An often cited criticism of creation, as described in Genesis, is the
obvious imperfection and corruptibility of the world. An all-knowing,
all-powerful God would of course have created a perfect world, free
from suffering and sin, incorruptible. The fact that the world is not
perfect proves either an incompetent creator, a malicious creator or no
creator.

Like most easy explanations, it deserves a closer look. Is an imperfect
creation truly impossible for a perfect creator? Perhaps a perfect
creation can indeed become corrupted? Is not corruption one of the
possible outcomes of Free Will? Was creation perfect?

Perfection is the word we use to describe flawlessness, completeness,
excellence - an exact matching of an ideal instance. The concept of
perfection can lead to much confusion, dilemmas and contradictions. In
this examination we will limit it's scope to it's relation to
intent or design. It does not make sense to condemn an orange for not
being a perfect because it is not a perfect sphere when it is, in fact,
being a perfect orange.

If our definition of the word "perfection" limits it's meaning to
that which cannot corrupt (which is seen as a flaw) then we may have to
stop here. However, if we accept that perfection is an intrinsic
property based on it's exact match of design and that external
factors can corrupt it, we may proceed. If a perfect orange can be
squashed then it's perfection does not preclude corruption by
external factors. If God made a perfect world and placed imperfect
creatures in it, corruption is a possible outcome.

Corruption, in this sense, is a deviation from intent, from perfection.
There is a temptation, at this stage, to differentiate between 2 types
of corruption: moral (man tells lies) and natural (apples rot). Common
use of corruption implies moral corruption. For the purposes of our
examination, corruption, is any deviation from the state of perfection
whether natural, moral or otherwise.

If we assume a perfect world and perfect creatures (something the Bible
does not assert) we may be tempted to conclude that corruption is
impossible without external factors. But what if a perfect creature is
given a power which can drive change, a Free Will? It now becomes clear
that corruption is a possible (and likely) consequence. The concept of
Free Will implies unrestricted choice and, of the many choices
available, some lead to corruption. If the choice towards corruption is
excluded it is not Free Will so Free Will must allow this "wrong"
choice. Given time, corruption is almost inevitable for Free creatures.

If we deny the existence of Free Will then we can likewise stop here,
for without it or an external imperfect factor there seems to be no way
for perfection to become corrupted. However, there is nothing illogical
about a perfect circle becoming oval or crooked through external
influences so corruption is logically possible by external means.
Likewise a perfect Man may cut off his finger or tell a lie and corrupt
himself. If we accept that perfection can, and has become corrupted
through Free Will we can search on for a reconciliation of corruption
with the idea of a perfect creator. Just how can a perfect creator
allow this sorry state to have happened?

The battle for reconciliation is lost if we assume that a perfect,
incorruptible creation was intended by the creator. The world,
obviously misaligned with this intent, is a blatant mistake and we've
got our proof of an incompetent and imperfect creator.

The Bible however, makes no assertion that God intended a perfect world
which could not corrupt. In fact, the Bible is a faithful record of the
corruption of the world and the conflict with it's creator. The Bible
is, in fact, a strong case against any illusions of a perfect,
incorruptible creation. The Bible's core message is, in fact, that we
need God to redeem us from our own corruption.

Although Genesis tells us that God saw that "it was good", this
does not rule out the possibility of it being corrupted. In fact,
according to the Bible, God created all living and crawling things
including the tree and the serpent which initiated the corruption of
Man. The potential for disaster was thus present at creation, placed by
God, and (at least in theory) not inevitable. Is not Free Will an
imperfection? Maybe, but whether creation was perfect or not, we are
not sure of the overall intent and cannot judge competence. It may have
been designed with imperfections for a non-obvious purpose.

We see that the idea of perfection is inextricable linked with that of
intent. If we do not know the intent we cannot judge perfection. The
Bible tells us that God is good and loving so we can assume that a good
God did not intend our present sorry state. Thus, if God is competent
and creation matches his intent, it is likely that:
1)      Free Will excludes any control from being exercised in this regard
AND
2)      The redemption offered is sufficiently "good" to satisfy the
intent

Point 2 implies that the end does ineed justify the means. That's a
pretty harsh reality.

Although I have argued that perfection can become corrupted, it is
clear that Man is not perfect. We are not all-powerful, we are not all
knowing, we are weak, we get tired, we make mistakes. Adam and Eve, the
first humans, were likewise imperfect. We were created with good
intent, but corrupted by our choice. The Bible does not assert an
incorruptible creation or incorruptible creatures, quite the contrary.

