Imperfect Design

[genovese]

"Firstly, who ever said that God had to produce perfection?"
I, for one, say that the least one can expect from a God is perfection. I presume that you would agree that a God worth worshiping would at least have perfect Moral Values? Or would he have imperfect Moral values? If these were perfect, then why should anything else that he decides to do not also be perfect? Sloppy work would suggest sloppy attitude and even sloppy morals.
There are lots of things we do not yet understand fully, biochemistry being an example, but that shouldn't stop us finding out more about the subject and using it for our benefit when we judge it to be safe. You do not have anything to say about Nature's errors by the billions. I presume that is why you do not expect perfection from a God, perhaps because Nature and God are synonymous?

[alextemplet]

Nature and God are not synonymous; nature is to God what a painting is to an artist. To understand why an artist creates an artwork to look a certain way, one must you must first understand the artist's motives and goals to know why he chose to create the art and what he wishes the artwork to mean. God's goal in creating man is for us to love Him and be loved by Him; just as families wish to maintain loving relationships with each other, so too does the Father wish for a loving relationship with His children. Since love by its very nature must be given freely, and cannot be forced, we were given free will: the ability to choose to love God or reject Him, to choose between good and evil, right and wrong. Free will cannot exist in a perfect world; by its very nature it is the ability to choose between good and evil, and so a choice must be available. In a perfect world there is no negative to choose, and only one choice, and so free will cannot exist in a perfect world. For this reason, the world around us is imperfect, and it is up to us to choose either to love and serve God (and thus move towards greater perfection) or to reject Him (and thus slip away into greater imperfection).

Many look at an artwork without first bothering to understand the artist, and wonder "Why?" Others examine the art in the context of the artist's motives and goals, and can thus understand both its intricate beauty and its logical comprehensibility.

[genovese]

"....and serve God (and thus move towards greater perfection)".

Well we almost agree then! That is why I feel that we need to look into genetic manipulation so as to reach perfection where Nature has failed.

For some folks this will mean serving God and for others it will simply have to mean serving Mankind.

[alextemplet]

You're thinking of perfection in the wrong sense, though, in the sense of temporary things whereas I'm talking about things that last for eternity. One obviously outweighs the other.

[greeneye55582]

Are we going around in circles yet?

Genovese, have your questions been sufficiently answered? Or have you gathered enough opinions to move in the right direction? I think between Alex, me, & you we have covered all of our opinions very extensively.

Perhaps, time for a new topic?

[genovese]

"Perhaps, time for a new topic?"
Yes I think that one has been exhausted.

[charles brough]

When Genovese started this thread by using the word "perfect," he set off a chain reaction! It was a mistake and I am sure he did not mean to suggest that ANYTHING in our real world is "perfect."

Unless you believe in "spirits" and other mythology of the old religions, there can be no such thing as Perfect. In science, we just seek a more accurate understanding of ourselves and the universe around us. That is all. There is no absolute anything. TRUTH is merely an old-religion concept. If it was indeed attainable, what in hell would we need science for once we attained it? With it, we would all believe "the Truth" that is, in other words, we would all believe exactly the same! What kind of a world would that be?! LOL

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

[alextemplet]

What do you mean what kind of a world would that be? Are you seriously suggesting that the world is a better place when some people believe the truth and some people believe in lies?

[genovese]

It is probably a bit late in the day to come back to the subject of "what is perfect" since we probably all agree that no one can describe perfection.

BUT, we are all aware of something that could be improved upon. That is not so difficult and by deduction we can conclude that it wasn't perfect in the first place.

So when I suggested that the world is full of imperfections, even after Natural Selection has done its best, one must conclude that we are not perfect

[charles brough]

What do you mean what kind of a world would that be? Are you seriously suggesting that the world is a better place when some people believe the truth and some people believe in lies?

How do you know that our secular and even science beliefs won't be so outmoded a century from now that people who are ignorant of the way of the world will say all our beliefs are "lies"? If you can understand this, then we have no misunderstanding. If not, I cannot communicate with you.

[alextemplet]

I believe I understand your point, Charles. You are saying that anything we take as fact might one day be disproven. I do not dispute that.