Who is your favourite philosopher?

Once again we come to a complex idea - perfection. By human standards the world is imperfect; perhaps in the context of God's grand plan, should one believe in such a thing, it is perfect.

If god's perception of perfection involves doing so many things that kill and torture innocent people then there are only two options:

1) his grand plan is not centered around humans, as is believed by Abrahamic religions.
2) god's grand plan IS centered around humans, but he doesn't value human life.

If god's perception of perfection involves doing so many things that kill and torture innocent people then there are only two options:

1) his grand plan is not centered around humans, as is believed by Abrahamic religions.
2) god's grand plan IS centered around humans, but he doesn't value human life.

Either that or what is uncomfortable in the short-term is profitable in the long-term for humanity. Consider, for instance, that he is curtailing human population to avoid disastrous shortages in resources which would ultimately kill more people more painfully. It's possible his grand plan is both centred around humans and values human life, even if that means indulging the lesser evil by hurting humanity in the short-term.

In a perfect world no compromises would have to be made in order to achieve that greater good... an omnipotent being should be able to achieve perfection without first undergoing imperfect steps.

You continue to employ the concept of perfection despite the fact you cannot know what that would mean to an omnipotent being. It's almost like criticising someone's argument without knowing fully what it is.

What is perfect is that which does not need to be improved. I contend that there is much to be improved in this world.

x

Perhaps your definition of 'perfect' is imperfect. Perhaps an omnipotent being would have a more perfect definition of 'perfection' than you, and is fulfilling that definition.

My original point was that we cannot know what is perfect in God's eyes; so we cannot criticise God's fulfillment of this perfection, since we don't know what that is.

Perhaps your definition of 'perfect' is imperfect. Perhaps an omnipotent being would have a more perfect definition of 'perfection' than you, and is fulfilling that definition.

My original point was that we cannot know what is perfect in God's eyes; so we cannot criticise God's fulfillment of this perfection, since we don't know what that is.

Note: I neither believe nor disbelieve in God

I think this is correct.

Either that or what is uncomfortable in the short-term is profitable in the long-term for humanity. Consider, for instance, that he is curtailing human population to avoid disastrous shortages in resources which would ultimately kill more people more painfully. It's possible his grand plan is both centred around humans and values human life, even if that means indulging the lesser evil by hurting humanity in the short-term.

The idea that in the long term the Holocaust was profitable for humanity is ridiculous, and if you think that you're a moral pygmy.

Then let us suppose that God does have a different definition of perfection. In this scenario, it would follow that we are not talking about what we know as perfection anymore, we are talking about whatever it is that God has in mind that we do not. God's definition may be anything, but whatever it is, it would not be what we mean when we are talking about perfection. However, this is precisely what we are doing: we are talking about our understanding of perfection, unless we are not in which case we must use a different word; it makes no sense for us to continue to use the word 'perfection' if this is not what we mean.

This kind of argument is a mirage. Either we are talking about what we understand to be perfection, or we are not - we cannot have it both ways.

So, if we are talking about what we understand to be perfection, then we may continue to discuss the various implications involved. If we are not talking about what we understand to be perfection, then we do not know what it is that we are talking about, and have been incapacitated by a word-game.

In case we are uncertain of the definition, Google may rescue us: "Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be." If God wishes to concern himself with another definition, that does not grant him immunity to the implications reached by our discussion that have come about from using our definition