Without a base for assuming intended incorruptibility the criticism of
an incompetent creator falls apart. God intended Free Will, aware of
the disastrous possibilities. The choice was Man's, the consequence
of the wrong choice, corruption. Redemption the only answer.

The argument from imperfection, when used as negative evidence against
Creationism (I personally do not think this argument should be used
against ID, but it's fair game when arguing against Biblical
Creationism), is not about the imperfection of society and the world,
but about the imperfection of living structures. Unless you believe
that our free will has an effect on the physical imperfection of
biological structures, your argument is irrelevant.

The Biblical God was repeatedly enraged about the imperfection of
society and the world.  There was the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah, except for Lot and his family.  There was the great flood to
destroy the whole world except for Noah and his family and menagerie.
Jericho was leveled because they deserved it.  Moses was given devine
assistance to rescue the chosen people from Egypt.  Then Jesus was sent
to offer redemption to anyone who would listen.  The societies of the
world just can't seem to get it right.

Doug Chandler

That's the spirit!  Some well timed bluster might distract from the
spectacle of ID's arguments weakening before our eyes.

CT

I dunno;  once you admit the possibility of gods, there's is no reason
why God (in the monotheistic sense) would have to match the traditional
Christian ideas of his character.  He could conceivably be capable of
creating everything, but to do a mediocre job of it, as He likely would
if He was as fallible as Greek or Norse gods.

Or, He could show up all over the world and convince everybody that it
is He, and let us know exactly how the true religion should be.

Neither case would change how scientists are supposed to work.  And
arguments against a fallible God are not arguments against there being
some God.

Eric Root

Actually no, it does not "deserve a closer look." Before you can
dictate the traits and abilities that the gods (your "creators") have
you must first show they exist. Only *AFTER* that may the issue
"deserve a closer look."

[...]

I see two issues here: first, the question of just how free is our free
will and, second, that it should make no difference if we assume an
omniscient God.

We are contingent beings in the sense that what we are is influenced by
forces beyond ourselves.  What we are physically is, to a large extent,
inherited from our parents.  What we are psychologically is partly
inherited and partly shaped by our experiences as we move through life.
  And much of this occurs before we are even aware of what is happening
to us.  By the time we are exercising our 'free will' the choices we
make have already been pushed in certain directions, even if they have
not been absolutely pre-determined or - more to the point - even if
they are not absolutely predictable by us.

But an omniscient God - to be truly omniscient - must know in advance
all the choices we are going to make for good or ill.  So how can a
just God punish us for doing evil that He must have known we would do
because that is how He made us?

I doubt that it is possible to reconcile the concept of a necessary -
in the philosophical sense - God, who is omniscient, omnipotent and
omnibenevolent, with a contingent, imperfect Universe and beings, like
ourselves, who are fallible and capable of great evil.

Ian

--
Ian H Spedding

"Ian H Spedding" <ian.spedd...@homecall.co.uk> wrote in
news:1147841092.621653.106840@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Moreover, as anyone who's ever hummed along with Handel's "Messiah" knows:

"The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and
we shall be changed." [I Corinthians 15:51 or so]

So, if the trumpet makes us incorruptible, why didn't God just blow that
baby hot and sweet from the start?

To my mind, the choice is among a) a limited, but good, God, b) an
omniscient, and nasty, God, or c) neither. Given my druthers, I'd plump for  
the a) option, but my empirical nature shoves me toward c).

-JAH

Down to a practical application.
As you may know, it happens occasionally that in newborn babies
the chambers of the heart are not separated.
As a consequence these babies have short miserable lives,
permanently and in vain trying to get some oxygen.
Unless a surgeon interferes in time to repair the fault
(possibly only quite recently)
in which case they usually grow up into healthy adults.

Please explain how giving mankind free will
is the cause of babies being born with imperfect hearts.

Jan

Hi Jack,

Imperfection---from our egoestic view. But not from God's view.

ANALOGY:
  A citizen misused the facilities and freedom offered by the king of
his country.He was put in to a jail, so that he may reform himself or
atleast not cause further problems for others. He was suffering in the
jail.
But what was the criminal's reaction?
........"Its not my fault".......Some one or some thing else is
responsible for my plight.The king is ruling imperfectly.I am suffering
because the king made such a horrible place called jail.

But why did the king make the jail?
  He knew that when freedom(freewill) is given, there will surely be
some people will mis-utilize it. From the king's point of view the jail
is a necessary part of his kingdom.It is a perfect arrangement  for the
wellbeing of the majority.

