a self-appointed authority figure, but is instead independently verifiable, either through multiple independent sources or by one's self.

Empirical truths (as in scientific theories, for instance) are tentative: as new evidence are discovered, the old theories might end up in the dumpster  - the phlogiston theory is a good example.

[stromboli]

If you assume god as the source for everything you assume without him there is no morality nor any sense of ethics to deal with issues day to day and hour to hour. The mere fact that secular people manage to be moral and ethical flies in the face of that assumption. I see so many instances of "religiously moral" people being immoral to others who don't fit their paradigm of what they need to be moral to. Everybody goes to heaven except the following list....hmmm... gays no, non christians no, I'm a Baptist so Seventh day Adventists no, Scientologists no, Hindus no........golly that is a highly moral attitude. Sounds more like judgment to me. In terms of application, the only difference from one religion to the next is the level of severity of punishment a lot of symbolic trappings. Otherwise change the name and they are practically all the same.

For your god to be perfect he first has to exist. In every instance of belief I am aware of, you first have to skip over that initial problem and blandly believe without bothering to reconcile that first problem. Every one here that is atheist is because we couldn't prove that first problem. Every single thing you believe is based on assumptions without evidence. It isn't any harder than that. You can argue endlessly and apply all manner of philosophical viewpoints, but without proof of that first assumption, the rest is just BS.

[Baruch]

The idea, even if there is some kind of god ... that this god communicates with humans, but only a very few or only one human, and only in the past tense ... is patently ridiculous.  All the major religions fail on this point, even if one has some kind of god.

If there is a god ... this god has to communicate with all humans everywhere and all the time ... so that any human, in any present tense, has access.  Of course this leaves open what 'communicate' means ... let alone with 'god' means.  This is why for me, mysticism is the only viable option ... if any are.

[popsthebuilder]

That we have a conscience says absolutely nothing to prove your god delusion, but it does demonstrate how sociable animal life evolves. Conscience and other chemically-controlled emotional states are in no way limited to humans, we are different only for being more socially and emotionally complex.

Emotion and / or the conscience is not strictly the product of chemical balances as it also causes the changes in the chemical levels.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[stromboli]

Whoops! Pops is back. That rounds out my day.

[FaithIsFilth]

It is, in my book, inherently wrong to punishment anyone eternally for a finite crime.
And if god was perfect, there would be no need for punishment. (I can elaborate later if you'd like, after work. Let me know.)

This. Plus, free will does not exist, so we can not do anything other than what we do. If there were a perfect god, I don't see why anyone would be treated differently in the afterlife. We should all get paradise, or the choice to cease existing.