Attributes of the Abrihamic God - further disproof

[Sophus]

Perfection does not produce flawed results. Therefore God is myth or God is not God.

Good enough?

What is a "flaw" is largely a matter of opinion unless one knows the standard by which a model is meant to fit. So, unless you know "god's mysterious plan" (which is by definition mysterious) you cannot assert that anything is a flaw. It is logically possible that everything in existence is exactly how god wants it to be, and is thus without flaw with regard to the standard the universe was built to meet.

This is what the Christians (and most other religions) have asserted... that his creation was flawed (presumed a "Sort of Christian" would know that). But if it's a Deistic God you wish for me to address then I still stand by what I said: God is not God. He would be either unintelligent and insufficient or aware and evil to make the world as it is.

[Hitsumei]

This is what the Christians (and most other religions) have asserted... that his creation was flawed (presumed a "Sort of Christian" would know that).

Being a sort of Christian I actually know that when the universe was first constructed it is asserted to have been perfect by most Christian theological thought, and then an act of people rendered it not perfect any longer.  

People are asserted to be flawed only by an act of will, which needed to be possible for them to be perfect originally. So everything was perfect originally, and then became flawed, thus all that "fall of man" talk.

So god performed no actions that resulted in flawed results, asserting that it still counts because he created people, who intern took actions which resulted in flawed results would be an association fallacy.

But if it's a Deistic God you wish for me to address then I still stand by what I said: God is not God. He would be either unintelligent and insufficient or aware and evil to make the world as it is.

Well, I don't know why you would think I'd want you to address a deist god, but asserting stuff about it is hardly "addressing" it.

[PipeBox]

Being a sort of Christian I actually know that when the universe was first constructed it is asserted to have been perfect by most Christian theological thought, and then an act of people rendered it not perfect any longer.  

People are asserted to be flawed only by an act of will, which needed to be possible for them to be perfect originally. So everything was perfect originally, and then became flawed, thus all that "fall of man" talk.

We only use free will poorly because of our character flaws, though.  Jesus presumably had free will, and committed no sins, yes?  He either had special knowledge, a will beyond that of any other Christian since him, or had no character flaws.  Outside advantage.  In any case, there's no arguing that if we were born with the desire to be perfect, obedient altruists that we would be anything else, even with free will around.  That's why there's Calvinists and Universalists, because they realized a long time ago that the megachurch version of God either setup man or he will (has) redeem(ed) all of them.

If there were no desire to sin, simply put, there wouldn't be any sin, even if the capacity remained.

Finally, as to how a sin by man would wreck the rest of the universe so that there would be meteors, polar reversals, earthquakes, sickle cell anemia, ebola, malaria, and all that other stuff that doesn't exist as a matter of free will, I dunno.  (Oh, and I realize you're only a cultural Christian, but this deserves to be addressed.)

[Ihateyoumike]

It is logically possible that everything in existence is exactly how god wants it to be, and is thus without flaw with regard to the standard the universe was built to meet.

If that is the case, then your god is everything that Richard Dawkin's says he is.

[Hitsumei]

We only use free will poorly because of our character flaws, though.  Jesus presumably had free will, and committed no sins, yes?  He either had special knowledge, a will beyond that of any other Christian since him, or had no character flaws.  Outside advantage.  In any case, there's no arguing that if we were born with the desire to be perfect, obedient altruists that we would be anything else, even with free will around.  That's why there's Calvinists and Universalists, because they realized a long time ago that the megachurch version of God either setup man or he will (has) redeem(ed) all of them.

If one holds that it is impossible to create a free agent that is created with only the inclination to do good, and that a being without free will is more flawed than one with free will, then they can, and do take the position that upon creation, people were maximally perfect, and it is an act of will, and character development that makes one do only good, and do no evil.

There is nothing paradoxical about Jesus unless one takes the position that it is impossible for a person to also completely refrain from ever committing wrong doings. God just came down, and showed the world how it is done, because no one was getting it quite right.    

If there were no desire to sin, simply put, there wouldn't be any sin, even if the capacity remained.

There could then also very well be no free will.

Finally, as to how a sin by man would wreck the rest of the universe so that there would be meteors, polar reversals, earthquakes, sickle cell anemia, ebola, malaria, and all that other stuff that doesn't exist as a matter of free will, I dunno.  (Oh, and I realize you're only a cultural Christian, but this deserves to be addressed.)

