Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Would theists agree, or disagree with this?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 8:18:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.:

I agree. Even though many badness happens in the over-all scheme it for the over-all goodness.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 8:19:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

I think God's ultimate purpose in creation was to glorify himself, to demonstrate his glory, or to be glorified. I'm not sure how I'd answer because if God was already glorious, but just hadn't demonstrated or expressed that glory, then you might say doing so doesn't add to the glory, in which case creation doesn't add goodness to reality. On the other hand, if the demonstration of God's glory is a good in itself on top of God's undemonstrated glory, then maybe creation does add to the goodness of reality. So I'm not sure, but I lean toward thinking that creation does add to the goodness of reality.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 8:43:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 8:19:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

I think God's ultimate purpose in creation was to glorify himself, to demonstrate his glory, or to be glorified. I'm not sure how I'd answer because if God was already glorious, but just hadn't demonstrated or expressed that glory, then you might say doing so doesn't add to the glory, in which case creation doesn't add goodness to reality. On the other hand, if the demonstration of God's glory is a good in itself on top of God's undemonstrated glory, then maybe creation does add to the goodness of reality. So I'm not sure, but I lean toward thinking that creation does add to the goodness of reality.

The problem I sense is that God is usually defined as perfectly good. If this is the case, then a "God only" reality would be perfectly good, and contain as much goodness as logically possible (if you could improve the goodness of reality, then that means what existed prior to the improvement, was not good enough). Therefore, I do not see how creation could add to the goodness of reality, unless a "God only" reality didn't contain perfect goodness as it was.

Basically, it seems hard to mix the two views that God is perfectly good, and that creation added to the goodness of reality without contradiction.
My-Self
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 9:01:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 8:19:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
I think God's ultimate purpose in creation was to glorify himself, to demonstrate his glory, or to be glorified.

If your fairytale is true, that would be perhaps the most bizarre selfish act conceivable.
"Genesis could be compatible with anything. Theologians are great at mental gymnastics." ~ phantom
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 9:04:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 8:43:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:19:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

I think God's ultimate purpose in creation was to glorify himself, to demonstrate his glory, or to be glorified. I'm not sure how I'd answer because if God was already glorious, but just hadn't demonstrated or expressed that glory, then you might say doing so doesn't add to the glory, in which case creation doesn't add goodness to reality. On the other hand, if the demonstration of God's glory is a good in itself on top of God's undemonstrated glory, then maybe creation does add to the goodness of reality. So I'm not sure, but I lean toward thinking that creation does add to the goodness of reality.

The problem I sense is that God is usually defined as perfectly good. If this is the case, then a "God only" reality would be perfectly good, and contain as much goodness as logically possible (if you could improve the goodness of reality, then that means what existed prior to the improvement, was not good enough). Therefore, I do not see how creation could add to the goodness of reality, unless a "God only" reality didn't contain perfect goodness as it was.

Basically, it seems hard to mix the two views that God is perfectly good, and that creation added to the goodness of reality without contradiction.

Why do you think God being perfectly good means that God contains as much goodness as is logically possible for reality to have? You say that, "if you could improve the goodness of reality, then that means what existed prior to the improvement was not good enough," but why think that adding goodness to reality would improve the goodness of reality?

Let me use an analogy. Let's suppose there's a perfectly round circle. The circle is as perfectly round as it's possible to be. Does that mean it's impossible to add another circle? If we do add another circle, is that any indication that the first circle wasn't perfectly round?

If the only thing that exists is a perfectly round circle, and you add another circle that is not perfectly round, then even though you've added roundness to reality, it's not true that reality (even on average) will have become more round. The average roundness would, in that case, have become less round.

I see no reason to think God being perfectly good would prevent God from adding more good to reality. You see, if God were all that existed, then God would be equivalent to reality. But if God created something else, then God would not be equivalent to reality. It's not as if adding goodness to reality would mean the same thing as adding goodness to God. If that's what it would entail, then I would totally agree with you. If God is perfectly good, then you can't add goodness to God. But that doesn't mean you can't add something to reality, causing the sum total of reality to contain more goodness.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 9:21:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 9:01:27 PM, My-Self wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:19:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
I think God's ultimate purpose in creation was to glorify himself, to demonstrate his glory, or to be glorified.

If your fairytale is true, that would be perhaps the most bizarre selfish act conceivable.

It makes perfectly good sense to me. Without creation, God would be the only thing that existed, so there could be no end in creation except with respect to himself. There was nothing other than for himself that he could've created the world for.

Also, if God is the greatest possible being, then he has the greatest possible value and worth. God himself is the greatest good. It is morally appropriate to attribute value and worth where it is due. So God ought to be more interested in his own glorification than in anything else. If God did not glorify himself, then he couldn't be perfectly good.

I think the reason we consider selfishness and self-regard as inappropriate is because the world doesn't revolve around us. But it does revolve around God.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 9:55:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 8:19:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

I think God's ultimate purpose in creation was to glorify himself,

God seems kinda full of himself
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 9:57:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 9:55:06 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:19:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

I think God's ultimate purpose in creation was to glorify himself,

God seems kinda full of himself

As he ought to be. Unless by "full of himself," you mean he thinks more of himself than is warranted. But that isn't possible if God is the greatest possible being. God could not have an inflated ego if he's actually the greatest possible being because to have an inflated ego is to think more highly of yourself than is accurate.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 9:57:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 9:55:06 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:19:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

I think God's ultimate purpose in creation was to glorify himself, :
Yeah, thats the point. He should, He is perfect and worthy of worship.

