Free will, perfection and limits on god

This topic grows out of a reply from catholic Scientist to Ifen in Miscellaneous topics. I would like to know what the problem is that prevented god from creating a perfect being with free will. If this is not possible then what does this say about gods' abilities? Also if a side note can be made to branch off into perhaps another topic just what do believers think free will is as pertains to humans?I think this would do well in Miscellaneous Topics in C/E.This message has been edited by sidelined, 10 February 2005 18:15 AM{Tweeked title - Added space after the ",". - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-21-2005 10:08 AM

Bump for further input

jarWhy would punishment as the bible relates be enforced upon an imperfect being? Is the issue not that we have fallen from grace or perfection from sin? This is the point of banishment from Eden is it not?I create a being capable of defying me by giving them freewill and I would punish such for doing so? I moan and bitch about how much they have disappointed me?I am sorry you find these questions dumb jar.

jar I don't think the issue is put forth that I am aware of.Let us asssume the object was to create an imperfect being. If you create an imperfect being do you also give them free will? In doing so can you hold them responsible for commiting imperfect acts that you disapprove of while you are fully cognizant of the consequences of those acts while they are not? I cannot say though since freewill is not given even in humans. Indeed there are studies that call such into question. LOL Since I am atheist as a matter of evidence the concept of god is not amenable to any kind of concensus that I know of so none if it is believable on the face of it.Consider this.We assume a god exists that can summon into existence beings such as ourselves with no means of determining just how such is accomplished.Indeed the vast majority of religious thought rails against the establishment of evidentiary bases for god.
We further grant powers that allow the creation of a universe with all the inherent interactions and levels of abstraction with subtlties that in some cases are irresolvable and yet we somehow equate this to a faith that is allowed to circumvent our scepticism and render magic as a real property of the world.I do not find this compelling in the least, but then I am thickheaded eh?

---

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

Catholic Scientist So why does he punish those who do not love him?{according to the bible}
Heck why does he punish those who do? {Job,Moses} Is it necessary for a perfect being to always love?

---

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

jarGiven the existence of a god with magic {or the equivalent there of} a near perfect system could,of course,be just as plausible as a perfect system.The question then becomes why a near perfect and not a perfect system choice?

jar Ah, with magic {or something like it} as a given then I could not argue the assertion of evolution being started in that way.This is however the crux,and,I do understand,the point of faith.That said,however,leaves me with the bad taste of having resolved nothing,since if we allow for magic without a clear reasoning for such,then god need not even be present in the picture as mere magic itself will suffice.It would also be the result of applying Occam's razor to this scenario.One must also wonder on the nature of the god you propose and what leads you to this view. To instigate evolution would require what for your god to accomplish and is the means by which that is done untraceable?

jarOk ok for the sake of this thread,god exists. Continue please

jar I can live with that.We could also tackle the issue by trying to establish just what constitutes a perfect being as I am as certain as I can be that it is not possible to do so.It is also the same dispute I personally have with the establishment of an entity such as god whos attributes include perfection.Along with the arguement of no beginning for this god perfection as a given trait seems at best to be a not well thought out assertion.Sorry if I pressed your patience by going off on tangents jar.

---

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

jarOk.First off just how do we define perfect?What are the attributes of perfection?We should then weigh this against the evidence that presents itself in our studies of the quantum realm and the implications that maybe imposed by the constants of nature as to the limits of just what constitutes definable reality and the relationship to our discussion of god.Please begin if you would with definitions.

jarHonesty.Honest in that there is an incapability of deceit or honest in that there is no deceit in dealing with an indivdual's trust?

jarI will withhold comment until I get further into your arguement,however the assumption that god will not mislead should include a qualifier for the discovery of god also.

jar If we make the assumption of god existing and not misleading us we should also assume that our investigation will include god as part of your other sentence here. In other words god also must be a part of the discovery of what is actually there in order to satisfy the original premise that god should not fool us.Without this qualification we can make no discernment between a universe with god and one without can we? This would be also in line with the honesty that we have made a requisite of a perect god.If I have made an error in my asessment please help to clarify my understanding.

jarWell let us see if we can resolve this. We agreed to this point. The assumption is made.Now we further the arguement thus. The next premise is the crux of the issue. I can give no more since this is proceeding along lines that assume much without prior evidence.Please believe me that I wish to properly allow your arguements but give me a bone here people.You made the statement Now,given that god exists and that god will not mislead, I made the presumption{perhaps incorrectly}, that because you also made this statement, then god should be honest and allow us to "discover what is actually there."Now since I am at a disadvantage here as to how to properly construct my appeals so that you will not feel that I am either moving goalposts or placing insurmountable obstructions for you to hurdle,before I engage your main points,then I humbly ask that you clear up this issue.
Is god honest when discovery of god is withheld?
If we allow that god is free from discovery then let us make this a premise from the get go as well.

Catholic Scientist I do not see as this is true. If god was as obvious as gravity then belief would not be a requirment. Denial of gravity is quickly dispelled by simple experiment.Gravity applies whether you believe in it or not in ways that cannot be sidestepped with disbelief. It certainly would.In place of belief would be testability that anyone could accomplish and whos evidence would be available to all. Why would this be so? Why would an honest god need to test love? Is god incapable of determining truth of affection for him? I am sorry but this is not something I find particularly convincing. Really? Give us an example.This message has been edited by sidelined, 22 February 2005 22:05 AM