Evidence for God from Science

Deuteronomy 32:4 - He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgement: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

For starters, I am a believer. I wanted to make that clear up front in hope that this would be a discussion focused on helping a fellow believer get through some of his tough questions and not focused on arguing with a non-believer.


The word perfect has a formal and an informal sense.
Formal perfection - without faults: without errors, flaws, or faults

Informal perfection - complete and whole: complete and lacking nothing essential



Now, for the verse in deuteronomy to make sense, doesn't it imply a formal usage of the word perfection? Can God do anything that is imperfect? If God created humans (who are obviously imperfect), how is this not a contradiction? We would all agree that God is formally perfect - that is, He is without faults, errors, or flaws. But how are we not stuck with the problem that He then created something which is formally imperfect (humans)? Is this not a contradiction? Do we smuggle in the informal definition of perfection when we can't logically hold true to the formal definition?

Secondly...

Genesis 6: 6-7 - And it repented the Lord that he made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have craeted from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Since God was sorry and regretted that he had made man, how is it not logical to say that God made an imperfect decision when he created man in the first place?

Can we, as Christians, have it both ways? I don't see how...
Either all of our God's works are not truly perfect as the bible says, or man never sinned in the first place. Either explanation puts me in a corner that appears with a doctrinal contradiction...

I couldn't find a thread that already addressed this topic. If one exists, I don't mind reading it over to avoid redundancy...

God's work is perfect for it's (His) intended purpose.
Perfection in of itself can only exist in/as God so nothing is perfect per say BUT perfect for it's intended purpose, yes of course.

BenThinkingLately wrote:Deuteronomy 32:4 - He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgement: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

For starters, I am a believer. I wanted to make that clear up front in hope that this would be a discussion focused on helping a fellow believer get through some of his tough questions and not focused on arguing with a non-believer.

The word perfect has a formal and an informal sense.
Formal perfection - without faults: without errors, flaws, or faults

Informal perfection - complete and whole: complete and lacking nothing essential

Now, for the verse in deuteronomy to make sense, doesn't it imply a formal usage of the word perfection? Can God do anything that is imperfect? If God created humans (who are obviously imperfect), how is this not a contradiction? We would all agree that God is formally perfect - that is, He is without faults, errors, or flaws. But how are we not stuck with the problem that He then created something which is formally imperfect (humans)? Is this not a contradiction? Do we smuggle in the informal definition of perfection when we can't logically hold true to the formal definition?

Secondly...

Genesis 6: 6-7 - And it repented the Lord that he made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have craeted from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Since God was sorry and regretted that he had made man, how is it not logical to say that God made an imperfect decision when he created man in the first place?

Can we, as Christians, have it both ways? I don't see how...
Either all of our God's works are not truly perfect as the bible says, or man never sinned in the first place. Either explanation puts me in a corner that appears with a doctrinal contradiction...

I couldn't find a thread that already addressed this topic. If one exists, I don't mind reading it over to avoid redundancy...

PaulS stated it the best...

PaulSacramento wrote:God's work is perfect for it's (His) intended purpose. Perfection in of itself can only exist in/as God, so nothing is perfect per say BUT perfect for it's intended purpose, yes of course.

God's intended purpose is Perfection, wholeness, soundness and all his ways are moving toward that and it is actualized when the New Heavens and earth occur. Nothing can stop it, free will cannot, nothing can stop it and in this God proves himself supreme.
-
-
-

I don't think that God created humans or the world for that matter imperfect. That humans became imperfect after the Fall has to do with us, not God. If someone wants to claim that the definition of perfect entails an impossibility of degenerating into imperfection, which is a claim they would have to defend, then I don't see the problem.

God did not create an imperfect world. It became so due to sin of rebellion, which if God denied happening, would not be perfect.

Thought provoking statement, yes, and from there God makes perfect in due time - justly.

Psalm 66:10 NKJV, For You, O God, have tested us; You have refined us as silver is refined.

Proverbs 17:3 NASB, The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, But the LORD tests hearts.

