Turn on thread page Beta

What does creation reveal about God as craftsman? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Calumcalum)
    OK, I'm bad at analogies, but I'll try another one. If someone is writing a letter and wants to tell them some important information (maybe their GCSE results), would it matter what envelope they used, or what kind of paper they were on, as long as they were good enough to let the person read the results? If the person was never intending to make a perfect envelope but was more concerned about the results and making sure they got to the student, would it really matter if the envelope wasn't perfect? Would it be a sign of bad craftsmanship?
    Yeah, it's a sign of bad craftsmanship that, thankfully, was irrelevant to the particular result.

    But it is still bad craftsmanship to make a bad envelope.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saichu)
    Yeah, it's a sign of bad craftsmanship that, thankfully, was irrelevant to the particular result.

    But it is still bad craftsmanship to make a bad envelope.
    But surely you see the principle that something does not have to be perfect in every way to be perfect craftsmanship? Perfect craftsmanship ought to mean that a craft is perfect at everything it was intended to do. If that's not what craftsmanship is, then I'm not too bothered whether God's a good craftsman or not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calumcalum)
    OK, I'm bad at analogies, but I'll try another one. If someone is writing a letter and wants to tell them some important information (maybe their GCSE results), would it matter what envelope they used, or what kind of paper they were on, as long as they were good enough to let the person read the results? If the person was never intending to make a perfect envelope but was more concerned about the results and making sure they got to the student, would it really matter if the envelope wasn't perfect? Would it be a sign of bad craftsmanship?
    Well, does the envelope contain the full ums breakdown with the statement of results.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Calumcalum)
    But surely you see the principle that something does not have to be perfect in every way to be perfect craftsmanship? Perfect craftsmanship ought to mean that a craft is perfect at everything it was intended to do. If that's not what craftsmanship is, then I'm not too bothered whether God's a good craftsman or not.
    Are you seriously trying to say that an item, part of which was crafted sloppily, should be termed perfect craftsmanship?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well, i'm off to bed. So don't expect a reply back soon.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suicidaloverbusiness)
    Well, why are we so far from perfect. Surely, God could have stretched that extra mile and made us 'better'.
    If we had been made 'better' than what we are now, you could have still made your point, and so the point would be valid all the way until we are perfect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can't wait for ******* aliens to show up and finally stop this god ********.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by qasman)
    If we had been made 'better' than what we are now, you could have still made your point, and so the point would be valid all the way until we are perfect.
    Sort of, but not according to typical reasoning.

    For instance, what if God simply removed all the physical inefficiencies in our bodies that cause, for example, the blind spot in our eyes, the appendix?

    Then we would be as "perfect" as could reasonably be expected; we may lack abilities (flying), but at least our design would be ideal. Meanwhile, free will (so I've skimmed countless Theology threads) would guarantee that we still sin and have the trials that you seem so keen to preserve, only while having these reasonably perfect bodies you would expect from a perfect designer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calumcalum)
    But surely you see the principle that something does not have to be perfect in every way to be perfect craftsmanship? Perfect craftsmanship ought to mean that a craft is perfect at everything it was intended to do. If that's not what craftsmanship is, then I'm not too bothered whether God's a good craftsman or not.
    Perfect is such a loose term so I think it can be interpreted soundly from your point of view and another person's
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qasman)
    If we had been made 'better' than what we are now, you could have still made your point, and so the point would be valid all the way until we are perfect.
    True, but that's speaking in a theoretical sense. I want to know why we weren't made just a tad bit more 'better'. It doesn't need to be a substantial difference because, as I mentioned before, we are so far from perfection anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saichu)
    Sort of, but not according to typical reasoning.

    For instance, what if God simply removed all the physical inefficiencies in our bodies that cause, for example, the blind spot in our eyes, the appendix?

    Then we would be as "perfect" as could reasonably be expected; we may lack abilities (flying), but at least our design would be ideal. Meanwhile, free will (so I've skimmed countless Theology threads) would guarantee that we still sin and have the trials that you seem so keen to preserve, only while having these reasonably perfect bodies you would expect from a perfect designer.
    Couldn't have put it better myself.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We're still being a bit arrogant in assuming we know what a "perfect" creation would be, and commenting on the quality of God's craftmanship based on our limited knowledge and perception. It's a bit like a blind man commenting on the quality of the Mona Lisa.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by philjw)
    We're still being a bit arrogant in assuming we know what a "perfect" creation would be, and commenting on the quality of God's craftmanship based on our limited knowledge and perception. It's a bit like a blind man commenting on the quality of the Mona Lisa.
    Wait, so you're saying there's some part of our human bodies that we can't see?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saichu)
    Are you seriously trying to say that an item, part of which was crafted sloppily, should be termed perfect craftsmanship?
    No, I'm saying that 'crafted' itself presupposes a particular purpose, and any feature unrelated to that purpose, no matter how aesthetically/practically useless it might be if you had presupposed a different purpose, is not relevant to the quality of the craft.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saichu)
    Wait, so you're saying there's some part of our human bodies that we can't see?
    You've not got much of a sense for metaphor, have you?
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by philjw)
    You've not got much of a sense for metaphor, have you?
    Neither do you, actually, since "see" here has a dual meeting. Of course there's parts of the body we can't always directly see, but we can measure them or what not. Your comparison to a blind man judging the mona lisa implies there are parts of our bodies that we actively cannot measure, that would make the design less flawed. This is, actually, precisely what I was asking: were you implying such a thing, and if so, on what grounds could you claim this?
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Calumcalum)
    No, I'm saying that 'crafted' itself presupposes a particular purpose, and any feature unrelated to that purpose, no matter how aesthetically/practically useless it might be if you had presupposed a different purpose, is not relevant to the quality of the craft.
    No, no it doesn't presuppose any purpose, which is actually a grounds for argument: a particular sub-structure can be aesthetic even without a purpose, and in this case even if it is orthogonal to the purpose.

    In other words, a functioning table would not be termed a "perfect" table if one of its legs was butt-ugly, even if no one ever bothered to look down there (so that it had no effect on the table's function whatsoever). It would simply be termed a "functioning" table.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    it reveals himself. hes seen through the beauty of his creation and even speaks through it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cheyenne_beth)
    it reveals himself. hes seen through the beauty of his creation and even speaks through it.
    last post 7 years ago xx
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 28, 2017
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.