What is the point of earth (to god)?

[Jobar]

How do you know anything is imperfect?

To answer that, we have to be able to say what 'perfect' is.

In this situation, my old friend Oolon Colluphid used to bring out a list of horrific parasites and diseases that human (and animal) flesh is heir to.

For instance, here's a close-up of an eye worm. Don't click on that if you have a weak stomach.

If nothing can be said to be imperfect, you then have to say that the eye worm is perfect. Likewise war, plague, earthquake- all the many ills, pains, and awfulness which life on earth sometimes confronts us with. I think this renders the term 'perfect' meaningless, certainly from a human viewpoint. And if God thinks all this sickness and suffering is perfect, then you can scarcely say He's benevolent.

 

[remez]

Many's the time I've wondered why Christians never care to wonder why their god created an earth with suffering instead of just creating people in heaven which is defined as having none.

In another thread I articulated my theory on why Jehovah made an earth; to wit:

1. God made heaven to be happy and therefore no range of “maturity” exists, every soul there is “mature”
2. But god can’t make souls in heaven. (And for some reason he desires new souls - perhaps he feeds on them and they need replenishing?)
3. So god created earth as a soul-factory
4. And factory metrics include productivity rates.
5. The aborted souls repesent high productivity. Fast, perfect results.
6. But in order to get those, you need to use some of the imperfect previous product (“parents”) as what factories call “secondary raw materials” or “trim re-use” or “remelt” or “cullet” or “yeast mother” to be re-made into product
7. So aborted fetuses (including the majority god-abortions) represent top shelf product and are very efficient populators of heaven with no flaws or imperfections
8. Other Humans represent flawed-but usable product that can populate heaven after they do their turn as giving part of themselves into new product and they also realize how imperfect they are and prostrate themselves for mercy about it,
9. The Hell-bound represent product rejects, souls that won't recognize their imperfections and will therefore just run the in the trim grinder for eternity (whole nother topic on why there has to be an eternal trim grinder), although they are capable of using their excess materials to create new souls before they hit the eternal grinder. There is no buyer credit for this, though.
10. Corollary: Reincarnation explains this process more as “re-work” of defective products through several loops until finally nirvana.

That’s my theory.


your thoughts?

Of course I wondered about that.
I investigated that and found the reasonable answer and moved on.
Your theory does not change my views on the subject.

 

[Lion IRC]

Many's the time I've wondered why Christians never care to wonder why their god created an earth with suffering instead of just creating people in heaven which is defined as having none.

Are you for real!

This is one of the biggest topics of biblical theism. Theologians from Augustine to Aquinas to Plantinga have hammered this topic. How can you seriously think Christians haven't ever considered it?

Do yourself a favor. Read this. Educate yourself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

 

[Horatio Parker]

How do you know anything is imperfect?

To answer that, we have to be able to say what 'perfect' is.

In this situation, my old friend Oolon Colluphid used to bring out a list of horrific parasites and diseases that human (and animal) flesh is heir to.

For instance, here's a close-up of an eye worm. Don't click on that if you have a weak stomach.

If nothing can be said to be imperfect, you then have to say that the eye worm is perfect. Likewise war, plague, earthquake- all the many ills, pains, and awfulness which life on earth sometimes confronts us with. I think this renders the term 'perfect' meaningless, certainly from a human viewpoint. And if God thinks all this sickness and suffering is perfect, then you can scarcely say He's benevolent.

That's the point. But I'm not arguing that the perfection of god, as humans envision it, is reflected in his creations. That's another topic. What I'm saying is the ability of humans to envision perfection is classically considered a divine attribute, a gift from God, a sharing, and to some therefore a dimunition of gods power.

If we eat a perfect sandwich, have a perfect afternoon, perfect blowjob, whatever, we don't need a peer reviewed certificate from the Bereau of Standards to know its perfect.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But one person's vision of a perfect afternoon might mean getting a free handjob from a stripper in the VIP room and another's might mean sitting on a pier fishing with his kids. If there was one guy defining perfection and we're just getting a glimpse of what he's envisioned, you would expect some consistency in what constitutes it.

 

[Rhea]

Many's the time I've wondered why Christians never care to wonder why their god created an earth with suffering instead of just creating people in heaven which is defined as having none.