God seems kinda full of himself
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 10:25:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

I think most would.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
lannan13
Posts: 23,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 10:31:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 10:25:41 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

I think most would.

Indeed
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 10:32:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 8:43:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:19:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

I think God's ultimate purpose in creation was to glorify himself, to demonstrate his glory, or to be glorified. I'm not sure how I'd answer because if God was already glorious, but just hadn't demonstrated or expressed that glory, then you might say doing so doesn't add to the glory, in which case creation doesn't add goodness to reality. On the other hand, if the demonstration of God's glory is a good in itself on top of God's undemonstrated glory, then maybe creation does add to the goodness of reality. So I'm not sure, but I lean toward thinking that creation does add to the goodness of reality.

The problem I sense is that God is usually defined as perfectly good. If this is the case, then a "God only" reality would be perfectly good, and contain as much goodness as logically possible (if you could improve the goodness of reality, then that means what existed prior to the improvement, was not good enough). Therefore, I do not see how creation could add to the goodness of reality, unless a "God only" reality didn't contain perfect goodness as it was.

Basically, it seems hard to mix the two views that God is perfectly good, and that creation added to the goodness of reality without contradiction.

I've never heard this before; very interesting.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 10:41:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 9:04:28 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:43:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:19:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

I think God's ultimate purpose in creation was to glorify himself, to demonstrate his glory, or to be glorified. I'm not sure how I'd answer because if God was already glorious, but just hadn't demonstrated or expressed that glory, then you might say doing so doesn't add to the glory, in which case creation doesn't add goodness to reality. On the other hand, if the demonstration of God's glory is a good in itself on top of God's undemonstrated glory, then maybe creation does add to the goodness of reality. So I'm not sure, but I lean toward thinking that creation does add to the goodness of reality.

The problem I sense is that God is usually defined as perfectly good. If this is the case, then a "God only" reality would be perfectly good, and contain as much goodness as logically possible (if you could improve the goodness of reality, then that means what existed prior to the improvement, was not good enough). Therefore, I do not see how creation could add to the goodness of reality, unless a "God only" reality didn't contain perfect goodness as it was.

Basically, it seems hard to mix the two views that God is perfectly good, and that creation added to the goodness of reality without contradiction.

Why do you think God being perfectly good means that God contains as much goodness as is logically possible for reality to have? You say that, "if you could improve the goodness of reality, then that means what existed prior to the improvement was not good enough," but why think that adding goodness to reality would improve the goodness of reality?

Let me use an analogy. Let's suppose there's a perfectly round circle. The circle is as perfectly round as it's possible to be. Does that mean it's impossible to add another circle? If we do add another circle, is that any indication that the first circle wasn't perfectly round?

If the only thing that exists is a perfectly round circle, and you add another circle that is not perfectly round, then even though you've added roundness to reality, it's not true that reality (even on average) will have become more round. The average roundness would, in that case, have become less round.

So, to apply your analogy, if God created something that was less good than perfectly good, the average goodness of reality would decrease. Do you believe those things God created were perfectly good or less than perfectly good?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 11:08:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 10:41:27 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/30/2013 9:04:28 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:43:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:19:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

I think God's ultimate purpose in creation was to glorify himself, to demonstrate his glory, or to be glorified. I'm not sure how I'd answer because if God was already glorious, but just hadn't demonstrated or expressed that glory, then you might say doing so doesn't add to the glory, in which case creation doesn't add goodness to reality. On the other hand, if the demonstration of God's glory is a good in itself on top of God's undemonstrated glory, then maybe creation does add to the goodness of reality. So I'm not sure, but I lean toward thinking that creation does add to the goodness of reality.

The problem I sense is that God is usually defined as perfectly good. If this is the case, then a "God only" reality would be perfectly good, and contain as much goodness as logically possible (if you could improve the goodness of reality, then that means what existed prior to the improvement, was not good enough). Therefore, I do not see how creation could add to the goodness of reality, unless a "God only" reality didn't contain perfect goodness as it was.

Basically, it seems hard to mix the two views that God is perfectly good, and that creation added to the goodness of reality without contradiction.

Why do you think God being perfectly good means that God contains as much goodness as is logically possible for reality to have? You say that, "if you could improve the goodness of reality, then that means what existed prior to the improvement was not good enough," but why think that adding goodness to reality would improve the goodness of reality?

Let me use an analogy. Let's suppose there's a perfectly round circle. The circle is as perfectly round as it's possible to be. Does that mean it's impossible to add another circle? If we do add another circle, is that any indication that the first circle wasn't perfectly round?

If the only thing that exists is a perfectly round circle, and you add another circle that is not perfectly round, then even though you've added roundness to reality, it's not true that reality (even on average) will have become more round. The average roundness would, in that case, have become less round.

So, to apply your analogy, if God created something that was less good than perfectly good, the average goodness of reality would decrease. Do you believe those things God created were perfectly good or less than perfectly good?