I already did: it's "mysterious".

[Hitsumei]

If that is the case, then your god is everything that Richard Dawkin's says he is.

Well, I don't have a god, but regardless, you and Richard Dawkins are free to hold negative opinions about god. Doesn't mean that everyone does, nor are they logically valid criticisms. It is merely an appeal to emotion.

[Sophus]

Being a sort of Christian I actually know that when the universe was first constructed it is asserted to have been perfect by most Christian theological thought, and then an act of people rendered it not perfect any longer.  

People are asserted to be flawed only by an act of will, which needed to be possible for them to be perfect originally. So everything was perfect originally, and then became flawed, thus all that "fall of man" talk.

So god performed no actions that resulted in flawed results, asserting that it still counts because he created people, who intern took actions which resulted in flawed results would be an association fallacy.

You think in a box. God would have programmed freewill and every consequence related to it.  Nothing had to be made to function as it does. It could have operated in an entirely different way that would be just as satisfying with no consequences. Considering that certain results of freewill have made him melancholy, caused him to greive creating mankind, it shows that these consequences are not desired by him.  Well if he were omnipotent the consequences would not exist with freewill.

Well, I don't know why you would think I'd want you to address a deist god, but asserting stuff about it is hardly "addressing" it.

Intellectual laziness is against my lack of religion. Why do I always have to break out the crayolas?

He would be either unintelligent and insufficient...

To create the universe under the belief that he/it could forge perfection when in fact he/it could not (insufficient) would make him unintelligent. Or if he does consider it to be perfect with evil in its existence then he is evil and fully aware of it (Perfection demands there be no compramise. If evil equates to perfection in someones eyes, does that not make them evil?).

[Hitsumei]

You think in a box.

Indeed, it is a little box I call logic and reason. Feel free to gallivant in the fields of whimsy.

God would have programmed freewill and every consequence related to it.  

"programmed freewill" is an oxymoron. If one is programmed, then they are not free.

Nothing had to be made to function as it does. It could have operated in an entirely different way that would be just as satisfying with no consequences.

Assertion.

Considering that certain results of freewill have made him melancholy, caused him to greive creating mankind, it shows that these consequences are not desired by him.  Well if he were omnipotent the consequences would not exist with freewill.

Unless it were not logically possible that they not exist with free will.

Intellectual laziness is against my lack of religion. Why do I always have to break out the crayolas?

Forgive me for not just accepting all of your assertions without you having supported them. How presumptuous of me.  

To create the universe under the belief that he/it could forge perfection when in fact he/it could not (insufficient) would make him unintelligent.

Well, it would certainly make god wrong, but you have not given any reason to suppose that is what actually happened. You've just rephrased your assertion.

Or if he does consider it to be perfect with evil in its existence then he is evil and fully aware of it (Perfection demands there be no compramise. If evil equates to perfection in someones eyes, does that not make them evil?).

Not if this were the best of all possible worlds under the current circumstances. You're making an assumption that it could conceivably be completely without any evil, and still fulfill the perfect ends that god created the universe to fulfill. This requires demonstration.

[Sophus]

Indeed, it is a little box I call logic and reason. Feel free to gallivant in the fields of whimsy.

Your logic is ill.  :brick:

Well, it would certainly make god wrong, but you have not given any reason to suppose that it what actually happened. You've just rephrased your assertion.

That's because it was never one in the first place. Does it click now? Does it make sense? Have you graduated from grade school?  

Not if this were the best of all possible worlds under the current circumstances. You're making an assumption that it could conceivably be completely without any evil, and still fulfill the perfect ends that god created the universe to fulfill. This requires demonstration.

As I said perfection would be just that: perfection.If he's satisfied living in "the best possible scenario" that's fine and dandy but that's not anywhere near perfection (and it would also mean God is not omnipotent as he couldn't achieve perfection). Quit limiting an omnipotent gods power. If he wanted perfection it would be. Look at it this way:

 a. God is the only thing exists
 b. He creates the universe

b can be done in any possible way to achieve the results he wants unless:

 c. external or internal limitations exists with god

 or the obvious pick

 d. There is no God.

[PipeBox]

There could then also very well be no free will.