SIMILARLY:
  This world of suffering is not the only place existant. Bible
explains about the kingdom of God too. This world is like a small jail
in the vast Kingdom of God.The Vedic scriptures say that the Kingdom of
God is eternal, i.e it is neither created or nor subject to
destructuion. That eternally is and the citizens there are eternally
blissful. There is not a tinge of material torment there.

  But this world in which we are currently living is subject to
REPEATED creation and anihilation.Supporting this point Bible describes
the creation model. Even Srimad Bhagavatam describes a similar Creation
model.Unlike the eternal Kingdom of God, people of this world are
subject to repeated birth, suffering and death and that is not an
imperfection from God's point of view. Rather it is a perfect
arrangement of God to take us back to our original home-- the kingdom
of God-- the land of eternal beauty and bliss-- where everyone
cooperates in enjoying with God.

  Just as a prisoner misses so many enjoyments that others enjoy,
similarly a soul in this world misses the eternal blissful delights
that others enjoy along with God. God wants us to be with Him and enjoy
eternaly. But since by nature the souls are pleasure seeking, we in
this world look for a shortcut to pleasure in a selfish and sinful way.
Most of the times we dont even care to consider that my pleasure can be
a cause of extreme suffering for others. But when souls in this world
are not ready to reform God shows His special Love for us by giving
small punishments....Just as a loving mother slaps her adamant
child.Not only God gives us punishments, he gives us rewards for our
good deeds.And most importantly He has given us so many scriptures and
has sent us so manty Prophets who guide us out of this world of
suffering.

If we find it difficult to accept that we can be at fault --- then it
is simply because of our false ego.

CONCLUSION:

1.This world of suffering is not the only place in God's creation.
2.There is no suffering in the Kingdom of God except for the material
world(God's prison house)
3.The temporary sufferings of this world is a perfect arrangement of
God to reform us and give us eternal  bliss.
4.Creation model given in Bible dosent show God's imperfection, rather
shows His perfection.

ALL GLORIES TO GOD AND HIS PERFECT CREATION.

Warm regards
Samvit.

There are rather many examples, in the Old Testament, of God striking
entire populations with death and disease in punishment for the minor
misdeeds of a few.

JAN:
Please explain how giving mankind free will
is the cause of babies being born with imperfect hearts.

SAMVIT:
Hi Jan,
 How about past life sins? Many Christians don't accept reincarnation.
But a careful study of Bible indicates indirect references to
reincarnation.The concept of reincarnation answers the theological
questions more consistently.

J. J. LODDER:
Is not corruption one of the possible outcomes of Free Will?

SAMVIT:
Yes, it is.

Your next question can be:
Is it not God's mistake to give us Free Will?

No, it isn't.
A dead stone has no free will. So God has created both--- things with
free will and things without it. You and I are conscious beings, not
dead stones. Can you imagin our lives without free will? Can we love,
care and feel for any one without having free will? Can a stone love
you?

God has made beings with free will for a different purpose ---- to
reciprocate loving relationship with Him and with His other children,
IN THE KING DOM OF GOD.

It is our mistake to misutilize that Free Will, for which we come here
to this world of miseries. If God Loves us then He should give us Free
Will. And so He has given us that.If I say I love you but I restrict
your freedom to do only that what I want you to Do then can you call it
love? You would surely say it exploitation, right?

Warm Regards
Samvit

Which passages, specifically?

(snip the rest)

Stop telling god what to think!

Why not just assume Body Thetans cause imperfect hearts? For a mere
$400,000 you too can pay Scientology to get rid of those spirits of
murdered space aliens.

As you see by my analogy, your "past life sins" is a bullshit "answer"
that does not answer anything.

Three of the creators of Jesus has him asking his imaginary disciples
"Who do the people think that I am?" (Matt.16:13-20. and Mark 8:27-30,
Luke something-or-other) Jesus apparently shows no surprise at all at
being told some people believe his is one of two long-dead profits of
the desert tribal fertility-war god Yahweh.

Some Christians claim this suggests early Christianity accepted
reincarnation. It merely suggests that several creators of Jesus, and
uncountable redactors, believed reincarnation was a belief held by some
Hellenzed Jews.

However, since the creator of Christianity was from Tarsus and since
Christianity is an Eastern cult, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest
it once taught reincarnation.

That's all very logical, but...

Only religious people back ID, for obvious reasons - they all know (wink
wink) 'the designer' is their god.  Redefine the designer as some
amateur hobbyist creator and see how long the faithful line up behind
your scam.  If he makes mistakes as he creates, how can he be trusted to
dictate absolute right and wrong?  How can you be sure he didn't
accidentally put your name on the list for hell?