I don't know. I think they were perfectly good in the sense that they had no corruption in them, but they were unlike God in the fact that while God is not corruptible, creation was.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 11:13:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

I dunno. Maybe it's just to be what he is in the fullest way possible.
Hvaniratha
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 2:49:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
" I who am Ohrmazd is the Creator of the good creation. "
-- Denkard, book 4

I agree with the statement, since Creation is good, and " existence " itself without Creation would be worse. So Creation adds to the goodness of " existence " which is already good, because of Ohrmazd.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 6:31:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

Dis-agree God does not lack in anything. God is an absolute and complete being and has no ego to satisfy, God did not create the creation out of Ego God created the creation so we can experience His eternal reciprocation of Love.
KingDebater
Posts: 687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 7:38:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

Forming a syllogism are we?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 9:18:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 9:04:28 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:43:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:19:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

I think God's ultimate purpose in creation was to glorify himself, to demonstrate his glory, or to be glorified. I'm not sure how I'd answer because if God was already glorious, but just hadn't demonstrated or expressed that glory, then you might say doing so doesn't add to the glory, in which case creation doesn't add goodness to reality. On the other hand, if the demonstration of God's glory is a good in itself on top of God's undemonstrated glory, then maybe creation does add to the goodness of reality. So I'm not sure, but I lean toward thinking that creation does add to the goodness of reality.

The problem I sense is that God is usually defined as perfectly good. If this is the case, then a "God only" reality would be perfectly good, and contain as much goodness as logically possible (if you could improve the goodness of reality, then that means what existed prior to the improvement, was not good enough). Therefore, I do not see how creation could add to the goodness of reality, unless a "God only" reality didn't contain perfect goodness as it was.

Basically, it seems hard to mix the two views that God is perfectly good, and that creation added to the goodness of reality without contradiction.

Why do you think God being perfectly good means that God contains as much goodness as is logically possible for reality to have? You say that, "if you could improve the goodness of reality, then that means what existed prior to the improvement was not good enough," but why think that adding goodness to reality would improve the goodness of reality?

Let me use an analogy. Let's suppose there's a perfectly round circle. The circle is as perfectly round as it's possible to be. Does that mean it's impossible to add another circle? If we do add another circle, is that any indication that the first circle wasn't perfectly round?

If the only thing that exists is a perfectly round circle, and you add another circle that is not perfectly round, then even though you've added roundness to reality, it's not true that reality (even on average) will have become more round. The average roundness would, in that case, have become less round.

I see no reason to think God being perfectly good would prevent God from adding more good to reality. You see, if God were all that existed, then God would be equivalent to reality. But if God created something else, then God would not be equivalent to reality. It's not as if adding goodness to reality would mean the same thing as adding goodness to God. If that's what it would entail, then I would totally agree with you. If God is perfectly good, then you can't add goodness to God. But that doesn't mean you can't add something to reality, causing the sum total of reality to contain more goodness.

Very good point. However, as you said, if God created anything that wasn't perfectly good, then all he did was decrease the overall goodness within reality. A "God only" state of affairs would contain only pure good, however a universe created, taints a perfectly good reality, and makes it a non-perfectly good reality. Why would a morally perfect being, decrease the overall goodness of reality?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 2:08:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 11:08:33 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/30/2013 10:41:27 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/30/2013 9:04:28 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:43:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:19:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/30/2013 7:56:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The creation of the universe, and human beings, was done with the intention of increasing the goodness within reality in someway.

Theists... Would you agree or disagree with the above statement, and why? Thank you.

I think God's ultimate purpose in creation was to glorify himself, to demonstrate his glory, or to be glorified. I'm not sure how I'd answer because if God was already glorious, but just hadn't demonstrated or expressed that glory, then you might say doing so doesn't add to the glory, in which case creation doesn't add goodness to reality. On the other hand, if the demonstration of God's glory is a good in itself on top of God's undemonstrated glory, then maybe creation does add to the goodness of reality. So I'm not sure, but I lean toward thinking that creation does add to the goodness of reality.

The problem I sense is that God is usually defined as perfectly good. If this is the case, then a "God only" reality would be perfectly good, and contain as much goodness as logically possible (if you could improve the goodness of reality, then that means what existed prior to the improvement, was not good enough). Therefore, I do not see how creation could add to the goodness of reality, unless a "God only" reality didn't contain perfect goodness as it was.

Basically, it seems hard to mix the two views that God is perfectly good, and that creation added to the goodness of reality without contradiction.

Why do you think God being perfectly good means that God contains as much goodness as is logically possible for reality to have? You say that, "if you could improve the goodness of reality, then that means what existed prior to the improvement was not good enough," but why think that adding goodness to reality would improve the goodness of reality?

Let me use an analogy. Let's suppose there's a perfectly round circle. The circle is as perfectly round as it's possible to be. Does that mean it's impossible to add another circle? If we do add another circle, is that any indication that the first circle wasn't perfectly round?

If the only thing that exists is a perfectly round circle, and you add another circle that is not perfectly round, then even though you've added roundness to reality, it's not true that reality (even on average) will have become more round. The average roundness would, in that case, have become less round.

So, to apply your analogy, if God created something that was less good than perfectly good, the average goodness of reality would decrease. Do you believe those things God created were perfectly good or less than perfectly good?

I don't know. I think they were perfectly good in the sense that they had no corruption in them, but they were unlike God in the fact that while God is not corruptible, creation was.

Is it flawed to be corruptible, or is being corruptible part of being perfect? If something is corruptible, then it cannot be perfectly good, if a perfect being is not corruptible. I think it seems clear that if God exists, only he can be perfectly good. Thus, it seems unlikley that he would create anything at all. Any creation would just infer the beginning of some flaw with regards to goodness being pumped into reality, because nothing could meet up to his standard, and thus anything else lacks goodness (which makes it "evil", if "evil" is just a lack of "goodness"). A God only reality would be perfectly good, so only a non-perfectly good being would want to change that state of affairs. It makes more sense to assume, that a perfectly good being would not create anything, and just be satisfied with it's perfection.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 2:17:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I disagree. God knew from the very beginning that evil would consume man and he would have to come back and save the few that did not succumb to it. Evil will win, goodness will lose. Why would he come back if evil was not to prevail.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 2:46:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 9:18:30 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Very good point. However, as you said, if God created anything that wasn't perfectly good, then all he did was decrease the overall goodness within reality.

