the_cave

I guess the way I understand it, human beings were created as perfect as possible, but they can't be absolutely perfect, since they're dependent on something else for their existence. It's not exactly a question of being "perfect", it's a question of being "good" or "better than another thing" (I'm getting a lot of this from past discussions with my Thomist friend.) We (rather, the universe) was created as good as it could be; but it wasn't the best thing that is, which is god, so it must be somewhat less good than god. This way of stating it sort of makes creation into a tragic necessity--necessary because it's good that we exist, and it's also good that we're free, but it's a tragedy because neither our existence nor our freedom can logically be perfect (i.e. as good as god.)

Perhaps one way for atheists to think about this could be to put it this way: leaving god aside, we're obviously not as "perfect", or better than, the cosmos, since we are a small part of it, and dependent on it for our existence. But we're made in its "image", in the sense that its laws govern us as well, and we are made of the same things that the cosmos is made of (stardust, elements, gluons, etc.) It's good that the universe made us, b/c we're generally happy to be around. However, it's a fact of human existence that we suffer pain, which the universe apparently does not suffer. So it's a kind of tragedy (perhaps even necessary, if the determinists are correct) that we exist. But it appears there isn't any other way for sentient beings, and their happiness, to exist, so far as we know.

So, that's my limited analogy to the Christian understanding of your question.

keyser_soze

Actually I think it would be like kicking the dog every day for the rest of it's life, then every generation of it's descedants, condemning them to being kicked eternally, even after they are dead. No lapse in punishment for all of enternity. All for tearing up your $3.99 pair of slippers from walgreens.

christ-on-a-stick

Greetings the_cave: I don't see how this follows (because they are dependent on something else for their existence they cannot be absolutely perfect). How is this logically impossible? If I, as a creator of something, define "perfect" and then make it so that it meets that standard, it is perfect. If God defines perfection AND is all-powerful he should be able to make his creatures meet that definition, no?

I have to re-read it again but your universe-humans / God-humans analogy seems not to follow in that the universe is not thought to be a sentient entity that is "aware" of us and intimately concerned with our lives, or "allpowerful" and "omniscient". It seems rather indifferent to us.

christ-on-a-stick

I'm bumping this because I am still wondering about it. (My last post).

Jamie_L

Lauri,

I think the arguement get clearer if we stop casting it in terms of "perfection". The_cave's response shows how using the word "perfection" can add confusion, because it is a somewhat hard-to-define term. Instead, we should talk about something more concrete: obedience. What made humans "imperfect" was their choice to disobey God, i.e. commit evil. God clearly wanted us to obey. Disobedience to God is the source of evil, in fact the Biblical definition of evil.

So, the question then becomes: why did God create humans that would disobey him?

It seems certainly within his power (omnipotent and omniscient) to create humans that would freely obey him, or even to convince previously-created humans to obey him. If God is indeed perfect, then it follows he does not make mistakes. If God did not make a mistake in creating humans that disobeyed him, one must conclude that he intentionally created humans that would disobey him. Or, put another way, if God's creations do something God does not want, it logically must be considered a mistake - which degrades God from being omnipotent.

Jamie

cpickett

I think you are dodging the question, by dictionary.com, perfectness means "being wholly without flaw".

Being "wholly whithout flaw" God cannot create something that is not, therefore Adam & Eve were both "wholly without flaw" and as such they could not have disobeyed God, since that would have been an imperfect descision.

happyboy

God set us up. we're heaven's reality TV. He sets us up in unwinnable situations, gives up impossibles moral codes to follow, arcane laws that serve no real purpose, creates competing religions and tells the adherents of each religion that He loves them (and only them), and then sits back and watches the ensuing chaos.

gotta love that God.

happyboy

Spaz

Reminds me of the new southpark last week where earth was an alien reality tv show

Mageth

Yep, Ive had this conversation on a christian board. Except for a couple answers, the only answers I got were people who didnt understand the question and just repeated what scripture said, over and over again.

FWIW, I and other posters went round and round with Magus55 about this very subject on a thread here a few days ago, and your description summarizes his argument there well.

The_Ist

Hello all.

I think I might take a stab at some of the various comments posted on this thread.

