If you were God...

[ab75]

No, not just from our perspective. Objectively gets better and worse. Therefore it cannot be the “best” possible world. It is the dynamic aspect of the world, which denies its “best” status. If you say that the world is dynamic from our perspective, but static from God’s perspective, you would state a logical contradiction.

God is also outside of time, so he sees and created the whole, including the dynamic. You certainly don’t have to accept that, but I fully believe that is the case. He created the dynamic, from an eternal perspective, so the imperfections of the world at any point is not the entirety of the world.

 

[R_Daneel]

Now, it appears that what you asked is not really what you wanted to ask. Rather, it appears you want us to “take over as God”, evaluate what He has doen and how he did it and make observation, recommendation, evaluation on what and how He did things so far. That is considerably different than what was asked.

Actually I meant both of these possibilities. When I said “if you were God”, I meant if you had the same abilities that God is supposed to have, if you were perfect and God is supposed to be perfect.

But, be as it may, the Christian position on God is already self-contradictory. Any action on the part of a “perfect” being leads to lessening that “perfection”. One cannot “increase” perfection, one cannot “maintain” perfection (by acting), both of these lead to a logical contradiction. One can only decrease perfection by acting.

From the Christian idea that God “created” the world logically follows that God cannot be perfect. If he did not have a “need” to create the world (and yet he did), then he acted illogically, and so he was not perfect. If he had a “need” and so he “created” the world to fulfill this need, he could not have been perfect either. So, whether you realize it or not, you are hopelessly bogged down in a logical contradiction.

 

[R_Daneel]

God is also outside of time, so he sees and created the whole, including the dynamic.

That does not help. It still does not make the world static.

 

[ab75]

That does not help. It still does not make the world static.

It may not help you, but I don’t need the world to be static, especially not within the context of time.

 

[JRKH]

Actually I meant both of these possibilities. When I said “if you were God”, I meant if you had the same abilities that God is supposed to have, if you were perfect and God is supposed to be perfect.

Then you have asked a question that is completely unanswerable. How can imperfect beings, project themselves into perfection and make any kind of reasonable comment. That is why I answered as I did which is to say that if I were God I would do exactly as God has done.

It’s like asking an average 5 year old, if you were a nuclear Scientist/engineer, how would you design, build and use a nuclear reactor. The five year old has no idea how to do these things, BUT - if he WERE a nuclear scientist/engineer, he would have the knowldge set to design/build and operate a nuclear reactor.

But, be as it may, the Christian position on God is already self-contradictory. Any action on the part of a “perfect” being leads to lessening that “perfection”. One cannot “increase” perfection, one cannot “maintain” perfection (by acting), both of these lead to a logical contradiction. One can only decrease perfection by acting.

But you see you are looking things only from your imperfect perspective and trying to project that onto God.

From the Christian idea that God “created” the world logically follows that God cannot be perfect. If he did not have a “need” to create the world (and yet he did), then he acted illogically, and so he was not perfect. If he had a “need” and so he “created” the world to fulfill this need, he could not have been perfect either. So, whether you realize it or not, you are hopelessly bogged down in a logical contradiction.

Again, your simply projecting.
BUT…
“If you were God…” (OP question) then your understandings would be those of God and not of R Daneel.

Keep working at it.

Peace
James

 

[Myqyl]

Effectively you all say that this is the best possible world.

Nonesense! I haven’t seen anyone say any such thing. We just happen to believe this world is on course to become the best possible world. You keep telling us what we think and are off the mark each time. How about if you stick to telling us what you think? Does the universe have purpose? Was the universe created and if so, how? and why?

Thanks

God bless

 

[Scaun]

A similar question, just that it is addressed to atheists, and it is about how would you change the universe. Not exactly related but in case people are interested to give an answer.

godandscience.org/apologetics/icandobetter.html

 

[R_Daneel]

It may not help you, but I don’t need the world to be static, especially not within the context of time.

We don’t “need” the world to be static, or dynamic. The world is dynamic, whether we like it or not.

 

[In_Spiration]

I’d get myself an ice-cold Coke right about now, to go with my mac 'n cheese, by creating it ex nihilo onto my table so that I don’t have to get up and walk all the way to the stupid 'fridge.