Mal 3:2-3 NASB, But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap. 3 "He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the LORD offerings in righteousness.
-
-
-

Guys,
Thank you for the quick and thorough responses... and I agree with your positions and logic. I happened to come across a response to a very similar question, and I think you would all agree that the two responses are quite complete and accurate. I've copied them below if anyone would care to read.

Christopher asked:
Can a perfect being create something imperfect? Think about it in religious terms. I think that everyone’s conception of god, regardless of specific religion (excluding religions of the ancient world, of course), is in a word that god is perfect, yet everyone views themselves as being imperfect. If god is perfect and created us then shouldn’t we and everything else god created be perfect as well? Maybe the answer just requires a good definition of ‘perfect.’ I’m not sure, but if my proposition is true then the implications of this would require either a change in the concept of god, or of ourselves.

Answer by Jürgen Lawrenz

You fell right into the linguistic trap that lies in waiting for all who think that concept language can solve our philosophical (and other) problems.

Think very carefully about what you understand by a ‘perfect’ being. Keep trying for a while to account for everything that might be embraced by the word ‘perfection’. You might proceed in line with the medieval scholastics, who kept enumerating human qualities and found all of them ‘imperfect’, therefore God would obviously exhibit superior qualities and attributes. But soon you’re going to run out of attributes, there aren’t that many! In addition, you would find that these attributes all have some relation to human attributes. What we don’t know, we can’t talk about: So – what is a ‘perfect’ existent? If such a one existed, we could know nothing about it! It would have a plethora of attributes utterly beyond our puny understanding of perfection.

There is an anthropological explanation for this, if you feel like pursuing it (e.g. Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity). But this does not validate your conclusion. In fact, your conclusion begs all the questions. ‘God’ is a theological (theoretical and metaphysical) conception. Take ‘him’ out of theory and into the world and you no longer have a ‘God’. You end up like Spinoza, who took this line of thinking to its only logical conclusion, that God is the world, and the world is God, and none of us really exist (empirically). Alternatively you have a household god with whom you can hold a conversation once a day, like with a wise old man.

This is not even mentioning that part where you speak of ‘creating’. Pure prejudice. What makes you state this assumption as if it was self-understood? Why should ‘God’ create anything? Isn’t the essence of perfection to be self-sufficient? Erigena taught that God created the world as a material counterpart in order to mirror himself in the myriad of prototypes which he created by actualising himself. But this is already Step 1 towards ‘imperfection’, as you can surely see.

I hope I’ve given you something to think about in earnest. The best thing for you is to stop using the word ‘perfect’ in arguments of this kind, because it is a word without a denotation – except in such limited environments as a ‘perfectly machined ball bearing’ or a ‘perfect (100%) score’ etc. Now you will also see that ‘perfection’ implies totality, which is ipso facto complete, therefore sterile and therefore uncreative.

So if your ‘God’ was truly perfect, ‘he’ would be a self-contradiction. The only creative act possible to ‘him’ would be to make another exactly like himself. You can see that, can’t you?

Jürgen Lawrenz at PhiloSophos.com



Answer by Craig Skinner

The concept you speak of is of an absolutely perfect being (omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, infinite, all-loving). But not even such a being can do the logically impossible. And that is why any creation must be imperfect.

The argument is best set out by Leibniz:

It is logically impossible for a perfect being to create something wholly perfect other than itself; for, by the principle of the identity of indiscernibles (if X and Y are exactly identical in all respects they are one and the same thing), a being that was wholly and completely perfect would just be (identical with) god. So, if god and creation are to be genuinely distinct, they must be ‘discernible’ ie creation can’t have all the perfections of god. Elements of creation may be perfect in some respects, but the fact that they can’t be in all respects is already a departure from absolute perfection.

Part of god’s perfection is infinite creativity. A spiritual world of angels, say, is first created. Although eternal and not subject to decay, they are finite beings, and show moral imperfection (witness Satan).

God’s creativity continues. A physical world is created. But this is necessarily subject to entropic decay. And we, being physical, are part of this process; we are mortal, subject to degeneration and all the accidents of an imperfect world.

The only alternative to an imperfect world is for god not to create a world at all.