Are you for real!

This is one of the biggest topics of biblical theism. Theologians from Augustine to Aquinas to Plantinga have hammered this topic. How can you seriously think Christians haven't ever considered it?

Do yourself a favor. Read this. Educate yourself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

Note my comment was in present tense.
Also I'm familiar with the "problem of evil," but you'll note most of the discussion about it assumes earth is necessary. My curiosity about contemporary everyday Christians such as yourself is those who really truly believe in heaven and also have no problem with the problem of evil.

The problem of evil makes perfect sense that it's somehow required IF and ONLY IF you don't believe in heaven.

You know what's really really funny? The link you provided with "what are you crazy!?" emoticon...

That link.
It never
Not once
Mentions
Heaven.

So I might say to you,

Do yourself a favor. Read this the OP more carefully. Educate yourself.

 

[Horatio Parker]

But one person's vision of a perfect afternoon might mean getting a free handjob from a stripper in the VIP room and another's might mean sitting on a pier fishing with his kids. If there was one guy defining perfection and we're just getting a glimpse of what he's envisioned, you would expect some consistency in what constitutes it.

Wow. You perceive perfection, but gripe that it's not consistent? Some people just can't be pleased...

 

[Rhea]

What I'm saying is the ability of humans to envision perfection is classically considered a divine attribute, a gift from God, a sharing, and to some therefore a dimunition of gods power.

I’m reading and reading this and it doesn’t make any sense.

It doesn’t make sense that there’s a connection between my abiity to “sense perfection” and it being a gift from anyone let alone demonstrating the existence of a god.

It doesn’t make sense that what I perceive as perfection is actually objectively “perfect” anyway. It might be that I sense something could be better than it is, but you have no connection to whether it’s actual perfection.

I mean, I imagine things being better than they are currently (and I also imagine how to bring about the improvement) for a living. And while I’m well versed in imagining perfection, I’m also well versed in finding out I was comically wrong.

So who “classically” decided this idea that I do perceive perfection and that it is a demonstration of a divine? This is kind of weirdly non sequiturish. This feels like one of those jokes that goes,

1. You can imagine something better
2. ???
3. Therefore God

Can you explain it significantly stronger detail to make it coherent?

 

[bilby]

But one person's vision of a perfect afternoon might mean getting a free handjob from a stripper in the VIP room and another's might mean sitting on a pier fishing with his kids. If there was one guy defining perfection and we're just getting a glimpse of what he's envisioned, you would expect some consistency in what constitutes it.

Wow. You perceive perfection, but gripe that it's not consistent? Some people just can't be pleased...

Hey, nobody's perfect.

 

[Lion IRC]

Note my comment was in present tense.
Also I'm familiar with the "problem of evil," but you'll note most of the discussion about it assumes earth is necessary. My curiosity about contemporary everyday Christians such as yourself is those who really truly believe in heaven and also have no problem with the problem of evil.

The problem of evil makes perfect sense that it's somehow required IF and ONLY IF you don't believe in heaven.

You know what's really really funny? The link you provided with "what are you crazy!?" emoticon...

That link.
It never
Not once
Mentions
Heaven.

So I might say to you,

Do yourself a favor. Read this the OP more carefully. Educate yourself.

...I've wondered why Christians never care to wonder why their god created an earth with suffering

Did you find that on the theodicy link?
Yep. You sure did.

 

[Underseer]

I do love this discussion. Christians believe that the entire universe (hundreds of billions of galaxies) was created just to have them in it, but I'm the arrogant one for asking them to prove it.

 

[Jobar]

How do you know anything is imperfect?

To answer that, we have to be able to say what 'perfect' is.

In this situation, my old friend Oolon Colluphid used to bring out a list of horrific parasites and diseases that human (and animal) flesh is heir to.

For instance, here's a close-up of an eye worm. Don't click on that if you have a weak stomach.

If nothing can be said to be imperfect, you then have to say that the eye worm is perfect. Likewise war, plague, earthquake- all the many ills, pains, and awfulness which life on earth sometimes confronts us with. I think this renders the term 'perfect' meaningless, certainly from a human viewpoint. And if God thinks all this sickness and suffering is perfect, then you can scarcely say He's benevolent.