And, of course, I’d grow a really freakin’ cool beard. A thick, dark one with slight curls, as opposed to this patchy, un-intimidating, un-majestic scruff I’m sporting now.

There’s some other stuff, too, but I’d have to think about it. Or would I?

 

[R_Daneel]

Then you have asked a question that is completely unanswerable. How can imperfect beings, project themselves into perfection and make any kind of reasonable comment.

Oh, quite easily.

It’s like asking an average 5 year old, if you were a nuclear Scientist/engineer, how would you design, build and use a nuclear reactor. The five year old has no idea how to do these things, BUT - if he WERE a nuclear scientist/engineer, he would have the knowldge set to design/build and operate a nuclear reactor.

False analogy. Especially there can be several ways to design and build a nuclear reactor, and some of them would be better than others.

But you see you are looking things only from your imperfect perspective and trying to project that onto God.

Nope, I am not projecting. I am pointing out a simple logical contradiction.

 

[ab75]

We don’t “need” the world to be static, or dynamic. The world is dynamic, whether we like it or not.

Exactly my point, however I don’t draw the same conclusion because I don’t confine God to my ways, thoughts, intellect, space or time.

 

[R_Daneel]

Nonesense! I haven’t seen anyone say any such thing. We just happen to believe this world is on course to become the best possible world.

Ok, let it be that way. Then your problem can be stated as: “why did God not create the final product right off the bat?”. And the other problem also persists: “perfection and action are mutually exclusive”.

Does the universe have purpose? Was the universe created and if so, how? and why?

No, the universe does not have any visible “purpose”. There is no sign that the universe was “created”.

 

[davidv]

No, not just from our perspective. Objectively gets better and worse.

Against what objective standard?

Therefore it cannot be the “best” possible world.

You have no rational basis for this claim. Or, it is a question begging fantacy.

It is the dynamic aspect of the world, which denies its “best” status.

Without an objective standard, you have not defined “best”.

If you say that the world is dynamic from our perspective, but static from God’s perspective, you would state a logical contradiction.

I think you misinterpreted the response. Enternally present does not mean static.

 

[R_Daneel]

A similar question, just that it is addressed to atheists, and it is about how would you change the universe. Not exactly related but in case people are interested to give an answer.

godandscience.org/apologetics/icandobetter.html

Interesting problem. I would gladly give my take on it. Unfortunately I have problems with some of the prerequisites.

Okay. Here is your chance to design a universe that is better than the one we live in. Many people claim that the poor design of our universe and/or God’s involvement or lack thereof results in a universe that is unacceptable. In order to present a thorough model, please address all the following issues:

1.Will the beings you create be equal to you or less powerful?
2.What degree of free will will you allow to those beings?
3.How will you prevent those beings from hurting you, each other and their creation?
4.What will you do with those beings who break your rules?
5.What laws of physics will you use?

First, if I were “perfect” as God is supposed to be, I would not create anything. All roads lead downhill from the top. But suppose that God is not perfect, and creating a world is a sensible proposition. Then the kind of the world would be dependent upon the reason I would create that world. It could be a scientific endeavor, or it could be amusement only, or something else.

But here are a few basic ideas. There would be no “rules”, there would be no interaction of any kind, in other word “no revelation”. And most certainly there would be no “afterlife” with either reward of punishment. Stanislaw Lem wrote a wonderful short story about the problem, its title is “Non Serviam”, published in the book “A perfect vacuum”. Strongly recommended.

 

[R_Daneel]

Without an objective standard, you have not defined “best”.

I don’t say that this is the “best possible world”. The respondents implied it by assuming that God created something that cannot be improved upon.

I think you misinterpreted the response. Enternally present does not mean static.

We are talking about the world here, which is dynamic.

 

[davidv]

I don’t say that this is the “best possible world”. The respondents implied it by assuming that God created something that cannot be improved upon.

I will state it explicitly. God cannot be improved upon. Perfection is perfect. The world as we know it is the best possible, given the premises for its creation. That it is not perfect, as you seem to imply that it must be, is partly your fault.

We are talking about the world here, which is dynamic.

So?

 

[Myqyl]

Ok, let it be that way. Then your problem can be stated as: “why did God not create the final product right off the bat?”. And the other problem also persists: “perfection and action are mutually exclusive”.

