mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
The Best of All Possible Worlds Options
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, September 20, 2020 11:46:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,647
Neurons: 74,672
DragOnspeaker wrote:

"This is the best of all possible worlds." is a well-known one. One might think that "possible worlds" is a sub-section of "all worlds" - that impossible ones could be imagined. However the person who wrote this sentence (Leibniz) said that it was an infinite set.
Interesting logic. God could imagine an infinite number of possible worlds (universes).
God decided to create this one.
God is good.
Therefore this is the best of all possible worlds."

It is an interesting piece of logic, which stimulated my thinking and it occurred to me that if God could imagine an infinite number of possible worlds, a perfect world would have to be included as one of those worlds. According to the Bible, he did create a world just like that, called Heaven, and look how that turned out. It wasn't perfect after all.

But since it wasn't perfect (Lucifer led a rebellion), why are we all encouraged to want to go there if it isn't/wasn't perfect? and wouldn't a perfect world be kind of boring? Maybe a perfect world is one with a flaw in it, so this isn't just the best of all worlds, it's a perfect world after all. And we're right back where we started. Circular logic. Hmmm...Think

Hope123
Posted: Sunday, September 20, 2020 1:34:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
From previous post: This is the best of all possible worlds." is a well-known one. One might think that "possible worlds" is a sub-section of "all worlds" - that impossible ones could be imagined. However the person who wrote this sentence (Leibniz) said that it was an infinite set.
Interesting logic. God could imagine an infinite number of possible worlds (universes).
God decided to create this one.
God is good.
Therefore this is the best of all possible worlds."


Assumptions were made by Leibniz in his premises so that the argument is neither valid nor sound nor has a true conclusion - assumptions - there is A God (not gods) and he's male, he/she/ they is omnipotent enough to create whole universes, and he/she/they is good. Another assumption is that the best of all possible worlds has to include a perfect one. Maybe a perfect one was NOT possible.

There are lots of interpretations of the War in Heaven (war even in heaven!) and one account says the “dragon” and his followers were cast down to earth, not hell. Seems they multiplied on earth. 😀

To me it doesn't matter how it got here or how perfect a world it was. It isn't now with humans being the most successful animal in numbers in nearly every spot in the world and managing to screw it all up.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, September 21, 2020 8:02:27 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 5,309
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
Maybe a perfect one was NOT possible.



I think this is a great point. For a physical world to work, the laws of physics must be organised in certain consistent ways. So even God(s) cannot do just anything. Logic is above them? Think

And once a physical matter organised in a certain way is there, it seems it imposes firm restrictions on how "life" can be organised, doesn't it? E.g. in our world the desire for biodiversity and complexity of life dictates that creatures must eat each other, because there does need to be a process for transmission and recycling of material from which their bodies are made.

That would be fine, however, as long as creatures' simple "psyches" do not subjectively suffer from being eaten. So I guess for the God(s)' sake this world may in fact have been a pretty perfect place as long as it was populated by creatures that only lived their lives according to certain programs and were not able to change the world itself. But then that was probably boring.Dancing So the Creator(s) decided to run a big risk and create a being (a human) who'd be invested with an imperfect replica of God(s)' own creative powers. I guess the idea was that humans inspired by the idea of Good would develop this world from within to further and infinitely improve the Creation, its quality and beauty... Hasn't worked quite that way though. I think it does require a thorough historical analysis - who and how exactly have screwed it all up. It's not God(s) fault, it's all about human deeds, specific people having done or doing specific things that corrupt this world.

This is my thinking anyway.Dancing How can we know exactly?
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 12:26:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,647
Neurons: 74,672
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
Maybe a perfect one was NOT possible.



I think this is a great point. For a physical world to work, the laws of physics must be organised in certain consistent ways. So even God(s) cannot do just anything. Logic is above them? Think
But if a God can create matter and thus a universe, yet cannot make it perfect, can this really be a God? A God doesn't have limitations, right?

