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

[aitm]

The Gods have, if nothing else, proven conclusively, by their actions or inactions, that they are indeed, not gods.- Joebels Gheman

[trdsf]

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 ;-).

Exactly.  The point I was trying to make is that truth is not an absolute measured from outside the universe since there are different kinds of truths.  It's still a true statement if I say (for example) Steve Martin is hilarious, and it's just as true if you were to say he wasn't -- whether or not it can be independently verified that you and I actually hold those opinions.  In any case, on matters of opinion, one can only take the speaker's word on the matter anyway.  Using the same example, I have no reason to doubt you when you say he's not funny.  Subsumed in that, of course, is the leading clause "I think" or "I believe" or "It's my opinion that".

And your point about phlogiston is on the mark, and it's worth noting that phlogiston was a scientific theory in the modern sense, in that it explained a set of phenomena and made predictions about events that could falsify the theory.  So when Lavoisier came along with the right interpretation and the observations to back it, phlogiston theory was properly dethroned... by a different incorrect theory, the caloric theory of heat.

Scientific truth does change, but it has the advantage of homing in on reality over time as observations and interpretations improve.  It's better to say that scientific truth is refined over time, rather than changes -- scientific understanding generally evolves from a partial theory to a more complete theory.  Total revolutions like Newtonian physics and Einsteinian relativity are uncommon.  More often you see a progression and a refinement as in the case of phlogiston theory being replaced by caloric theory being replaced by the kinetic theory of heat becoming modern thermodynamics.

It's really uncommon that scientific inquiry proceeds up the wrong alley for long periods of time: I don't think anyone seriously believes that the fundamentals of chemistry will be proven wrong and we end up going back to alchemy, nor will General Relativity be overthrown in favor of a return to luminiferous æther.  While there's always a need for observation, there's no good reason to think any of the hard sciences are currently on a dead-end course and will need to back up.

[trdsf]

The Gods have, if nothing else, proven conclusively, by their actions or inactions, that they are indeed, not gods.- Joebels Gheman

Linda Smith put it more succinctly: "If God wanted us to believe in him, he'd exist."

[Baruch]

trdsf - the philosophy of modern physics is a little bit more nuanced.  Newtonian physics still works for most circumstances ... so it was never replaced.  We didn't move to GR, and then retreat to Newtonian physics.  And this is in spite of Newtonian physics and GR being on very different basis.  What Einstein meta-discovered was ... philosophy (Mach) is useful for finding new theories, but once you have the new theory you can and should discard the enablig philosophy (Mach) to get to the next new theory (post-Mach).  Philosophy is a pragmatic temporary scratch pad ... the goal is the right equations ... and what they mean, simply doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter if space/time are connected, doesn't matter if matter bends space-time.  As Feynman summarized (in regards to QM) ... shut up and calculate.

In more detail ... Einstein's original formulation got rid of the Ether.  It was unnecessary as an assumption for the equations (unlike previous work by others).  But shortly after Minkowski came along and invented space-time.  Actually it had been invented prior to Galileo, but had been ignored.  And this was of course not a pre-Galilean or Galilean space-time, but an space-time consistent with Einstein.  At a stroke, after just 3 years, the new Ether had been invented.  This new Ether (son of phlogiston) was useful, not just a math trick .. because it made GR possible.  And not only that, the new Ether made relativistic QM possible (but inconsistent with GR).  So now we have a much more powerful Ether than the one we started with.  So ideas are more cyclic, than linear.  We have had several Ethers ... each one gets overthrown but replaced with a new-improved Ether.  So now we have an Ether, that per Heisenberg, can spontaneously generate a couch or chair out of nowhere, and disappear it ... provided that the observation time is short enough.  You can violate conservation laws, if you are tricky enough.  GR also violates conservation laws in specific circumstances.  Physics is more like a house of cards, than a Egyptian pyramid.  As long as you have a magic equation, what it means doesn't matter.  But what the public gets is that pseudo-philosophy, because they can't understand the magic equation without years of schooling.

[josephpalazzo]

Scientific truth does change, but it has the advantage of homing in on reality over time as observations and interpretations improve.  It's better to say that scientific truth is refined over time, rather than changes -- scientific understanding generally evolves from a partial theory to a more complete theory.  Total revolutions like Newtonian physics and Einsteinian relativity are uncommon.  More often you see a progression and a refinement as in the case of phlogiston theory being replaced by caloric theory being replaced by the kinetic theory of heat becoming modern thermodynamics.