Do people not wanting to drink bleach indicate there is no free will, as well?

I already did: it's "mysterious".

Sweet, that word is the omnibus!  
Wanna know a secret?  I created everything.  Mysteriously.  That means I don't have to tell anybody how, so they should just accept it happened.

[Hitsumei]

Your logic is ill.  :brick:

That's a tautology, 2 + 2 = 4 because of the way the terms are defined. If you mean your argument to merely hold tautological validity, then they are not worth addressing. Anything can be proven (beyond the logically impossible) using tautologies.  

That's because it was never one in the first place. Does it click now? Does it make sense? Have you graduated from grade school?  

I'm starting to think that I shouldn't expect anymore than boasting from you.

As I said perfection would be just that: perfection.If he's satisfied living in "the best possible scenario" that's fine and dandy but that's not anywhere near perfection (and it would also mean God is not omnipotent as he couldn't acheive perfection).

You are merely defining perfection to be impossible, and then saying how god cannot achieve it, and thus isn't perfect.

Quit limiting an omnipotent gods power. If he wanted perfection it would be. Look at it this way:

 a. God is the only thing exists
 b. He creates the universe

b can be done in any possible way to acheive the results he wants unless:

 c. external or internal limitations exists with god

 or the obvious pick

 d. There is no God.

You really find that logic box cramped, huh?

No god that can do the logically impossible, but not many theists hold to such a conception of god. So it's a straw-man.

[Hitsumei]

Do people not wanting to drink bleach indicate there is no free will, as well?

I was saying if your scenario obtained. Though I don't see how someone wanting to drink bleach would be n authority on the ontological status of free will.

Sweet, that word is the omnibus!  
Wanna know a secret?  I created everything.  Mysteriously.  That means I don't have to tell anybody how, so they should just accept it happened.

Insufficient though you may find the response, you're incredulity doesn't make it wrong. Saying "I don't believe you" and "that's false" are different. The latter is a positive assertion which requires a demonstration.

Assuming that it is wrong in an argument against it is begging the question. If you want to formulate an argument against a position, you need to offer more than your incredulity. You need to actually show that it is wrong.

[Sophus]

That was the most humorous one yet. Christianity, I'm convinced, is a comedy.

I'm rather disappointed. I thought you were different from the others.

I hereby pledge to never to never use reason on a theist again. Curio's got the right idea. Fight comedy with comedy.

[Hitsumei]

Well, I'm not a theist, but forgive me for not yielding to such persuasive and rational arguments as "but it's common sense!!", and "you're a grade-schooler for not agreeing with me!"

[PipeBox]

I was saying if your scenario obtained. Though I don't see how someone wanting to drink bleach would be n authority on the ontological status of free will.

Sorry, I should have elaborated.  We don't drink bleach because we think it's nuts and we've a pretty good idea it'll kill us.  Nonetheless, this doesn't actually remove the capacity, and people will still do it if they think they should, certain circumstances being thought to justify the act.   Another analogy might be that a locked door doesn't fundamentally violate free will, even if it limits it.   Heck, even a locked door can be broken into.  God gives no apparent safeguards, and we are born with as nearly a de facto death sentence as possible.  This doesn't sound of a god, it sounds like we're about to start discussing a "protection" racket. . .

Insufficient though you may find the response, you're incredulity doesn't make it wrong. Saying "I don't believe you" and "that's false" are different. The latter is a positive assertion which requires a demonstration.

Assuming that it is wrong in an argument against it is begging the question. If you want to formulate an argument against a position, you need to offer more than your incredulity. You need to actually show that it is wrong.

Sorry, was just having a bit of fun.  You're right, it doesn't make it impossible, but you've not justified it aside from offering that word.  That is, you haven't shown it to be possible, and Christians are the ones making claims of the properties of God and the history of the Cosmos.   That word would not normally be justification for anything, but many people desire God to be a reality, and if "mysteriously" is required to make it possible, they're willing to use it to bridge a very wide gap.  I find it intellectually contemptible to give God such a pass, "mysteriously" is just a way to say "whatever is required for it remain possible."  Indeed, I cannot falsify this assertion, it is beyond it.  But you could be right.

Oh, and sorry, I'm not meaning to stir up a ruckus, so I'll step back now.