That's only if you take goodness as a ratio. For example, if all there was in the world was peanut butter, then the world would be 100% peanut butter. But if you added a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, the world would be less than 100% peanut butter even though the sum total of peanut butter will have gone up.

A "God only" state of affairs would contain only pure good, however a universe created, taints a perfectly good reality, and makes it a non-perfectly good reality. Why would a morally perfect being, decrease the overall goodness of reality?

He wouldn't be decreasing the amount of goodness. He'd only be decreasing the ratio of goodness to badness. In my view, God's creation of the world was an expression of his goodness. Imagine having all that power and never exercising it. Imagine being merciful and never having an object of mercy.

I think that God isn't just good sitting there by himself, but the expression of his attributes is also good. If God was perfectly good and glorious and holy and all that, it stands to reason that he would want to express all of his attributes, and creation is his way of doing that.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 3:02:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 2:08:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:08:33 PM, philochristos wrote:
I don't know. I think they were perfectly good in the sense that they had no corruption in them, but they were unlike God in the fact that while God is not corruptible, creation was.

Is it flawed to be corruptible, or is being corruptible part of being perfect? If something is corruptible, then it cannot be perfectly good, if a perfect being is not corruptible. I think it seems clear that if God exists, only he can be perfectly good. Thus, it seems unlikley that he would create anything at all. Any creation would just infer the beginning of some flaw with regards to goodness being pumped into reality, because nothing could meet up to his standard, and thus anything else lacks goodness (which makes it "evil", if "evil" is just a lack of "goodness"). A God only reality would be perfectly good, so only a non-perfectly good being would want to change that state of affairs. It makes more sense to assume, that a perfectly good being would not create anything, and just be satisfied with it's perfection.

I think the line between being corruptible but not corrupted and being incorruptible may just be a difference between quality and quantity. That is, something can be perfectly good in quality without being exhaustively good in quantity. If something is corruptible, but not corrupted, then I have a hard time saying it isn't perfectly good. Because if I denied that it was perfectly good, I'd have to say there was a flaw. But I don't see how I could say it had a flaw if it was not in fact corrupted. To say it has a flaw implies that it is corrupted, which contradicts the stipulation that it is corruptible but not corrupted. So maybe incorruptibility isn't necessary for something to be perfectly good in the qualitative sense. Instead, it's just a quantitative addition to goodness. But I don't really know. I'm just writing off the top of my head.

I don't see any reason to think that God being perfectly good would be a reason for God not to create. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the case. If God were perfectly good, I would think he would want to act out his goodness. I don't think everything in creation would need to be as perfect as God before God would want to create it. It would be enough for it to serve his purposes.

Sometimes, flaws are built into things because it serves a purpose. For example, I made the mistake of buying a Dell laptop several years ago, and after a certain amount of time, the battery just quit. And it didn't gradually run out of juice; it quit suddenly. I got another battery, and it did the same thing. I started reading around on line, and several people had the same problem and began to speculate that the batteries were designed to fail. And the purpose was so people would buy another battery. You might be tempted to think that a battery which fails is a reflection on the inadequacy of the designer until you realize the designer had a purpose in the battery failing.

If the greatest good is the glory of God, then God's ultimate goal shouldn't be that he maintain the higher possible ratio of good to evil in the universe (which he could've easily done by not creating anything). Rather, his goal should be to express his glory, which had can do by creating things that are less perfect than himself. It's not a strike against his goodness that he does so; rather, it's a reflection of his goodness.

We are speculating up to this point on what a perfect being would do, but the Bible actually tells us what God's motives were in a lot of things he did. It repeatedly says he did this or that "for the sake of his name" or "to the praise of his glory" or something along those lines. Jonathan Edwards wrote a small booklet called The End For Which God Created the World in which he argued both from philosophy and scripture that God's chief end in creating the world was for his own glory. So God's motives is the expression of his attributes and the praise of his glory. It's not to try to keep reality is perfect and free from evil as possible.

http://www.prayermeetings.org...
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 3:18:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 2:46:30 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/31/2013 9:18:30 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Very good point. However, as you said, if God created anything that wasn't perfectly good, then all he did was decrease the overall goodness within reality.

That's only if you take goodness as a ratio. For example, if all there was in the world was peanut butter, then the world would be 100% peanut butter. But if you added a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, the world would be less than 100% peanut butter even though the sum total of peanut butter will have gone up.

Exactly, but the ratio matters, not the amount. If a three hundred pound man can lift a higher amount of weight than a man who only weighs one hundred pounds, it means nothing. We have to find out who is pound for pound stronger (ratio).


A "God only" state of affairs would contain only pure good, however a universe created, taints a perfectly good reality, and makes it a non-perfectly good reality. Why would a morally perfect being, decrease the overall goodness of reality?

He wouldn't be decreasing the amount of goodness. He'd only be decreasing the ratio of goodness to badness.

Agreed, but the ratios give a more clear descriptions than a mere sum.

In my view, God's creation of the world was an expression of his goodness. Imagine having all that power and never exercising it. Imagine being merciful and never having an object of mercy.

Yes, but the expression isn't perfectly good in itself. To say that it is would to say the universe is, which is clearly not true.