In short, the presence of evil in the world, far from being an intractable problem for belief in an absolutely perfect god, is entailed by that very belief.

Leibniz’s view as to the metaphysical necessity of evil was famously lampooned by Voltaire in his short novel ‘Candide’ in which the hero witnesses and experiences horrors and suffering but is constantly reassured by the philosopher, Dr Pangloss, that we live in the best of all possible worlds. Dawkins and other militant atheists continue the tradition of blaming God for the evils in the world, but without endorsing as preferable the only alternative, namely no world at all. Dawkins in particular comes across as being angry with god for not existing, wanting him to come out from under that nonexistence cloak and face the music for all the evils of the world for which he is responsible.

So, evil and suffering are inevitable in any world, whether it arises supernaturally or naturally.

Finally, when talking of the religious conception of god, you exclude ‘religions of the ancient world, of course’. How old do they have to be to fall in this category ? Judaism is some 3000 years old, even Christianity is 2000 years old! Mind you, there are no modern worldwide religions. I wonder if there ever will be a new one in this category.

I don't think that God created humans or the world for that matter imperfect

Jac, we're obviously capable of making imperfect decisions, so doesn't that indicate we are imperfect?

God did not create an imperfect world. It became so due to sin of rebellion, which if God denied happening, would not be perfect.

B.W., if God did not create an imperfect world, then how is it that we would describe ourselves as imperfect?


Maybe I'm over thinking this, or thinking about it incorrectly...

-Ben

Ben, when copy-pasting from some source, you have to provide a reference to that source.
Thanks

BenThinkingLately wrote:Jac, we're obviously capable of making imperfect decisions, so doesn't that indicate we are imperfect?

May I ask why it would indicate that?

BTW, Ben, I would suggest that as common as your question is, that maybe it starts with some wrong assumptions. By looking at imperfections in the world, your basic concept seems to be that God could have created a "better" world, and if He could have, He would have. Anyway, whatever nuances you would like to offer, may I suggest you give this a read and take it into your thinking:

• God did not will this present order of things necessarily, and the reason is that the end of creation is the divine goodness which so exceeds any created order that there is not and cannot be any link of necessity between a given order and the end of creation. The divine goodness and the created order are incommensurable, and there cannot be any one created order, any one universe, which is necessary to a divine goodness that is infinite and incapable of any addition. If any created order were proportionate to the divine goodness, to the end, then the divine wisdom would be determined to choose that particular order; but since the divine goodness is infinite and creation necessary finite, no created order can be proportionate in the full sense to the divine goodness.
  
  From the above is made apparent the answer to the question whether God could make better things than He has made or could make the things which He has made better than they are. In one sense God must always act in the best possible manner, since God's act is identical with His essence and with infinite goodness; but we cannot conclude from this that the extrinsic object of God's act, creatures, must be the best possible and taht God is bound, on account of His goodness, to produce the best possible universe if He produces one at all. As God's power is infinite, there can always be a better universe than the one God actually produces, and why He has chosen to produce a particular order of creation is His secret. St. Thomas says, therefore, that absolutely speaking God could make something better than any given thing. But if the question is raise din regard to the existent universe, a distinction must be drawn. God could not make a given thing better than it actually is in regard to its substance or essence, since that would be to make another thing. For example, rational life is in itself a higher perfection than merely sensitive life; but if God were to make a horse rational it would no longer be a horse and in that case God could not be said to make the horse better. Similarly, if God changed the order of the universe, it would not be the same universe. On the other hand, God could make a thing accidentally better; He could, for example, increase a man's bodily health, or, in the supernatural order, his grace.
  