And once a physical matter organised in a certain way is there, it seems it imposes firm restrictions on how "life" can be organised, doesn't it? E.g. in our world the desire for biodiversity and complexity of life dictates that creatures must eat each other, because there does need to be a process for transmission and recycling of material from which their bodies are made.
But if the God organized the physical matter according to personal desires, then there is no reason it cannot be perfect. It seems to me that all a God would have to do is desire it to be perfect, and that Will becomes reality.

That would be fine, however, as long as creatures' simple "psyches" do not subjectively suffer from being eaten. So I guess for the God(s)' sake this world may in fact have been a pretty perfect place as long as it was populated by creatures that only lived their lives according to certain programs and were not able to change the world itself. But then that was probably boring.Dancing So the Creator(s) decided to run a big risk and create a being (a human) who'd be invested with an imperfect replica of God(s)' own creative powers. I guess the idea was that humans inspired by the idea of Good would develop this world from within to further and infinitely improve the Creation, its quality and beauty... Hasn't worked quite that way though. I think it does require a thorough historical analysis - who and how exactly have screwed it all up. It's not God(s) fault, it's all about human deeds, specific people having done or doing specific things that corrupt this world.

This is my thinking anyway.Dancing How can we know exactly?
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Thursday, September 24, 2020 5:26:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 5,309
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
FounDit wrote:
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
Maybe a perfect one was NOT possible.



I think this is a great point. For a physical world to work, the laws of physics must be organised in certain consistent ways. So even God(s) cannot do just anything. Logic is above them? Think
But if a God can create matter and thus a universe, yet cannot make it perfect, can this really be a God? A God doesn't have limitations, right?

No, I don't think so. I think logic (Logos) is above God(s). A physical universe must be governed by a set of logically non-contadictory laws, so that it doesn't "fall apart". Now, there perhaps can be different sets of laws of physics that would bring about a stable universe (and I've even read about theoretical studies about what such "alternative" physics could look like), but they cannot be just anything.

I look at all this not as a religious person. I don't care about religious books, frankly. To me they are just historical documents and only have value as such. Rather, I personally ground my beliefs on the following:

(i) there are things that are truly real and eternal, and these are not objects of the physical world. The truly real things are governed by logic. If A leads to B, and B leads to C, then A leads to C, and this fact is a timeless truth that is more firm than anything in the physical universe could ever be in principle. In other words, the truly real world is the one of ideal objects, not that of physical matter.

(ii) forms of life that we know - take our own human bodies and psyches as an example - are unbelievably complex structures. To me, the notion that physical matter could somehow have evolved into these super-complex forms by itself is a sheer nonsense. This is a theory propagated by individuals who want everybody to believe that there are no values apart from earthly power and wealth, and they have always been doing this for political purposes. These people are not fools, at least some of them, and those who are not fools know it's all BS. There must have been a design involved, which is a logical construction. And therefore the physical universe that we know, and life in it, must have somehow originated from that ideal world that I talked about in (i). Traditionally in this context humans have been talking of God(s) that exist "above and beyond" physical world and who have given birth to it. But the only thing we know is that we don't know anything about it for sure, except (in my opinion) the very fact that there must have been a creative touch to all of this.


And once a physical matter organised in a certain way is there, it seems it imposes firm restrictions on how "life" can be organised, doesn't it? E.g. in our world the desire for biodiversity and complexity of life dictates that creatures must eat each other, because there does need to be a process for transmission and recycling of material from which their bodies are made.
But if the God organized the physical matter according to personal desires, then there is no reason it cannot be perfect. It seems to me that all a God would have to do is desire it to be perfect, and that Will becomes reality.

That would be fine, however, as long as creatures' simple "psyches" do not subjectively suffer from being eaten. So I guess for the God(s)' sake this world may in fact have been a pretty perfect place as long as it was populated by creatures that only lived their lives according to certain programs and were not able to change the world itself. But then that was probably boring.Dancing So the Creator(s) decided to run a big risk and create a being (a human) who'd be invested with an imperfect replica of God(s)' own creative powers. I guess the idea was that humans inspired by the idea of Good would develop this world from within to further and infinitely improve the Creation, its quality and beauty... Hasn't worked quite that way though. I think it does require a thorough historical analysis - who and how exactly have screwed it all up. It's not God(s) fault, it's all about human deeds, specific people having done or doing specific things that corrupt this world.