I think that God isn't just good sitting there by himself, but the expression of his attributes is also good. If God was perfectly good and glorious and holy and all that, it stands to reason that he would want to express all of his attributes, and creation is his way of doing that.

If the trinity is the case, then his glory could be expressed between the three parts. I still don't see why a perfectly good being, would want to add things which are not perfectly good to reality.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 3:40:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 3:02:17 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/31/2013 2:08:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:08:33 PM, philochristos wrote:
I don't know. I think they were perfectly good in the sense that they had no corruption in them, but they were unlike God in the fact that while God is not corruptible, creation was.

Is it flawed to be corruptible, or is being corruptible part of being perfect? If something is corruptible, then it cannot be perfectly good, if a perfect being is not corruptible. I think it seems clear that if God exists, only he can be perfectly good. Thus, it seems unlikley that he would create anything at all. Any creation would just infer the beginning of some flaw with regards to goodness being pumped into reality, because nothing could meet up to his standard, and thus anything else lacks goodness (which makes it "evil", if "evil" is just a lack of "goodness"). A God only reality would be perfectly good, so only a non-perfectly good being would want to change that state of affairs. It makes more sense to assume, that a perfectly good being would not create anything, and just be satisfied with it's perfection.

I think the line between being corruptible but not corrupted and being incorruptible may just be a difference between quality and quantity. That is, something can be perfectly good in quality without being exhaustively good in quantity. If something is corruptible, but not corrupted, then I have a hard time saying it isn't perfectly good. Because if I denied that it was perfectly good, I'd have to say there was a flaw. But I don't see how I could say it had a flaw if it was not in fact corrupted. To say it has a flaw implies that it is corrupted, which contradicts the stipulation that it is corruptible but not corrupted. So maybe incorruptibility isn't necessary for something to be perfectly good in the qualitative sense. Instead, it's just a quantitative addition to goodness. But I don't really know. I'm just writing off the top of my head.

I would disagree. Lets say a perfect radio player is one that never breaks down. If we have a radio player that works fine now and will never break down, and another one which works fine now but still break down, the one that will break down is flawed, even though it's fine now. It seems you are looking at perfection as only mattering to the present. If this is the case, then if something only works for a only milisecond, but it works just as good as something that lasts for years, then it is still just as good However, in the grand scheme of things, it's flawed because it can break down eventually, while the other one cannot.


I don't see any reason to think that God being perfectly good would be a reason for God not to create.

Because, if he is perfectly good, then he should be satisfied with his perfection. If he feels compelled to make something else, this means that he himself is not good enough to satisfy himself. This seems to make no sense if he is perfect.

In fact, just the opposite seems to be the case. If God were perfectly good, I would think he would want to act out his goodness.

This implies that a God who didn't act out his goodness, was lacking something. This puts his perfection in question once again.

I don't think everything in creation would need to be as perfect as God before God would want to create it. It would be enough for it to serve his purposes.

If his purpose includes introducing reality to less than perfect goodness, when reality only consisted of perfect goodness beforehand, then it's rational to question the goodness of the purpose.

Sometimes, flaws are built into things because it serves a purpose. For example, I made the mistake of buying a Dell laptop several years ago, and after a certain amount of time, the battery just quit. And it didn't gradually run out of juice; it quit suddenly. I got another battery, and it did the same thing. I started reading around on line, and several people had the same problem and began to speculate that the batteries were designed to fail. And the purpose was so people would buy another battery. You might be tempted to think that a battery which fails is a reflection on the inadequacy of the designer until you realize the designer had a purpose in the battery failing.

The problem is, Dell isn't defined as a perfectly good company. This seems like a false analogy.


If the greatest good is the glory of God, then God's ultimate goal shouldn't be that he maintain the higher possible ratio of good to evil in the universe (which he could've easily done by not creating anything). Rather, his goal should be to express his glory, which had can do by creating things that are less perfect than himself. It's not a strike against his goodness that he does so; rather, it's a reflection of his goodness.

I think it is a strike against his goodness. He could express his glory within the trinity, between his three perfect parts. This would mean that reality would still be 100% perfectly good. I still don't see why a perfectly good God, would want to taint reality with that which is not perfectly good.


We are speculating up to this point on what a perfect being would do, but the Bible actually tells us what God's motives were in a lot of things he did. It repeatedly says he did this or that "for the sake of his name" or "to the praise of his glory" or something along those lines. Jonathan Edwards wrote a small booklet called The End For Which God Created the World in which he argued both from philosophy and scripture that God's chief end in creating the world was for his own glory. So God's motives is the expression of his attributes and the praise of his glory. It's not to try to keep reality is perfect and free from evil as possible.

If God was perfectly good though, he would want reality to be free from evil, no? Like you said, he could still add goodness to reality, but why wasn't it perfect goodness? Why wouldn't God just add more peanut butter to reality, instead of adding bread as well? If evil is just a lack of good, then bread would be evil in this equation because it's just a lack of peanut butter. If one can conceive of a being who only added perfect goodness to reality, then this being would rationally, have to be considered a better candidate for perfectly good, than a being who didn't.

http://www.prayermeetings.org...
SavedByChrist94
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 5:20:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 3:40:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 3:02:17 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/31/2013 2:08:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:08:33 PM, philochristos wrote:
I don't know. I think they were perfectly good in the sense that they had no corruption in them, but they were unlike God in the fact that while God is not corruptible, creation was.

