The "blueprint" for a perfect world

[Pallas_Athene]

They’d still prefer it, if the huge majority gives us any indication, but pain can be overwhelming, overriding that preference.

Majority does not count. Obviously the people who are ready to take their own life, would act differently if the circumstances would be different. Read the story of the struldbrugs in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels”. Those poor unfortunates are cursed with being immortal. They get older and older, weaker and weaker, more and more ailments and diseases… but they cannot look forward to have a relief of death and oblivion.

Pride opposes itself to love, because love requires humility while the world is rife with self-righteousness. So, yes, I see it everyday in this world-if love and humility are the price of bliss, many will try to find their bliss elsewhere.

Allegedly in the face of “beatific vision” there can be no sin, no pride no self-righteousness. The apologists say that angels were not in the position to be part of the “beatific vision”, that is why some of them “rebelled”. Of course, how would they KNOW that, is beyond me.

No, that’s an excuse-and one that’s used frequently for people to justify doing nothing themselves. It’s easy to complain about life-another thing to try to make it better. We’re all here potentially as the hands of god or satan-or somewhere between-but usually more concerned about feeding our own faces then helping those in need, which the world is full of.

This is absurd. The world is full with helpful people, they give and give and help - as much as they can. If we could be more effective, we would help even more.

Now we are rapidly approaching the point where the real disagreement sets in. I use the same yardstick when I consider God’s inactivity and human inactivity. Humans do not claim to be the pinnacle of “love”, and when they give something it also “costs them” - TANSTAAFL. God has unlimited resources, and for him to give would not cost anything. Therefore God’s inactivity is more “evil”.

 

[tonyrey]

It is incredible hubris for an imperfect creature to imagine that an imperfect creature with limited knowledge and intelligence is capable of designing a perfect world with perfect creatures. It implies a degree of hitherto unsurpassed wisdom and love…

A far more realistic approach is that of the Catechism:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

 

[tonyrey]

…God has unlimited resources, and for him to give would not cost anything…

Love without any cost is not love. **Perfect love doesn’t count the cost. To share power is the highest form of love.
**

…Therefore God’s inactivity is more “evil”.

To accuse God of being evil is itself evil because it is a symptom of intellectual pride, vanity and ingratitude…

 

[Bradski]

It may have been mentioned already, but pain is nature’s way of looking after us. You can’t evolve without it.

 

[tonyrey]

It may have been mentioned already, but pain is nature’s way of looking after us. You can’t evolve without it.

The wisdom of nature is often superior to human attempts to emulate its wonders. We have only to compare bionic limbs with what we tend to take for granted. In at least one case familiarity breeds contempt - reminiscent of King Lear’s reference to “filial ingratitude”…

 

[tonyrey]

…Therefore God’s inactivity is more “evil”.

It is impossible for anyone to know the full extent of God’s activity but we do know that the world could be far more tragic and catastrophic. The vast majority of living beings are not maimed or killed in a natural disaster or afflicted by disease or deformity. As Leibniz pointed out, there are far more houses than hospitals…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It is incredible hubris for an imperfect creature to imagine that an imperfect creature with limited knowledge and intelligence is capable of designing a perfect world with perfect creatures. It implies a degree of hitherto unsurpassed wisdom and love…

Love has nothing to do with anything. Reason and logic does. In a world where there are no pain receptors (special nerve endings) there cannot be “pain”. Indeed there are few human beings, who lack those receptors, and as such they feel no pain. Of course this is a very bad and dangerous condition, since they do not learn what to avoid (as such they usually die young). Before you start hollering “victory” for the usefulness of pain, you better remember that “regeneration” is also part of nature, and it is far superior than to learn avoidance. Trees have no pain receptors, they grow new limbs, when they lose one. The lowly creature “planaria” can be cut in half, and both ends will regenerate into a full being. A much better approach to deal with the preservation of life.

A far more realistic approach is that of the Catechism:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

The operating word is highlighted. Things are not always what they SEEM to be. Besides the catechism was not written by scientists, who have a far better understanding of the works of nature than theologians do. And the catechism is plain wrong, creatures without pain receptors all escape pain and suffering, and they are the vast, overwhelming majority of all the existing beings.

Love without any cost is not love. Perfect love doesn’t count the cost.

What was the “cost” God had to pay for creating the universe?