It was Kuhn who defined such scientific changes as a "paradigm shift", in which not only the science had changed but so does our worldview. Today, "paradigm shift" is a buzzword in advertisement, ;-)

[Baruch]

It was Kuhn who defined such scientific changes as a "paradigm shift", in which not only the science had changed but so does our worldview. Today, "paradigm shift" is a buzzword in advertisement, ;-)

Read Carlo Ravelli?  Italian theoretical physicist.  He says Kuhn is full of it.  Overgeneralization of the Copernican revolution (Copernicus had more epicycles than Ptolemy).  More like a reshuffling of the deck ... saving appearances etc.

[Mr.Obvious]

Again, sorry for the late reply. But if we are going to keep this conversation going, seeing how long our points are and how we both also have other things to do, I imagine the ones in the future being just as tardy.

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.

Regarding the ants thing. You must be able to see why that's a bad analogy. In one instance it's killing an insect, in the other it's murder: The killing of another person (without justification or excuse). These are two different concepts, there is a difference between killing animals and murder. They are different acts by definition. We weigh their implications by the acts, which are different, and the intentions. For instance we'll look diffently at a kid with a magnifying glass who'se doing it for kicks, someone who accidentally steps on an ant and someone who places an ant-trap filled with poison to keep his house from getting entirely infested.
Following this. One could argue that capital punishment is not murder. As it is, judicially not without justification. Meaning it does not fit the textbook definition of murder. Some others who disagree with you might argue this. I however do not agree with capital punishment personally, and don't condone it. I find it to be primitive and I disagree with it wholeheartedly. I find it vile, despicable and inhumane.
But there are a few on here, I think, who agree capital punishment can be concidered okay in some instances. They can argue what I said above about judicial justification, or find some other line of reasoning. I don't presume to dictate what they think. However if they do follow that line of reasoning concidering judicial justification, they argue that either it's not murder (the act itself) and/or that the intentions behind influence the gravity and excusability of the act.
To clarify: let's concider someone who sees his daughter killed before his eyes and either the murderer is right in front of him right after the act or is found not guilty in court to a lack of evidence and walks free. If he really murdered the child, and the father retaliates by murdering him, we tend to look at the act as 'less evil', as you'd say. But I would argue it's not because the murderer is a bad guy, it's because we understand the intentions and justification  the father holds at that moment. We sympethise because he's mad with grief, or even because he wants to avenge his daughter, whatever the reason. But it changes how we view the intentions behind the act (perhaps even going so far as to call it justified and perhaps thus not even murder if we go by the textbook analysis). That's how whe wheigh how bad it is. And it wouldn't at that moment change the fact that the daughter's murderer was a just someone who killed the daughter to get money but had not had a prior life of crime or whether he was someone who killed the daughter to get money and had a previous life filled with drugdealing, cartheft and extortion. Because that prior life has no influence on the perception of the father, and thus his intentions for killing the murderer in return. So: It's not weighed by the victim, but by the act and the intentions preceding it.

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?

Well that's why I say 'if anything'. Because I don't agree the victims characteristics determine the severity of the crime rather than the crime and it's intent. I'm saying that even if your line of reasoning were one I could subscribe to, it'd be completely the opposite. Not that I do. Sorry if this confuses you, but there is no contradiction here. I don't subscribe to your arguments, but If I did, I'd still think you'd have them backwards. That's all I'm saying.

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. 

See, this is something that I've noticed in your reasoning before, and I think it's a main reason for our failure to reach to a common point in this discussion: We're going about this same question from completely different sides and with different implications partaining to the question from the starting point.
Or rather: I think there are two questions at play here, really.“What if there is a god and that god is perfect?” & “What if there is a god who created this world, and that god is perfect?”.
I feel like I'm trying to answer the first question. While you are answering the second. I feel like I'm trying to picture what a perfect world created by a perfect god would look like, without asserting that this one is it. All the second question seems to do for me is give you a circular reasoning. If there is a god that is perfect and he created this world and everything he creates is as he wants it and therefore perfect, then yes everything is perfect. But then it's a meaningless concept. And then you've done nothing more with this though-experiment than say: 'If there is a perfect god, that god is perfect'.

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.   

But it's not punishment. Not if you can convince them they don't want to do it out of their own accord which you could or you would not be all-powerful. Convincing someone of a new point and letting them integrate that into their personality isn't punishment. It really isn't. Convincing someone to become vegetarian isn't punishment. Convincing someone not to cheat on their spous isn't punishment. Convincing someone not to park in a handicapped space when they are able-bodied isn't punishment. It simply isn't.