I think we should encourage this 'incompetent creator' idea.  Let's see
how far we can get them to decertify their god.

CT

"On 16 May 2006 14:44:44 -0700, in article
<1147815884.233936.71...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, dysfunction stated..."
[...snip...]

    I would argue, almost, the contrary: That the argument from
imperfection is fair game as a response to ID; but less so for
standard creationism.

    Here's my take on it. I wouldn't so much call it "imperfection",
as some observations about features of the natural world. Features
such as the conflicts between things that are "so complex that they
had to be designed", like The Eye Of The Predator and The Eye Of
The Prey, and like The Virulence Enhancing Bacterial Flagellum and
the Bacteria Combatting Adaptive Immune System. Or the complexity
of the Tree Of Life, too complex to be an accident, and must either
be due to common ancestry or due to a design mimicking common ancestry.
Or features which are complex solutions to some problem, which indicate
that there was a complex problem to be solved.

    As long as the advocates of the Analogy of Design tell us
that we can draw some conclusion from our perceptions of the
natural world, they are telling us that we have some objective
knowledge about the world.

    They claim that the complexity that they talk about is an
objective feature of reality. "It sure looks complex to me" is
enough for them. Well, then, "It sure looks like conflict" is
as serious an observation, and so is "Complex solutions indicate
complex problems."

--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>    
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..."                            John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II

You are correct, Free Will applies only to moral corruption while
natural corruption and imperfections (rotting apples or inadequate
thigh-bones) remain unaffected by our will.

Thus I contend that imperfection of any sort does not imply an
incompetant or non-existant creator. The question of intent is critical
in judging the competance of the creator.

_.-In talk.origins, Desertphile wrote the following -._

It also is brought up in Matt/Luke when JC cures the blindness on the
side of the road.  One of the people involved ask if they are blind
because of something they did in their prior life.
--
=()==()==()==()==()- http://fauxascii.com
  \   \   \   \   \   \  ASCII artist
 :F_P:-O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O-  -O-
 \  \   \   \   \   \   \   \    \

Free Will Incoherency

A proof that the free will argument for the existence of evil is
unsound.

For the purpose of this argument God is defined as an entity that
created mankind and is omnipotent and maximally benevolent.

1) An agent that has free will, when faced with a moral dilemma, has
the choice to do a good thing or to do an evil thing.
2) God has free will since otherwise it would be constrained to act
deterministically and thus would not be omnipotent.
3) Therefore by 1) and 2) God could choose to do evil if it were so
inclined.
4) But God does not do evil because its nature is to be maximally
benevolent.
5) It is therefore possible for an agent both to have free will but to
always be benevolent.
6) But if 5) is true then god could have created man as a benevolent
free agent.
7) Since man is capable of evil then God in eschewing 6) is responsible
for that evil and thus not omnipotent or not benevolent. Alternatively
the notion of free will is incoherent.
QED

I believe you've left out the "malicious creator" option from your
discussion, and that it's still a quite viable option given what we
know.

<snip>

But it's also clear that we do not have "unrestricted choice."  The
prisons are full of people who had neglectful or abusive parents.  Shy
people rarely take jobs as public speakers.

Few people choose to remove their skin with a potato peeler, not only
because it would cause hideous scarring but because of the pain
involved.  Does this mean that our free will is abridged?  If not, why
is our having the choice of whether or not to rob a bank vital to us
having free will?

<snip>

I'm curious, is there sin in heaven?  Or is there no free will in
heaven?

No answer to the question.

Jan

Roq
If I give you a book and you hit someone with it, am I responsible for
that person's pain?
If God gives us Free Will and we choose disobedience and evil, God is
not responsible.
Your argument is based on causality theory in which initial conditions
determine the outcome and are responsible for it. Determinism. Free
Will breaks causality.
Jack

Hi Inez

Thanks for your comments and questions, I hope I can answer them.

I've advanced the most probable theory based on my belief and
experience. I've also tried to show that the Bible's claim of a
benevolent, omnipotent God is not incompatible with an imperfect
reality. Feel free to argue the malicious creator argument or see "Mere
Christianity" by C.S. Lewis where he argues that malice and any sort of
evil is always a corruption of goodness and thus subordinate to it and
derived (degraded) from it.

Although Free Will means our will is boundless, our power is quite
obviously bounded. Also, don't mistake a popular choice for a lack of
choice. There are masochists who enjoy pain.

Excellent question! I am no authority on heaven but I assume there is
Free Will but that for it's "residents" that will is aligned with God -
a kind of allegiance. Rebels, of which Satan is the most prominent
example, are cast from heaven.

Jack