**To share power is the highest form of love.**To accuse God of being evil is itself evil because it is a symptom of intellectual pride, vanity and ingratitude…

Yet, somehow God “forgot” to share that “power” with us. As I said before, the assessment of God’s inactivity and human inactivity MUST be measured equally, in the name of justice. And you might as well stop hurling those insults (hubris, intellectual pride, vanity and ingratitude), since they add nothing valuable to the discussion. Why don’t you choose to attack the assertion of “no pain receptors and instant regeneration”? It is obviously possible, since we see it all over the place.

It may have been mentioned already, but pain is nature’s way of looking after us. You can’t evolve without it.

It is one way to deal with the survival of the living creatures. But it is NOT the only way, and it is a very inferior solution. The best way is to deal with the problems of threats to survival is the regeneration of the injured parts.

It is impossible for anyone to know the full extent of God’s activity but we do know that the world could be far more tragic and catastrophic. The vast majority of living beings are not maimed or killed in a natural disaster or afflicted by disease or deformity. As Leibniz pointed out, there are far more houses than hospitals…

Well, based upon the available evidence, God does not interfere at all. And there are far more open spaces than houses… The number of creatures killed in a wildfire, an Earthquake or a tsunami far surpasses the number of victims of human violence.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . What was the “cost” god had to pay for creating the universe? . . . .

View attachment 22035

peter 1:18-20: For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The alleged creation of the world had nothing to do with the later developments. God simply said: and that was not a big “price”. Of course he could have created a different world, without sin and without pain or suffering, and then the “redemption” would not have happened. Please don’t try to create a connection, where there is none.

On the other hand, you could make a good contribution to the actual point of the thread, if you wanted to.

 

[davidv]

The alleged creation of the world had nothing to do with the later developments. God simply said: and that was not a big “price”. Of course he could have created a different world, without sin and without pain or suffering, and then the “redemption” would not have happened.

This world could not have free-willed beings in it, because these beings would not allow the perfection to persist. If we cannot be in this world, what good would there be in creating it?

Please don’t try to create a connection, where there is none.

On the other hand, you could make a good contribution to the actual point of the thread, if you wanted to.

 

[Aloysium]

You are sure to love this one then:

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Gotta love nonbelievers who tell you how you are to interpret your religion.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

This world could not have free-willed beings in it, because these beings would not allow the perfection to persist. If we cannot be in this world, what good would there be in creating it?

Of course there could be such a world. This thread is devoted to the description of one such world. I could suggest other possibilities, but let’s see if anyone can find an error in this one. By the way, the word “perfection” must be defined precisely, before one can conduct a conversation about it. In this thread I suggested a world without pain and suffering and also creatures with free will. I also urged to present an alternative definition, if someone does not like mine. No one came up with an alternate idea.

You are sure to love this one then:

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Gotta love nonbelievers who tell you how you are to interpret your religion.

You are mistaken. I am not talking about the bible. I am talking about a fully rational, secular method of creating a world with free beings, who cannot experience pain or suffering, since they are not equipped with the necessary nerve-endings to experience them.

As a side note, I am always chuckling when I recall the phrase that “humans are the crown of creation”. Look at those wonderful redwoods and sequoia trees. They have been around for thousands of years (some over six thousand!), they are immune to fire, bugs and parasites cannot penetrate their bark. They are in perfect health. They have no enemies, except… yup… humans.

As for interpreting your religion, you, the believers cannot agree on it. And you all are absolutely certain, that your interpretation is the only correct one, and everyone else is mistaken. Isn’t that the much maligned “arrogance” and lack of “humility”?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . You are mistaken. I am not talking about the bible. I am talking about a fully rational, secular method of creating a world . . .
. . . As a side note, I am always chuckling when I recall the phrase that “humans are the crown of creation”. . . They have no enemies, except… yup… humans. . .
. . . Isn’t that the much maligned “arrogance” and lack of “humility”?

One has to first be rational. A rational person might conclude that it ain’t over till the fat lady sings and that not being omniscient, one lacks the capacity to determine what is perfect.

Well, Chuckles, HeeZee, Pallas, whatever, as a member of those beings who reside at the top of the food chain, I am definitely a greater enemy to you than any Sequoia.
I wonder if there should be a psychiatric category we might call Species Dysphoria. Being human can definitely be trying. (His yoke is easy, btw.)