That's the point. But I'm not arguing that the perfection of god, as humans envision it, is reflected in his creations. That's another topic. What I'm saying is the ability of humans to envision perfection is classically considered a divine attribute, a gift from God, a sharing, and to some therefore a dimunition of gods power.

If we eat a perfect sandwich, have a perfect afternoon, perfect blowjob, whatever, we don't need a peer reviewed certificate from the Bereau of Standards to know its perfect.

Tom Sawyer's point is that our perceptions of what is perfect is relative to each individual. I agree. For example, many Germans during the reign of the Nazis would have called Hitler the perfect human being; obviously that's ludicrous to you and me. This means that perfection (as humans can understand it) is not an absolute. You can say that God's perfection *is* absolute- but we can have no real understanding of that.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It doesn’t make sense that there’s a connection between my abiity to “sense perfection” and it being a gift from anyone let alone demonstrating the existence of a god.

Could be because I didn't say that. I don't consider the fact that historically people attributed awareness, reason judgement etc as gifts from God as evidence for Gods existence. I'm not arguing for the existence of God. All I'm saying is, in Classical Greek thought, the reason for God creating the universe was to share his perfection. The OP, to my mind, presumes the existence of God.

It doesn’t make sense that what I perceive as perfection is actually objectively “perfect” anyway. It might be that I sense something could be better than it is, but you have no connection to whether it’s actual perfection.

Maybe none of your thoughts or feelings are "actually" what they are.

I mean, I imagine things being better than they are currently (and I also imagine how to bring about the improvement) for a living. And while I’m well versed in imagining perfection, I’m also well versed in finding out I was comically wrong.

As above.

So who “classically” decided this idea that I do perceive perfection and that it is a demonstration of a divine?

I gave a cite. If you have one arguing something else, let's see it.

1. You can imagine something better
2. ???
3. Therefore God

More like
1. You can imagine something better
2. This is the greatest thing about being human. How should we express or formulate that supremacy?

 

[Horatio Parker]

That's the point. But I'm not arguing that the perfection of god, as humans envision it, is reflected in his creations. That's another topic. What I'm saying is the ability of humans to envision perfection is classically considered a divine attribute, a gift from God, a sharing, and to some therefore a dimunition of gods power.

If we eat a perfect sandwich, have a perfect afternoon, perfect blowjob, whatever, we don't need a peer reviewed certificate from the Bereau of Standards to know its perfect.

Tom Sawyer's point is that our perceptions of what is perfect is relative to each individual. I agree. For example, many Germans during the reign of the Nazis would have called Hitler the perfect human being; obviously that's ludicrous to you and me. This means that perfection (as humans can understand it) is not an absolute. You can say that God's perfection *is* absolute- but we can have no real understanding of that.

Only if your perfection x can't be compared to my perfection y. Hitler was not perfection to me, but I, and you apparently, can appreciate that he was to some. That to me argues more for perfection as an absolute than against. You're claiming that perfections can't be compared...while you're doing it.

Different things may represent perfection to different people, but the experience of perfection will be the same. Or enough the same that we can agree we experienced it.

Your last point I agree with, but I would say we don't know how real our understanding is. However, that understanding, whatever it may be, is the most real(to the individual).

 

[Jobar]

Only if your perfection x can't be compared to my perfection y. Hitler was not perfection to me, but I, and you apparently, can appreciate that he was to some. That to me argues more for perfection as an absolute than against. You're claiming that perfections can't be compared...while you're doing it.

Mmmm... our human concepts of perfection, 'the best which has no best-er', can be compared; but given how often we'll disagree on what actually is perfect, it's plainly not an absolute.

Different things may represent perfection to different people, but the experience of perfection will be the same. Or enough the same that we can agree we experienced it.

But any honest and thoughtful person will realize that he or she can be mistaken about what's perfect. I might think that my girlfriend gave me the perfect fuck last night, but who knows? Next week she might give me a better one, and I realize last night, while excellent, was not quite perfect. Our abstract conceptions of 'perfection' may be similar, because we speak the same language and can agree on the definition of the word. But our real experiences that we may call 'perfect' will always be relative. Temporary, not timeless. Not absolute.

