God must have a problem. If not, he would have already solved it all...

[martillo]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

What makes you think you would see the plan of God?

You said that:

14 hours ago, zapatos said:

What you see is exactly the plan.

 

[martillo]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Define “perfect” and from whose perspective this is defined. Also explain why this perfection is the standard.

I consider that if the entire Universe would be perfect we would live an ideal life in a Paradise in an ideal world with no natural diseases and catastrophes at all.

As I wrote in the manuscript:

"All kind of diseases, calamities, catastrophes and tragedies... We don't live in any Paradise. But not being human beings fault, what fails is the Physics of the Universe. Nowadays organic molecules "break" causing mutations, cancer, cells' deterioration, aging and death. A more ideal kind of life should exist. Some physics-parameters could have a wrong real running value, some physical things could not be exactly the way they should be and the Universe could be in a not ideal state. Nature could be different."

In this sense I consider the Universe to have not born perfect remaining that way until nowadays.

Edited May 1, 2022 by martillo

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, martillo said:

I consider that if the entire Universe would be perfect we would live an ideal life in a Paradise in an ideal world with no natural diseases and catastrophes at all.

So it’s about you, not the creator. Why do you think the universe was created with you in mind?

 

20 minutes ago, martillo said:

As I wrote in the manuscript:

 

Yeah, stop with that. If you didn’t post it, it doesn’t count. As you already acknowledged.

[martillo]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

So it’s about you, not the creator. Why do you think the universe was created with you in mind?

Assuming a God exists as a creator of an Universe and Life in it he would have developed ideal conditions for Life. I can't think in a God intentionally provoking all that kind of diseases, calamities, catastrophes and tragedies. Is not about me in mind, is about all kind of life form. God would have developed ideal conditions for all living beings he also previewed to exist. Why would a God develop a bad kind of life to live for his created beings? It has no sense...

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Assuming a God exists as a creator of an Universe and Life in it he would have developed ideal conditions for Life. I can't think in a God intentionally provoking all that kind of diseases, calamities, catastrophes and tragedies. Is not about me in mind, is about all kind of life form. God would have developed ideal conditions for all living beings he also previewed to exist. Why would a God develop a bad kind of life to live for his created beings? It has no sense...

Grinding metal against stone is very hard on the metal. The stone scratches and gouges the steel, tearing parts of it away and leaving it thinner and weighing less. 

But if it's done just right, you're left with a knife blade that can be used to cut with skillful precision, a useful tool that you an accomplish things with.

The grinder is a hard life for the metal, but it's just what the knife needs. I see no evidence of god(s), but even I can see why one wouldn't make everything perfect to begin with.

[martillo]

36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Grinding metal against stone is very hard on the metal. The stone scratches and gouges the steel, tearing parts of it away and leaving it thinner and weighing less. 

But if it's done just right, you're left with a knife blade that can be used to cut with skillful precision, a useful tool that you an accomplish things with.

The grinder is a hard life for the metal, but it's just what the knife needs. I see no evidence of god(s), but even I can see why one wouldn't make everything perfect to begin with.

I would agree with that reasoning if not was for something else very important to be taken into account and is the consideration about how much time the bad kind of life has been present for all the living beings. It is considered that humans beings exist in the planet since about 200 thousands of years but the thing is not about humans only. Life on Earth is estimated to exist since quite 4 billons years ago. This is too much time for a God to find and solve the things for a good kind of life to exist. That's why I wrote in the OP that if he wasn't in troubles God would have solved it all may be long time ago.

Edited May 1, 2022 by martillo

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, martillo said:

I would agree with that reasoning if not was for something else very important to be taken into account and is the consideration about how much time the bad kind of life has been present for all the living beings. It is considered that humans beings exist in the planet since about 200 thousands of years but the thing is not about humans only. Life on Earth is estimated to exist since quite 4 billons years ago. This is too much time for a God to find and solve the things for a good kind of life to exist. That's why I wrote in the OP that if he wasn't in troubles God would have solved it all may be long time ago.

Maybe it doesn't want a paradise on earth. Maybe it'd be too boring to it. Maybe it likes the entertainment, all the comedy and all the drama...

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, martillo said:

I would agree with that reasoning if not was for something else very important to be taken into account and is that the consideration about how much time the bad kind of life has been present for all the living beings. It is considered that humans beings exist in the planet since about 200 thousands of years but the thing is not about humans only. Life on Earth is estimated to exist since quite 4 billons years ago. This is too much time for a God to find and solve the things for a good kind of life to exist. That's why I wrote in the OP that if he wasn't in troubles God would have solved it all may be long time ago.

I think you assume too much. Why is 4B years too much time? Why assume your creator didn't get it right the first time? Why assume it's all about making first and then correcting mistakes? If you really believe in an all-powerful god(s), why wouldn't you assume you just don't understand what they really want from the universe? Why are you assuming this god behaves the way you think it should?