Is it flawed to be corruptible, or is being corruptible part of being perfect? If something is corruptible, then it cannot be perfectly good, if a perfect being is not corruptible. I think it seems clear that if God exists, only he can be perfectly good. Thus, it seems unlikley that he would create anything at all. Any creation would just infer the beginning of some flaw with regards to goodness being pumped into reality, because nothing could meet up to his standard, and thus anything else lacks goodness (which makes it "evil", if "evil" is just a lack of "goodness"). A God only reality would be perfectly good, so only a non-perfectly good being would want to change that state of affairs. It makes more sense to assume, that a perfectly good being would not create anything, and just be satisfied with it's perfection.

I think the line between being corruptible but not corrupted and being incorruptible may just be a difference between quality and quantity. That is, something can be perfectly good in quality without being exhaustively good in quantity. If something is corruptible, but not corrupted, then I have a hard time saying it isn't perfectly good. Because if I denied that it was perfectly good, I'd have to say there was a flaw. But I don't see how I could say it had a flaw if it was not in fact corrupted. To say it has a flaw implies that it is corrupted, which contradicts the stipulation that it is corruptible but not corrupted. So maybe incorruptibility isn't necessary for something to be perfectly good in the qualitative sense. Instead, it's just a quantitative addition to goodness. But I don't really know. I'm just writing off the top of my head.

I would disagree. Lets say a perfect radio player is one that never breaks down. If we have a radio player that works fine now and will never break down, and another one which works fine now but still break down, the one that will break down is flawed, even though it's fine now. It seems you are looking at perfection as only mattering to the present. If this is the case, then if something only works for a only milisecond, but it works just as good as something that lasts for years, then it is still just as good However, in the grand scheme of things, it's flawed because it can break down eventually, while the other one cannot.


I don't see any reason to think that God being perfectly good would be a reason for God not to create.

Because, if he is perfectly good, then he should be satisfied with his perfection. If he feels compelled to make something else, this means that he himself is not good enough to satisfy himself. This seems to make no sense if he is perfect.

In fact, just the opposite seems to be the case. If God were perfectly good, I would think he would want to act out his goodness.

This implies that a God who didn't act out his goodness, was lacking something. This puts his perfection in question once again.

I don't think everything in creation would need to be as perfect as God before God would want to create it. It would be enough for it to serve his purposes.

If his purpose includes introducing reality to less than perfect goodness, when reality only consisted of perfect goodness beforehand, then it's rational to question the goodness of the purpose.

Sometimes, flaws are built into things because it serves a purpose. For example, I made the mistake of buying a Dell laptop several years ago, and after a certain amount of time, the battery just quit. And it didn't gradually run out of juice; it quit suddenly. I got another battery, and it did the same thing. I started reading around on line, and several people had the same problem and began to speculate that the batteries were designed to fail. And the purpose was so people would buy another battery. You might be tempted to think that a battery which fails is a reflection on the inadequacy of the designer until you realize the designer had a purpose in the battery failing.

The problem is, Dell isn't defined as a perfectly good company. This seems like a false analogy.


If the greatest good is the glory of God, then God's ultimate goal shouldn't be that he maintain the higher possible ratio of good to evil in the universe (which he could've easily done by not creating anything). Rather, his goal should be to express his glory, which had can do by creating things that are less perfect than himself. It's not a strike against his goodness that he does so; rather, it's a reflection of his goodness.

I think it is a strike against his goodness. He could express his glory within the trinity, between his three perfect parts. This would mean that reality would still be 100% perfectly good. I still don't see why a perfectly good God, would want to taint reality with that which is not perfectly good.


We are speculating up to this point on what a perfect being would do, but the Bible actually tells us what God's motives were in a lot of things he did. It repeatedly says he did this or that "for the sake of his name" or "to the praise of his glory" or something along those lines. Jonathan Edwards wrote a small booklet called The End For Which God Created the World in which he argued both from philosophy and scripture that God's chief end in creating the world was for his own glory. So God's motives is the expression of his attributes and the praise of his glory. It's not to try to keep reality is perfect and free from evil as possible.

If God was perfectly good though, he would want reality to be free from evil, no? Like you said, he could still add goodness to reality, but why wasn't it perfect goodness? Why wouldn't God just add more peanut butter to reality, instead of adding bread as well? If evil is just a lack of good, then bread would be evil in this equation because it's just a lack of peanut butter. If one can conceive of a being who only added perfect goodness to reality, then this being would rationally, have to be considered a better candidate for perfectly good, than a being who didn't.

http://www.prayermeetings.org...

YHWH has to allow suffering, http://savedbychrist94.blogspot.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 5:35:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 5:20:36 PM, SavedByChrist94 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 3:40:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 3:02:17 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/31/2013 2:08:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:08:33 PM, philochristos wrote:
I don't know. I think they were perfectly good in the sense that they had no corruption in them, but they were unlike God in the fact that while God is not corruptible, creation was.

Is it flawed to be corruptible, or is being corruptible part of being perfect? If something is corruptible, then it cannot be perfectly good, if a perfect being is not corruptible. I think it seems clear that if God exists, only he can be perfectly good. Thus, it seems unlikley that he would create anything at all. Any creation would just infer the beginning of some flaw with regards to goodness being pumped into reality, because nothing could meet up to his standard, and thus anything else lacks goodness (which makes it "evil", if "evil" is just a lack of "goodness"). A God only reality would be perfectly good, so only a non-perfectly good being would want to change that state of affairs. It makes more sense to assume, that a perfectly good being would not create anything, and just be satisfied with it's perfection.