If you want to say that God's experience of perfection is absolute, timeless, unchanging, then we who live in time can have no conception of what that's like, or means. Not something we can compare with our merely human ideas of perfection.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Mmmm... our human concepts of perfection, 'the best which has no best-er', can be compared; but given how often we'll disagree on what actually is perfect, it's plainly not an absolute.

Humanity is an essential part of it, but the rest again misses the point. Things are not perfect without a mind to experience them. The experience is of the absolute, not some thing.

Different things may represent perfection to different people, but the experience of perfection will be the same. Or enough the same that we can agree we experienced it.

But any honest and thoughtful person will realize that he or she can be mistaken about what's perfect. I might think that my girlfriend gave me the perfect fuck last night, but who knows? Next week she might give me a better one, and I realize last night, while excellent, was not quite perfect. Our abstract conceptions of 'perfection' may be similar, because we speak the same language and can agree on the definition of the word. But our real experiences that we may call 'perfect' will always be relative. Temporary, not timeless. Not absolute.

Our experiences of perfection are temporary, but perfection itself is not. Perfection is considered to exist in a timeless state; so when we experience it, we are getting a glimpse of perfection or "participating" in it. That we sometimes make mistakes is irrelevant.

I don't want to get too sidetracked with this. It's Ancient Greek thought. I think it's very intuitive, but I'm not arguing for some material or objective reality.

 

[Rhea]

...I've wondered why Christians never care to wonder why their god created an earth with suffering

Did you find that on the theodicy link?
Yep. You sure did.

Dude. The part you clipped out is the important bit. And no, you won’t find it on your link about theodicity.

Why was HEAVEN not the obvious answer to the problem of evil. Your link never considers the existence of heaven. (As I said)

• My question in the OP was “Heaven answers the problem of evil. Why was heaven not enough? Why do christians never consider heaven as the answer and wonder why earth was created?”
• Your answer, “let’s not talk about heaven, let’s just talk about earth.”
• Me: ^^^ Exhibit A

 

[Rhea]

Could be because I didn't say that. I don't consider the fact that historically people attributed awareness, reason judgement etc as gifts from God as evidence for Gods existence. I'm not arguing for the existence of God. All I'm saying is, in Classical Greek thought, the reason for God creating the universe was to share his perfection. The OP, to my mind, presumes the existence of God.

Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, my premise presumes god because it’s wondering about the thought process of people who believe in god. So I have to stipulate that so I can get inside their heads.

More like
1. You can imagine something better
2. This is the greatest thing about being human. How should we express or formulate that supremacy?

Ummm... in art and engineering?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Our experiences of perfection are temporary, but perfection itself is not. Perfection is considered to exist in a timeless state; so when we experience it, we are getting a glimpse of perfection or "participating" in it. That we sometimes make mistakes is irrelevant.

I don't want to get too sidetracked with this. It's Ancient Greek thought. I think it's very intuitive, but I'm not arguing for some material or objective reality.

The fact that we make mistakes isn't irrelevant, it's central. If perfection were a single absolute and we only get glimpses of it, there would be a consistency to those glimpses and they would collectively give us more information about what this absolute is instead of less information. This would especially be the case if we were living in a universe which was specifically designed to share this perfection with us.

If perfection was an external, objective thing we get glimpses of as opposed to an internal, subjective one which we make up ourselves, there would not be such a vast disagreement in how we use the term.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Our experiences of perfection are temporary, but perfection itself is not. Perfection is considered to exist in a timeless state; so when we experience it, we are getting a glimpse of perfection or "participating" in it. That we sometimes make mistakes is irrelevant.

I don't want to get too sidetracked with this. It's Ancient Greek thought. I think it's very intuitive, but I'm not arguing for some material or objective reality.

The fact that we make mistakes isn't irrelevant, it's central. If perfection were a single absolute and we only get glimpses of it, there would be a consistency to those glimpses and they would collectively give us more information about what this absolute is instead of less information. This would especially be the case if we were living in a universe which was specifically designed to share this perfection with us.

If perfection was an external, objective thing we get glimpses of as opposed to an internal, subjective one which we make up ourselves, there would not be such a vast disagreement in how we use the term.

How do you know if you made a mistake? How do you know the degree of perfection? By having a sense of the absolute to measure against.