[martillo]

48 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think you assume too much. Why is 4B years too much time? Why assume your creator didn't get it right the first time? Why assume it's all about making first and then correcting mistakes? If you really believe in an all-powerful god(s), why wouldn't you assume you just don't understand what they really want from the universe? Why are you assuming this god behaves the way you think it should?

You are right. Much things are assumed in my reasoning but you know, there is no other way to approach the subject of God. The only way to get on it is with reason, with quite pure rationalism I would say, because as you mentioned, there is no empirical evidence about even in the proper existence of that creator God. There´s just one principle that can and must be followed in all reasoning and is that everything must make sense in it. If something doesn't, it would be because we have understood the things wrongly or there is something wrong. Actually, I would not consider them assumptions but conclusions because all of them must at least have a good justification and argumentation. And that's all what I can give here, argumentations (not actually proofs) on every step done in the reasoning I have done. There's an unavoidable uncertainty in everything thought that way and is the reason to post the subject for discussion in the forum, to check things up trying to reach the right conclusions. May be there are mistakes and they need corrections we could find.

 

Edited May 1, 2022 by martillo

[Genady]

Regarding the diagnosis, I suggest age related dementia. Quite reasonable, I think.

[martillo]

9 minutes ago, Genady said:

Regarding the diagnosis, I suggest age related dementia. Quite reasonable, I think.

But it is supposed God not age, or am I wrong? But you could be right in something afterall. May be things could be getting worse and worse with time for God... Let me think about.

Edited May 1, 2022 by martillo

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, martillo said:

But it is supposed God not age, or am I wrong?

I think you are. I don't know why it'd be supposed so. I don't think it makes sense.

P.S. Posted before seeing your addition.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, martillo said:

Assuming a God exists as a creator of an Universe and Life in it he would have developed ideal conditions for Life. I can't think in a God intentionally provoking all that kind of diseases, calamities, catastrophes and tragedies. Is not about me in mind, is about all kind of life form. God would have developed ideal conditions for all living beings he also previewed to exist. Why would a God develop a bad kind of life to live for his created beings? It has no sense...

Makes no sense to you. There’s a certain amount of hubris in thinking that it should make sense to you.

[martillo]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Makes no sense to you. There’s a certain amount of hubris in thinking that it should make sense to you.

You leave me thinking in not about hubris but in if I would have a so strange mind reaching so strange conclusions which would make sense to me only and not to other ones. Why I would not consider that other ones taking into account similar things would reach similar or even same conclusions than me? Why should I think to be a so strange person?

[swansont]

9 hours ago, martillo said:

You leave me thinking in not about hubris but in if I would have a so strange mind reaching so strange conclusions which would make sense to me only and not to other ones. Why I would not consider that other ones taking into account similar things would reach similar or even same conclusions than me? Why should I think to be a so strange person?

You're only viewing this from one perspective and there are many. You have likes and dislikes that differ from at least some other people, so what is nice for you is not nice for someone else. 

[martillo]

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

You're only viewing this from one perspective and there are many. You have likes and dislikes that differ from at least some other people, so what is nice for you is not nice for someone else. 

I'm aware about that and that's why I'm posting the subject in the forum, to take into consideration other's point of view. I'm not trying to impose anything, I'm just offering my point of view on a subject which I think deserves attention. I'm presenting the subject open for análisis and discussions with other ones. I could be wrong in things, I know, and I think I have enough self criticism to reconsider and make changes in that my point of view if it were the case. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

I'm aware about that and that's why I'm posting the subject in the forum, to take into consideration other's point of view. I'm not trying to impose anything, I'm just offering my point of view on a subject which I think deserves attention. I'm presenting the subject open for análisis and discussions with other ones. I could be wrong in things, I know, and I think I have enough self criticism to reconsider and make changes in that my point of view if it were the case. 

It's simply not possible to make something perfect for everyone if they have differing likes and dislikes. So that can't be the metric by which one judges there to be a flaw. 

[martillo]

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's simply not possible to make something perfect for everyone if they have differing likes and dislikes. So that can't be the metric by which one judges there to be a flaw. 

Suppose someone develop a work with just an unperceived mistake. It would be an unperfect work. Now suppose the work is submitted for analysis and discussion by other ones and someone making a dislike on something related to that mistake or even pointing out the proper mistake. Now, if the owner of the work reconsider that unique flaw and correct it the work would become perfect. Then that was a way to make a perfect work.

I think the first step to solve a problem is to assume it exists. The second would be to work in finding a solution. May be one could find a solution at once, that would be perfect. But now consider the case to not be sure if the reached solution is a right one or if it indeed is not the right one. Wouldn't be right for the one to put the problem into consideration by other ones in the try to find the right thing? He would be risking to have been wrong at first, to receive dislikes by other ones and even dislike himself for being wrong. But now, if the one think that the really important thing is to find the right solution to the problem he will go ahead discussing it until he or someone else finding the right thing at the end. That was a way (hard way may be) to achieve the goal of finding a solution to a problem I think.