This is my thinking anyway.Dancing How can we know exactly?
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Friday, September 25, 2020 8:33:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 5,309
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Just checked this thread and realized that the correct English answer in the above post is "Yes, I think they do."Dancing

This difference was one of the first things we were told when I began to study English as a schoolboy, and I still seem to occasionally have problems with it Brick wall
FounDit
Posted: Friday, September 25, 2020 5:20:23 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,647
Neurons: 74,672
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
FounDit wrote:
[quote=Kirill Vorobyov][quote=Hope123] Maybe a perfect one was NOT possible.



I think this is a great point. For a physical world to work, the laws of physics must be organised in certain consistent ways. So even God(s) cannot do just anything. Logic is above them? Think
But if a God can create matter and thus a universe, yet cannot make it perfect, can this really be a God? A God doesn't have limitations, right?

No, I don't think so. I think logic (Logos) is above God(s). A physical universe must be governed by a set of logically non-contadictory laws, so that it doesn't "fall apart". Now, there perhaps can be different sets of laws of physics that would bring about a stable universe (and I've even read about theoretical studies about what such "alternative" physics could look like), but they cannot be just anything.
Hmmm...well, then, it seems we have to first agree as to what the powers of a God are. I think of a God as having unlimited powers. To me, a God with limited power isn't really a God.

This, of course, brings up the position that it is we, you and I, who are defining God. The creature defines the Creator. Can that be possible? If so, then is it not then WE who are Gods? If we can create them, and limit their powers, then are we not more powerful than they?

I look at all this not as a religious person. I don't care about religious books, frankly. To me they are just historical documents and only have value as such. Rather, I personally ground my beliefs on the following:

(i) there are things that are truly real and eternal, and these are not objects of the physical world.
This is a matter of faith since there is no proof or evidence of things that are not part of the physical world.

The truly real things are governed by logic. If A leads to B, and B leads to C, then A leads to C, and this fact is a timeless truth that is more firm than anything in the physical universe could ever be in principle. In other words, the truly real world is the one of ideal objects, not that of physical matter.
What kind of evidence of objects are you aware of that are not in the physical world? I can't think of any. And I know of no one who has ever produced evidence of this. Also, there are actions at the quantum level that seem to defy logic, such as influence at a distance and the fact that simply observing something alters its behavior.

(ii) forms of life that we know - take our own human bodies and psyches as an example - are unbelievably complex structures. To me, the notion that physical matter could somehow have evolved into these super-complex forms by itself is a sheer nonsense. This is a theory propagated by individuals who want everybody to believe that there are no values apart from earthly power and wealth, and they have always been doing this for political purposes. These people are not fools, at least some of them, and those who are not fools know it's all BS. There must have been a design involved, which is a logical construction. And therefore the physical universe that we know, and life in it, must have somehow originated from that ideal world that I talked about in (i). Traditionally in this context humans have been talking of God(s) that exist "above and beyond" physical world and who have given birth to it. But the only thing we know is that we don't know anything about it for sure, except (in my opinion) the very fact that there must have been a creative touch to all of this.
That's fine. There are many who believe in a Creator, but again, that is all it is, belief/faith. I have no problem with that, but I do have difficulty accepting it as fact.


And once a physical matter organised in a certain way is there, it seems it imposes firm restrictions on how "life" can be organised, doesn't it? E.g. in our world the desire for biodiversity and complexity of life dictates that creatures must eat each other, because there does need to be a process for transmission and recycling of material from which their bodies are made.
The "it" you say organizes everything, and imposes the restrictions on how life is organized, would have to be the God you believe is responsible, yes?

But if the God organized the physical matter according to personal desires, then there is no reason it cannot be perfect. It seems to me that all a God would have to do is desire it to be perfect, and that Will becomes reality.

That would be fine, however, as long as creatures' simple "psyches" do not subjectively suffer from being eaten.
Would your psyche suffer if you were eaten by a lion, for example? You don't think animals suffer when they are being eaten alive? The sounds they make cause me to believe they do suffer.