As to arrogance, I tried to give it up for Lent a couple of years ago. No one noticed.

 

[tonyrey]

It is incredible hubris for an imperfect creature to imagine that an imperfect creature with limited knowledge and intelligence is capable of designing a perfect world with perfect creatures. It implies a degree of hitherto unsurpassed wisdom and love…

If you love no one you’re in a hell of your own making. You might as well be a machine if reason and logic are your sole guides in life.

In a world where there are no pain receptors (special nerve endings) there cannot be “pain”. Indeed there are few human beings, who lack those receptors, and as such they feel no pain. Of course this is a very bad and dangerous condition, since they do not learn what to avoid (as such they usually die young). Before you start hollering “victory” for the usefulness of pain, you better remember that “regeneration” is also part of nature, and it is far superior than to learn avoidance. Trees have no pain receptors, they grow new limbs, when they lose one. The lowly creature “planaria” can be cut in half, and both ends will regenerate into a full being. A much better approach to deal with the preservation of life.

It is significant that you have selected lower forms of life on which to base your piecemeal improvements. It would be more to the point to produce a feasible, detailed blueprint of all the hypothetical, intermediate stages of development. Omnipotence has to be understood in conjunction with consistency if it is to be plausible. A haphazard sequence of events is not only unscientific but also incoherent and gratuitous.

. A far more realistic approach is that of the Catechism:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

The operating word is highlighted. Things are not always what they SEEM to be. Besides the catechism was not written by scientists, who have a far better understanding of the works of nature than theologians do.

Are scientists natural objects that can be explained by science? A circular argument is self-destructive unless you can explain why it is valid…

And the catechism is plain wrong, creatures without pain receptors all escape pain and suffering, and they are the vast, overwhelming majority of all the existing beings.

There is no accounting for taste. If you prefer to live as an insect or a worm that is your prerogative.

Love without any cost is not love. Perfect love doesn’t count the cost.

What was the “cost” God had to pay for creating the universe?

Having to endure the insults and abuse from some of His creatures! And at a more significant level having to share all the needless suffering and slaughter of innocent people by those who dismiss love as an outdated superstition inferior to logic **and **reject His command to love others. Of course the theory is not, thankfully, always put into practice.

To share power is the highest form of love.To accuse God of being evil is itself evil because it is a symptom of intellectual pride, vanity and ingratitude…

Yet, somehow God “forgot” to share that “power” with us. As I said before, the assessment of MUST be measured equally, in the name of justice.

No one is capable of measuring the sum total of God’s (in)activity and even human (in)activity unless they have privileged insight no reasonable person has ever claimed to possess.

And you might as well stop hurling those insults (hubris, intellectual pride, vanity and ingratitude), since they add nothing valuable to the discussion.

Hubris, intellectual pride, vanity and ingratitude are not gratuitous insults but objective facts about individuals who take all the advantages of life for granted and claim to have godlike insight into the ultimate nature of reality in all its immense complexity.

Why don’t you choose to attack the assertion of “no pain receptors and instant regeneration”? It is obviously possible, since we see it all over the place.
It is one way to deal with the survival of the living creatures. But it is NOT the only way, and it is a very inferior solution. The best way is to deal with the problems of threats to survival is the regeneration of the injured parts.

I have anticipated that objection earlier in this post.

It is impossible for anyone to know the full extent of God’s activity but we do know that the world could be far more tragic and catastrophic. The vast majority of living beings are not maimed or killed in a natural disaster or afflicted by disease or deformity. As Leibniz pointed out, there are far more houses than hospitals…

Well, based upon the available evidence, God does not interfere at all.

There have been many accounts of cases of survival against all the odds but to those who believe the Blind Goddess is the Supreme Factor nothing will alter their dogmatic faith in science as the sole explanation of reality.

And there are far more open spaces than houses…

Where most of them are uninhabitable.

The number of creatures killed in a wildfire, an Earthquake or a tsunami far surpasses the number of victims of human violence.

Do you assess significance solely in terms of quantity? Are the two types of evil even comparable?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

One has to first be rational. A rational person might conclude that it ain’t over till the fat lady sings and that not being omniscient, one lacks the capacity to determine what is perfect.