Edited May 2, 2022 by martillo

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, martillo said:

Suppose someone develop a work with just an unperceived mistake. It would be an unperfect work. Now suppose the work is submitted for analysis and discussion by other ones and someone making a dislike on something related to that mistake or even pointing out the proper mistake. Now, if the owner of the work reconsider that unique flaw and correct it the work would become perfect. Then that was a way to make a perfect work.

And how do you know it was a mistake rather than the intent, and you just can't understand the intent? 

 

[martillo]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And how do you know it was a mistake rather than the intent, and you just can't understand the intent? 

 

I couldn't get your point. The intent of what?

[swansont]

1 minute ago, martillo said:

I couldn't get your point. The intent of what?

The creator you have hypothesized (aka God). Who, in order to have done what they allegedly did, must be more intelligent than you. You don't know their intent, but instead have determined that it's a flaw because it doesn't suit you, or make sense to you. This is why I mentioned hubris earlier, to assume that something is a flaw and not a feature, and observed that your desires aren't being catered to.

[Phi for All]

31 minutes ago, martillo said:

I couldn't get your point.

What if you aren't getting the point of your god? You assume your god is mistaken or has a problem, but what if you simply don't understand the point this god is trying to make?

[martillo]

48 minutes ago, swansont said:

The creator you have hypothesized (aka God). Who, in order to have done what they allegedly did, must be more intelligent than you. You don't know their intent, but instead have determined that it's a flaw because it doesn't suit you, or make sense to you. This is why I mentioned hubris earlier, to assume that something is a flaw and not a feature, and observed that your desires aren't being catered to.

Now I understand you. I was talking for generality on any work posted in the forum to discussion. 

Now related to the subject on God I posted and in the case you mention I do assume the intention of God is always to develop something perfect and good for living so, if I would find something to be not good and thinking it would be a flaw I would point it out and stay waiting for the thing to be solved by God. Of course I think that if God gave me the possibility of reason and some sense of perfection my point of view would matter to God. 

23 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

What if you aren't getting the point of your god? You assume your god is mistaken or has a problem, but what if you simply don't understand the point this god is trying to make?

If that was te case, of me being wrong, I think I would understand with time and may be discussing the subject with other ones would help me understand.

Edited May 2, 2022 by martillo

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Now related to the subject on God I posted and in the case you mention I do assume the intention of God is always to develop something perfect and good for living so, if I would find something to be not good and thinking it would be a flaw I would point it out and stay waiting for the thing to be solved by God. Of course I think that if God gave me the possibility of reason and some sense of perfection my point of view would matter to God. 

A common perspective wrt god(s) is that they're like the ultimate parent, while we're mere infants. What children think is "good for living" is often at odds with their parents, because the parents have more knowledge and experience, and the kids don't always understand. Mother/Father knows best, right?

Does your god have a problem because it doesn't want you to eat candy for breakfast? Did your god make a mistake by not doing your homework for you? Is the world imperfect because god says you shouldn't run with sharp scissors?

1 hour ago, martillo said:

If that was te case, of me being wrong, I think I would understand with time and may be discussing the subject with other ones would help me understand.

I don't believe in god(s) the way you do, so the objections I have to your idea are with your reasoning. You assign a time frame in which your god must accomplish something you recognize as godly progress, list the things you don't like and assume your god made a mistake, and then acknowledge that your god gave you reason for a purpose.

Most theists I know assume their god is perfect, and we're supposed to use the reason it gave us to figure out its purpose, which is mysterious but ultimately the exact thing mankind needs. And if we experience pain and suffering along the way, it's to make us stronger or teach us lessons or encourage us to make things better. That last sentence doesn't need any god(s), btw.

[martillo]

13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Does your god have a problem because it doesn't want you to eat candy for breakfast? Did your god make a mistake by not doing your homework for you? Is the world imperfect because god says you shouldn't run with sharp scissors?

I don't think God have a problem because of something with myself, are you joking me? I'm talking about all kind of diseases, calamities, catastrophes and tragedies happening to all living beings in the entire world we know. Things affecting all lifeform in the planet.

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Most theists I know assume their god is perfect, and we're supposed to use the reason it gave us to figure out its purpose, which is mysterious but ultimately the exact thing mankind needs.

I'm not theist, may be some kind of deist. Deism you know?

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And if we experience pain and suffering along the way, it's to make us stronger or teach us lessons or encourage us to make things better. That last sentence doesn't need any god(s), btw.

I know some ones believe in that, do you? I don't. Suffering, paining, should not exist as a rule in an ideal kind of life, in my point of view, I know.