I think the line between being corruptible but not corrupted and being incorruptible may just be a difference between quality and quantity. That is, something can be perfectly good in quality without being exhaustively good in quantity. If something is corruptible, but not corrupted, then I have a hard time saying it isn't perfectly good. Because if I denied that it was perfectly good, I'd have to say there was a flaw. But I don't see how I could say it had a flaw if it was not in fact corrupted. To say it has a flaw implies that it is corrupted, which contradicts the stipulation that it is corruptible but not corrupted. So maybe incorruptibility isn't necessary for something to be perfectly good in the qualitative sense. Instead, it's just a quantitative addition to goodness. But I don't really know. I'm just writing off the top of my head.

I would disagree. Lets say a perfect radio player is one that never breaks down. If we have a radio player that works fine now and will never break down, and another one which works fine now but still break down, the one that will break down is flawed, even though it's fine now. It seems you are looking at perfection as only mattering to the present. If this is the case, then if something only works for a only milisecond, but it works just as good as something that lasts for years, then it is still just as good However, in the grand scheme of things, it's flawed because it can break down eventually, while the other one cannot.


I don't see any reason to think that God being perfectly good would be a reason for God not to create.

Because, if he is perfectly good, then he should be satisfied with his perfection. If he feels compelled to make something else, this means that he himself is not good enough to satisfy himself. This seems to make no sense if he is perfect.

In fact, just the opposite seems to be the case. If God were perfectly good, I would think he would want to act out his goodness.

This implies that a God who didn't act out his goodness, was lacking something. This puts his perfection in question once again.

I don't think everything in creation would need to be as perfect as God before God would want to create it. It would be enough for it to serve his purposes.

If his purpose includes introducing reality to less than perfect goodness, when reality only consisted of perfect goodness beforehand, then it's rational to question the goodness of the purpose.

Sometimes, flaws are built into things because it serves a purpose. For example, I made the mistake of buying a Dell laptop several years ago, and after a certain amount of time, the battery just quit. And it didn't gradually run out of juice; it quit suddenly. I got another battery, and it did the same thing. I started reading around on line, and several people had the same problem and began to speculate that the batteries were designed to fail. And the purpose was so people would buy another battery. You might be tempted to think that a battery which fails is a reflection on the inadequacy of the designer until you realize the designer had a purpose in the battery failing.

The problem is, Dell isn't defined as a perfectly good company. This seems like a false analogy.


If the greatest good is the glory of God, then God's ultimate goal shouldn't be that he maintain the higher possible ratio of good to evil in the universe (which he could've easily done by not creating anything). Rather, his goal should be to express his glory, which had can do by creating things that are less perfect than himself. It's not a strike against his goodness that he does so; rather, it's a reflection of his goodness.

I think it is a strike against his goodness. He could express his glory within the trinity, between his three perfect parts. This would mean that reality would still be 100% perfectly good. I still don't see why a perfectly good God, would want to taint reality with that which is not perfectly good.


We are speculating up to this point on what a perfect being would do, but the Bible actually tells us what God's motives were in a lot of things he did. It repeatedly says he did this or that "for the sake of his name" or "to the praise of his glory" or something along those lines. Jonathan Edwards wrote a small booklet called The End For Which God Created the World in which he argued both from philosophy and scripture that God's chief end in creating the world was for his own glory. So God's motives is the expression of his attributes and the praise of his glory. It's not to try to keep reality is perfect and free from evil as possible.

If God was perfectly good though, he would want reality to be free from evil, no? Like you said, he could still add goodness to reality, but why wasn't it perfect goodness? Why wouldn't God just add more peanut butter to reality, instead of adding bread as well? If evil is just a lack of good, then bread would be evil in this equation because it's just a lack of peanut butter. If one can conceive of a being who only added perfect goodness to reality, then this being would rationally, have to be considered a better candidate for perfectly good, than a being who didn't.

http://www.prayermeetings.org...

YHWH has to allow suffering, http://savedbychrist94.blogspot.com...

"Scenario 1:

I prevent person A from tripping, and because of that a majority of humanity dies and Person A never learns to watch their step

Scenario 2, I allow someone to trip, they learn from that and because of allowing it someone else lives.

Which is immoral, 1 or 2? Obvious 1, I should have allowed a person A to trip for 2 reasons, 1 to prevent this person from tripping again as this person will learn from this accident to watch his step, and 2, others get to live."


What about a scenario 3?....

You don't put tripping into the equation at all. A being who did this, would be the most moral.
SavedByChrist94
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 5:39:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 5:35:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 5:20:36 PM, SavedByChrist94 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 3:40:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 3:02:17 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/31/2013 2:08:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:08:33 PM, philochristos wrote:
I don't know. I think they were perfectly good in the sense that they had no corruption in them, but they were unlike God in the fact that while God is not corruptible, creation was.

Is it flawed to be corruptible, or is being corruptible part of being perfect? If something is corruptible, then it cannot be perfectly good, if a perfect being is not corruptible. I think it seems clear that if God exists, only he can be perfectly good. Thus, it seems unlikley that he would create anything at all. Any creation would just infer the beginning of some flaw with regards to goodness being pumped into reality, because nothing could meet up to his standard, and thus anything else lacks goodness (which makes it "evil", if "evil" is just a lack of "goodness"). A God only reality would be perfectly good, so only a non-perfectly good being would want to change that state of affairs. It makes more sense to assume, that a perfectly good being would not create anything, and just be satisfied with it's perfection.