The word “perfection” without specification is an empty, meaningless word. I specified it as a world where there is no pain and suffering, and yet the inhabitants have unbridled free will. Which “fat lady” are you talking about?

It is significant that you have selected lower forms of life on which to base your piecemeal improvements. It would be more to the point to produce a feasible, detailed blueprint of all the hypothetical, intermediate stages of development.

I am not particularly interested in your restrictions. You can open a thread and I might visit it, and stay within your specifications. Besides, I also gave another possible world, where human beings are without pain receptors, but that lack is compensated for by having an immediate regeneration system. You would be welcome to give a reasoned critique to the presented hypothetical world. No pain, no suffering, intelligent beings, full free will… what else can you wish for?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

One has to first be rational. A rational person might conclude that it ain’t over till the fat lady sings and that not being omniscient, one lacks the capacity to determine what is perfect.

The word “perfection” without specification is an empty, meaningless word. I specified it as a world where there is no pain and suffering, and yet the inhabitants have unbridled free will. Which “fat lady” are you talking about?

It is significant that you have selected lower forms of life on which to base your piecemeal improvements. It would be more to the point to produce a feasible, detailed blueprint of all the hypothetical, intermediate stages of development.

I am not particularly interested in your restrictions. You can open a thread and I might visit it, and stay within your specifications. Besides, I also gave another possible world, where human beings are without pain receptors, but that lack is compensated for by having an immediate regeneration system. You would be welcome to give a reasoned critique to the presented hypothetical world. No pain, no suffering, intelligent beings, full free will… what else can you wish for?

 

[Aloysium]

The perfect world to some involves doing whatever one wants, no dire consequences. I think that world is called Grand Theft Auto. The fat lady sings at the end of the event; the meaning would be that until and unless it is all known, one cannot judge. Sorry to be so cryptic.

 

[oldcelt]

The perfect world to some involves doing whatever one wants, no dire consequences. I think that world is called Grand Theft Auto. The fat lady sings at the end of the event; the meaning would be that until and unless it is all known, one cannot judge. Sorry to be so cryptic.

As the person I am, with the belief system that I have adopted, there is no perfect world. There is only what is…as difficult as that is for many to accept.

John

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The perfect world to some involves doing whatever one wants, no dire consequences.

That is precisely what the suggested world (comprised of intelligent, thinking sequoia trees) entails. No pain, no suffering, full free will. They can do whatever they want, no dire consequences. If some natural calamity damages them, they regrow the lost limbs, and they not worse off than they used to be. Obviously they die after many thousands of years and give back the chemical nutrients to the soil, where they borrowed it from. Nature’s recycling at its best.

Do you have a rational objection to this?

The fat lady sings at the end of the event; the meaning would be that until and unless it is all known, one cannot judge. Sorry to be so cryptic.

I bet you don’t actually live according to this principle. No one does. We all make value judgments based upon the available information.

As the person I am, with the belief system that I have adopted, there is no perfect world. There is only what is…as difficult as that is for many to accept.

But it is fun to contemplate the alternatives.

 

[tonyrey]

It is significant that you have selected lower forms of life on which to base your piecemeal improvements. It would be more to the point to produce a feasible, detailed blueprint of all the hypothetical, intermediate stages of development.

They are not my restrictions but defects in your hypothesis. If you exclude development you are confined to a static world where nothing ever progresses.

You can open a thread and I might visit it, and stay within your specifications. Besides, I also gave another possible world, where human beings are without pain receptors, but that lack is compensated for by having an immediate regeneration system. You would be welcome to give a reasoned critique to the presented hypothetical world. No pain, no suffering, intelligent beings, full free will… what else can you wish for?

These are abstract ideals unrelated to reality as we know it. We can spend our lives creating imaginary paradises but in the end they lead nowhere. It would be far more constructive to give specific examples of how the entire process of development could have been improved so that there is far less suffering and injustice but that is a task which requires far more thought than a sweeping condemnation of the existing world in its entirety as though it would be better if life had never existed on this planet. There comes a stage at which logical possibilities become an excuse for not confronting reality honestly, admitting that it has its advantages and drawbacks - and deciding whether we agree with Socrates or Schopenhauer. The blueprint for a perfect world has to be modified to become credible to others as well as oneself. Otherwise it is just empty speculation.