  It is plain, then, that St. Thomas would not agree with the Leibnizian 'optimism' or maintain that this is the best of all possible worlds. In view of the divine omnipotence the phrase 'the best of all possible worlds' does not seem to have much meaning: it has meaning only if one supposes from the start that God creates from a necessity of His nature, from which it would follow, since God is goodness itself, that the world which proceeds from Him necessarily must be the best possible. But if God creates not from necessity of nature, but according to His nature, according to intelligence and will, that is, freely, and if God is omnipotent, it must always be possible for God to create a better world. Why, then, did He create this particular world? That is a question to which we cannot give any adequate answer, though we can certainly attempt to answer the question why God created a world in which suffering and evil are present": that is to say, we can attempt to answer the problem of evil, provided that we remember to that we cannot expect to attain any comprehensive solution of the problem in this life, owing to the finitude and imperfection of our intelligences and the fact that we cannot fathom the divine counsel and plans.

From Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy: Volume 2, Part 2 -- Albert the Great to Duns Scotus (Garden City, NY: Image Books,1962), 89-90. Imprimatur: Joseph, Archiepiscopus Birmingamiensis Die 24 Aprilis 1948

BenThinkingLately wrote:Deuteronomy 32:4 - He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgement: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

For starters, I am a believer. I wanted to make that clear up front in hope that this would be a discussion focused on helping a fellow believer get through some of his tough questions and not focused on arguing with a non-believer.


The word perfect has a formal and an informal sense.
Formal perfection - without faults: without errors, flaws, or faults

Informal perfection - complete and whole: complete and lacking nothing essential



Now, for the verse in deuteronomy to make sense, doesn't it imply a formal usage of the word perfection? Can God do anything that is imperfect? If God created humans (who are obviously imperfect), how is this not a contradiction? We would all agree that God is formally perfect - that is, He is without faults, errors, or flaws. But how are we not stuck with the problem that He then created something which is formally imperfect (humans)? Is this not a contradiction? Do we smuggle in the informal definition of perfection when we can't logically hold true to the formal definition?

Secondly...

Genesis 6: 6-7 - And it repented the Lord that he made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have craeted from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Since God was sorry and regretted that he had made man, how is it not logical to say that God made an imperfect decision when he created man in the first place?

Can we, as Christians, have it both ways? I don't see how...
Either all of our God's works are not truly perfect as the bible says, or man never sinned in the first place. Either explanation puts me in a corner that appears with a doctrinal contradiction...

I couldn't find a thread that already addressed this topic. If one exists, I don't mind reading it over to avoid redundancy...

I like questions but if you're going to ask them about the God of the bible then you should be in context of what the bible says and your question let's us know your asking a question out of context,it would be like me challenging evolution or some other religion out of context of what their books say.

Our God did create this world perfect and there would've been no pain,suffering or death had man not sinned,when man sinned it brought consequences for it so that now through Jesus death is actually a blessing to escape this hell on earth if you have Jesus,if you don't then hell will be way more worse than your short life span in this world.Christians truly never die because Jesus rose from the dead and the same power that raised Jesus from the dead will raise us too,no other religion can guarantee this because their god is still in the grave.

There are two occasions mentionable in the Gospel that hint at the severity and torments of hell with a direct relevance to this question as regards the parable of the sheep and the goats.

The first is concerning leading astray. Christ says that it would be better to tie a millstone around ones neck and drown oneself in the depth of the sea, than to lead astray one who believes in Him.

The second concerns Judas as betrayer. We are told that it would have been better for him that he had never been born. (would have been if Christ had not come to save the world)

For someone to lead another astray so without relent, an imperfect world could be a just punishment. Such imperfection could then be seen to be something akin to a subset of His Perfection.

But God, Who is Perfect, and the Maker of all things visible and invisible, has made a perfect world, even in those things we deem to be imperfect. Sin may have an end, but Christ's Kingdom is Infinite, not even of this perfect world, coming into the world from its external home, Heaven.

Doctoring the word "perfect" to an informal and formal end does not necessarily include this absolute perfection of God.

Use of the indefinite article "a" with the proper noun allows for the ambiguity that pervades your dilemma. Though this accounts for such diversion of question, it is not proper to God, Who is One. Yet God has said, "I have called you gods."

Thanks for all the feedback...

I didn't intend to presuppose an imperfect world. That was largely based on my observation that humans make imperfect choices. I think Jac said it best when he indicated that one would have to defend the assertion that being able to make an imperfect decision indicates a lack of perfection from the creator. My question was wrong from the start...