This assumes, incorrectly, that I have a problem. You see a snapshot of the universe. This moment in time. I don’t… I see the universe at it’s beginning, middle and end as a single, wonderful creation that progresses through God’s plan. The perfection of the universe can not be seen in a 2 (or 3) dimensional snapshot. You gotta take a step back and view it outside of our limitted concepts of time and space.

No, the universe does not have any visible “purpose”. There is no sign that the universe was “created”.

If that works for you, more power to you. It seems to me to leave a lot of questions unanswered. The most obvious is if the universe wasn’t created, how did it get here? The existance of the universe seems to me to be a pretty good sign that it likely came into being. Or else it wouldn’t be… Would it?

God bless…

 

[JRKH]

Oh, quite easily.

Easily perhaps, but accurately - now that is another matter.
One can easily project themselves into what it would be like to travel to Space, to the Moon or to Mars, and many books and movies have done so from Jules Verne in the mid 1800’s up through the advent of space travel in 1961. Go back and look at how accurate those things were.
Yes the writers and filmakers “easily” projected themselves into the environment of ourtespece and geve their best estimate of what it would be like, but how “accurate” was it.

False analogy. Especially there can be several ways to design and build a nuclear reactor, and some of them would be better than others.

The analogy is not false at all. It might be “inadequate” but most analogies are - that’s why they are analogies.
The 5 yo cannot project himself into the shoes of a nuclear scientist/engineer any more accurately than could those writers of long ago about space travel.
And neither can you, or anyone else, project themselves accurately into the mind of the infinite God.

Nope, I am not projecting. I am pointing out a simple logical contradiction.

That’s fine, but who says God has to fit that which is logical to you.
Quantum Physics has discovered and is discovering things that do not work in the ways that they should. They are not working “logically” within the laws that have been long established. So why should God be required to fit into the human understanding of Logic?

God is - All the rest are details.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Ok, let it be that way. Then your problem can be stated as: “why did God not create the final product right off the bat?”. **And the other problem also persists: “perfection and action are mutually exclusive”. **

The Bolded section is blatantly wrong as can be easily demonstrated.

Suppose that the best chef in the world wants to cook a perfectly scruptuous gourmet meal. To do this he needs to do everything right (perfectly)
SO -
He goes to the best (perfect) market, choose the best(perfect) ingredients.
He comes home and get out my best (perfect) pans and utensils.
NOW - He begins to prepare the meal.
He processes each ingredient adding at the precisely perfect time.
He allows the ingredients to cook for precisely the right (perfect) time.
He doesn’t get in a hurry, but remains vigilent so that each stage of the process is perfectly executed.

The result is a perfect meal, perfectly prepared. By a perfect chef.

Perfection in Action.

As another example, in industries that mass produce items, processes are carefully designed and built for the purpose of creating a “Perfect” product. The process is then put in motion and “perfect”, salable products come out of the process. So long as the process performs within the parameters set and producing good product, it is said to be “running perfectly”. Note however, that the items in process are not “perfect” for they are not yet completed, yet they remain “perfect” for where tehy are in the process.

Again, Perfection in action.

Therefore, as can easily be shown, perfection and action are NOT exclusive.

Peace
James

 

[R_Daneel]

That’s fine, but who says God has to fit that which is logical to you.

Hmmm, so God may be able to create “married bachelors”, and “squre circles”? I am simply presenting a simple argument here:

1. Perfection cannot be improved upon (pretty obvious).
2. Any action implies a change (a changeless action is an oxymoron).
3. Any change to perfection will destroy perfection.
4. Therefore any action on God’s part destroys God’s perfection, or, if it does not, then God was perfect to begin with.

This is not “my” logic. Just like “married bachelors” are not possible due to “my” logic. God has no special logic.

Quantum Physics has discovered and is discovering things that do not work in the ways that they should. They are not working “logically” within the laws that have been long established. So why should God be required to fit into the human understanding of Logic?

Actually Quantum Physics is all mathematics, predictions, experiments and verifications. There are many different “interpretations” of it, but those are not the relevant factors. We may try to visualize QP, but the existing concepts are simply not applicable. The micro world is qualitiatively different.