I guess my answer hinges upon the definition of “perfect” in this case. The Christian usually identifies perfection with Godly characteristics such as omniscience, omnipotence, non-contingency, etc. According to this definition, humans weren’t created perfect, because, for one, they were contingent on a creator. Furthermore, I don’t see any Biblical justification for saying humans were originally perfect. To say they were seems illogical and unnecessary.

This seems like an argument from assertion (though maybe he further explained it in other parts of the article). Is there anything inherently illogical about a perfect being creating something imperfect? In fact, it seems as though anything that is created is necessarily imperfect. The common definition of perfection includes the attribute of not being dependent on any other existent. If something is created, it is at least dependent on that which created it. Without the latter, the former wouldn’t exist. So I don’t see how that which is created can be anything BUT imperfect, because it has some dependency.

I think the problem here stems from a misunderstanding of being created in God’s image. It isn’t necessary to go into a detailed theological explanation as to what this means, but it is important to point out that this does not mean that the first humans were miniature replicas of God, and that our decisions, like his, would always be perfect.

This also brings up the very interesting issue surrounding the limits of free will for a perfect being, which I will touch on below.

For the most part, I actually agree. I probably think that God has much less free will than most people imagine him having. Insofar as a decision has a choice that is more perfect than other choices, God must do that which is perfect. However, I do think decisions exist in which there is no superior option to all others. For example, I can either pick up the pencil on my desk, or not. I don’t think either option is “more perfect” than the other, so God could have free will with respect to this example. Of course, this is just a simple example to illustrate my point.

I don’t think that follows. Just because something doesn’t exist at one time, it doesn’t follow that it can’t exist at a future time.

I think there is a slight problem with your analogy. The reason you would be held responsible for the kids drowning, as opposed to the kids themselves, is because children supposedly don’t have the maturity to necessarily know what they should or shouldn’t do. However, Adam and Eve were supposedly created at full maturity. They could be held fully responsible for their free will choices. Furthermore, there seems to be a large difference between the immorality of jumping into someone else’s swimming pool, as opposed to disobeying a direct command from God, probably making he who does the latter more worthy of judgment than he who does the former.

I think the “knowledge” referred to in the Genesis account means knowledge from experience. For example, you may have the knowledge that you would be very nervous if making a speech in front of ten thousand people, but you wouldn’t have a complete knowledge of this phenomenon unless you directly experienced it. Adam and Eve knew that eating the fruit was evil, because God told them so. However, after eating it they gained the knowledge from experiencing immorality and evil.

Suppose that God had valid reason for creating us with free will (though this discussion is for another thread). If God were to utilize his foreknowledge, determine whether or not humans would disobey him, and then “change” the scenario until he foresaw that humans wouldn’t disobey him, he would be foreordaining us to obey, and not just foreknowing that we would or wouldn't. The former is active, while the latter is passive. Furthermore, he would actually be denying the original humans their free will. Free will implies the ability to do A and not-A; in the case of the original human, the ability to obey or disobey. But if God actively utilizes his foreknowledge and only creates a scenario for the original humans in which they would definitely obey him, there is no possibility of them doing not-A (disobeying).

I think when it is said that God “defines” perfection, what is meant is not that God decrees what perfection is, but that he literally is perfection. His very nature defines it. Since God’s nature includes non-dependency, and a creation is dependent on its creator, the latter can’t be perfect (see above).

I think this issue hinges on whether God had valid reason to create beings with free wills. If he did, then any disobedience that comes from free will can be justified. If not, this disobedience presents a problem for the Christian. However, this issue should probably be hashed out on another thread.

I do want to comment on your first sentence, regarding God creating humans who freely obeyed him. You seem to be implying that God could have created us to always freely choose the obedient path. However, I don’t think such beings truly have free will. Free will seems to imply the ability to do A and not-A in a given situation. But if we are created so that we ALWAYS do A without fail (i.e., obeying God), we really don’t have the ability to do not-A, and thus we don’t have free will. If I have free will, this implies that I have the ability to do not-A, i.e., to disobey God, and the possibility of disobedience is present.

See my discussion above regarding creation and perfection.

Just my thoughts on the issue. If you have other questions regarding man’s creation or problems with what I’ve posted here, feel free.