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. 

No. It isn't. A part of me might still lust after others than my spouse. Perhaps forever, but I'm not punished by being convinced not to cheat. Deciding not to do something, despite having a longing to do it, as long as you choose of your own accord not to do it, isn't punishment. It's self-control.

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.   

It shouldn't be. Not if that is the cost. It's only ego-boosting if he could create a world in which that display was unecessary. Which is something I would assign as an imperfection. (Of course if you, as I said before, try to answer this question with the assersion that this is a perfect world created by a perfect god, than yes, that would be perfect. With perfect being just about the most empty, valueless word you could think of.)

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.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this reply adresses anything I point out in my previous alinea altogether. So I won't try to point out why and how you misinterpreted it, rather take it as a new point altogether.
To everything apart from the last sentence: Prove it. Don't just assert it. Prove it. Not trying to be an ass here, but all I see is a bunch of ungrounded assertions.
To the last sentence: I can see the point within that last sentence. I'm just not sure why you put it there.  I'm all for getting people who've done something bad to see the error of their ways. It's your hypothetical god with his hypothetical infinite potential who fails to help people come to this and indeed supposedly intentionaly fabricates people to fail to repent.

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. 

Indeed, you did already answer why your hypothetical god would show feel the need to create evil so he could show mercy. And your answer, I'm sorry to say, was lacking at best. 
I'm actually not a father. But I really want to become one. And yes, I imagine loving them even if they did something bad. But no, I wouldn't manipulate them into doing something bad so I could show what a good guy I am. And if that meant that I'd never have to forgive them because they'd never do something bad, so be it. They'd still feel the fullness of my love. And this way no third party would have to suffer, just so they could be even 'more certain' of a love they have no reason to doubt. It would be completely immoral for me to manipulate them or willfully influence them into harming a third party so they could experience this.
And yes, taking the characteristics of omnipotence and omniscience into account, which you've not objected to, it would be manipulating and influencing people in ways that causes them to do wrong, by the very way the supposed creator decided to create his creation. There is no way around it.

[Jannabear]

I find the question to be pointless, because perfection is impossible.
Whence cometh evil
Can god make a rock he cannot lift
Etc.
I can't even entertain the question without my brain exploding.

[GreatLife]

Here's the thing...  My dad used to be a baseball coach.  One of those memes he always threw out at us kids is that "You can't score a run unless you cross first base."  He used it as a way to keep me and others from swinging for the fences - just get on base and let the next guy advance you.

Why do I bring this up?  Because for me to even comment or think about whether or not any god could be perfect... I would first need to be convinced that there exists such a thing as god.

So after we get to first base - prove that god exists, then and only then will I worry about whether or not this god is perfect.

[Mike Cl]

Here's the thing...  My dad used to be a baseball coach.  One of those memes he always threw out at us kids is that "You can't score a run unless you cross first base."  He used it as a way to keep me and others from swinging for the fences - just get on base and let the next guy advance you.

Why do I bring this up?  Because for me to even comment or think about whether or not any god could be perfect... I would first need to be convinced that there exists such a thing as god.

So after we get to first base - prove that god exists, then and only then will I worry about whether or not this god is perfect.

That's a good way of looking at it.

[DeltaEpsilon]

It all depends on the definition of perfect. Arguments for and against the existence of god can be constructed from different definitions of perfect and God.

An a priori argument used by the philosopher Anselm to prove the existence of god is as follows:

(Axiom) Something is better if it exists.
(Argument) If God is perfect then, necessarily, he exists.

I generally dislike a priori proofs and this is no exception. Like most a priori proofs for the existence/non-existence of god the logical fallacy lies in the axioms. There are many contradictions to the above axiom.

Perfect and God are difficult words to define.

[Mike Cl]

Perfect and God are difficult words to define.

Yeah, they are.  Probably because both are fictions.  Nothing is perfect.  And god does not exist.

[TheVirtueOfTruth]

Question for y'all.  If a perfect God exists do you think that God would send you to a place like hell (i.e., punish you) or a place like heaven (i.e., reward you) based on the way you've lived your life?

Every reaction to an action
is the reward of a perfect God.

[TheVirtueOfTruth]

In what way are we supposed to live our life to please God?

The right way.

[TheVirtueOfTruth]

Also, does it work on some sort of points system? The good you do just has to outweigh the bad?

No, it all depends on how much
God loves you or does not love you.