I think the line between being corruptible but not corrupted and being incorruptible may just be a difference between quality and quantity. That is, something can be perfectly good in quality without being exhaustively good in quantity. If something is corruptible, but not corrupted, then I have a hard time saying it isn't perfectly good. Because if I denied that it was perfectly good, I'd have to say there was a flaw. But I don't see how I could say it had a flaw if it was not in fact corrupted. To say it has a flaw implies that it is corrupted, which contradicts the stipulation that it is corruptible but not corrupted. So maybe incorruptibility isn't necessary for something to be perfectly good in the qualitative sense. Instead, it's just a quantitative addition to goodness. But I don't really know. I'm just writing off the top of my head.

I would disagree. Lets say a perfect radio player is one that never breaks down. If we have a radio player that works fine now and will never break down, and another one which works fine now but still break down, the one that will break down is flawed, even though it's fine now. It seems you are looking at perfection as only mattering to the present. If this is the case, then if something only works for a only milisecond, but it works just as good as something that lasts for years, then it is still just as good However, in the grand scheme of things, it's flawed because it can break down eventually, while the other one cannot.


I don't see any reason to think that God being perfectly good would be a reason for God not to create.

Because, if he is perfectly good, then he should be satisfied with his perfection. If he feels compelled to make something else, this means that he himself is not good enough to satisfy himself. This seems to make no sense if he is perfect.

In fact, just the opposite seems to be the case. If God were perfectly good, I would think he would want to act out his goodness.

This implies that a God who didn't act out his goodness, was lacking something. This puts his perfection in question once again.

I don't think everything in creation would need to be as perfect as God before God would want to create it. It would be enough for it to serve his purposes.

If his purpose includes introducing reality to less than perfect goodness, when reality only consisted of perfect goodness beforehand, then it's rational to question the goodness of the purpose.

Sometimes, flaws are built into things because it serves a purpose. For example, I made the mistake of buying a Dell laptop several years ago, and after a certain amount of time, the battery just quit. And it didn't gradually run out of juice; it quit suddenly. I got another battery, and it did the same thing. I started reading around on line, and several people had the same problem and began to speculate that the batteries were designed to fail. And the purpose was so people would buy another battery. You might be tempted to think that a battery which fails is a reflection on the inadequacy of the designer until you realize the designer had a purpose in the battery failing.

The problem is, Dell isn't defined as a perfectly good company. This seems like a false analogy.


If the greatest good is the glory of God, then God's ultimate goal shouldn't be that he maintain the higher possible ratio of good to evil in the universe (which he could've easily done by not creating anything). Rather, his goal should be to express his glory, which had can do by creating things that are less perfect than himself. It's not a strike against his goodness that he does so; rather, it's a reflection of his goodness.

I think it is a strike against his goodness. He could express his glory within the trinity, between his three perfect parts. This would mean that reality would still be 100% perfectly good. I still don't see why a perfectly good God, would want to taint reality with that which is not perfectly good.


We are speculating up to this point on what a perfect being would do, but the Bible actually tells us what God's motives were in a lot of things he did. It repeatedly says he did this or that "for the sake of his name" or "to the praise of his glory" or something along those lines. Jonathan Edwards wrote a small booklet called The End For Which God Created the World in which he argued both from philosophy and scripture that God's chief end in creating the world was for his own glory. So God's motives is the expression of his attributes and the praise of his glory. It's not to try to keep reality is perfect and free from evil as possible.

If God was perfectly good though, he would want reality to be free from evil, no? Like you said, he could still add goodness to reality, but why wasn't it perfect goodness? Why wouldn't God just add more peanut butter to reality, instead of adding bread as well? If evil is just a lack of good, then bread would be evil in this equation because it's just a lack of peanut butter. If one can conceive of a being who only added perfect goodness to reality, then this being would rationally, have to be considered a better candidate for perfectly good, than a being who didn't.

http://www.prayermeetings.org...

YHWH has to allow suffering, http://savedbychrist94.blogspot.com...

"Scenario 1:

I prevent person A from tripping, and because of that a majority of humanity dies and Person A never learns to watch their step

Scenario 2, I allow someone to trip, they learn from that and because of allowing it someone else lives.

Which is immoral, 1 or 2? Obvious 1, I should have allowed a person A to trip for 2 reasons, 1 to prevent this person from tripping again as this person will learn from this accident to watch his step, and 2, others get to live."


What about a scenario 3?....

You don't put tripping into the equation at all. A being who did this, would be the most moral.

Tripping exist because of free will, if you put in Scenario 3 we are void of Free Will, therefore void of Conscious beings and therefore there is no other scenario, which is Immoral, it's better to have life than no life at all.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 5:56:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@ SavedByChrist94

Tripping exist because of free will, if you put in Scenario 3 we are void of Free Will,

First of all, tripping almost always happens by accident, not by conscious free choice. Regardless, why would a world void of the ability to trip, be a world void of free will? We live in a world without the ability to teleport to mars in a second, and without the ability to jump 30 feet in the air without external support. Does this mean we do not have free will? If not, then why would a world without tripping, infer a world without free will? It seems you are committing the special pleading fallacy. Thus, your argument is invalid

therefore void of Conscious beings

"Human beings are void of consciousness", does not follow from "human beings are void of free will". One could still have a self-awareness, or a conscious experience even if they have no choice at all, with the experience being completely deterministic. Since your conclusion doesn't follow from the preceding notion, your argument is a non-sequitur.

and therefore there is no other scenario, which is Immoral, it's better to have life than no life at all.

Since your conclusions are based on fallacies, your argument here is invalid. One could only choose between good things, and we would still have free will.