So I guess for the God(s)' sake this world may in fact have been a pretty perfect place as long as it was populated by creatures that only lived their lives according to certain programs and were not able to change the world itself. But then that was probably boring.Dancing
Boring to whom? Certainly not to the creatures who lived it.

So the Creator(s) decided to run a big risk and create a being (a human) who'd be invested with an imperfect replica of God(s)' own creative powers. I guess the idea was that humans inspired by the idea of Good would develop this world from within to further and infinitely improve the Creation, its quality and beauty... Hasn't worked quite that way though. I think it does require a thorough historical analysis - who and how exactly have screwed it all up. It's not God(s) fault, it's all about human deeds, specific people having done or doing specific things that corrupt this world.
So did God make a mistake, or were humans created because of boredom with the "perfect" world of animals whose simple psyches didn't suffer when eaten?

If it was a mistake, then according to my definition that isn't a God. Gods don't make mistakes, especially if they have all knowledge and know what is going to happen before it does.

If God was bored and created humans for entertainment, then there is nothing to complain about because it seems we are certainly entertaining with our radical ability to be tender and vicious from one moment to another.


This is my thinking anyway.Dancing How can we know exactly?

I don't think we can know. We simply have to accept the idea that we can't and try to do the best we can. The alternative is to destroy either ourselves, or the planet. Either way, we won't be boring.

Certainly a thought-provoking subject...Dancing
WeaselADAPT
Posted: Saturday, September 26, 2020 5:52:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/6/2014
Posts: 366
Neurons: 89,377
Location: Kentwood, Michigan, United States
Hope123 wrote:
From previous post: This is the best of all possible worlds." is a well-known one. One might think that "possible worlds" is a sub-section of "all worlds" - that impossible ones could be imagined. However the person who wrote this sentence (Leibniz) said that it was an infinite set.
Interesting logic. God could imagine an infinite number of possible worlds (universes).
God decided to create this one.
God is good.
Therefore this is the best of all possible worlds."


Assumptions were made by Leibniz in his premises so that the argument is neither valid nor sound nor has a true conclusion - assumptions - there is A God (not gods) and he's male, he/she/ they is omnipotent enough to create whole universes, and he/she/they is good. Another assumption is that the best of all possible worlds has to include a perfect one. Maybe a perfect one was NOT possible.

There are lots of interpretations of the War in Heaven (war even in heaven!) and one account says the “dragon” and his followers were cast down to earth, not hell. Seems they multiplied on earth. 😀

To me it doesn't matter how it got here or how perfect a world it was. It isn't now with humans being the most successful animal in numbers in nearly every spot in the world and managing to screw it all up.


Good points, Hope.

Also, I suspect that there would be more than a single perfect world, based on the set of parameters chosen. I came to this idea via the thought that the easiest [best?] way to make a perfect world would be to simplify it, restrict the options. It would be easier to claim a world perfect if animals didn't have to die for others animals to live, thus a more? perfect world might be a world with no animals (a term in which I am including humans). But then couldn't there also be a perfect world with all the animals (the most perfect the world can be within the parameters that we will have to eat each other)?

Like, a 10-question test has a perfect score, but so does a 1-question test. The latter should be easier to ace but the former may be more perfect due to its higher difficulty. In this way of thinking, there could not be a finite set of possible worlds, much less a single perfect world. Indeed, the most, most, most perfect world would be the perfectest version of the most complicated world imaginable!

And how could God ever be limited by the number of complications He could think of to add? As soon as He arrives at the highest magnificence of any world's order, He simply adds a new bug (literal or figurative) to screw everything up and then resolves that new wrinkle to its highest order of perfection.

Hmmm...

the Weasel
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, September 28, 2020 7:05:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 5,309
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
WeaselADAPT wrote:

Good points, Hope.

Also, I suspect that there would be more than a single perfect world, based on the set of parameters chosen. I came to this idea via the thought that the easiest [best?] way to make a perfect world would be to simplify it, restrict the options. It would be easier to claim a world perfect if animals didn't have to die for others animals to live, thus a more? perfect world might be a world with no animals (a term in which I am including humans). But then couldn't there also be a perfect world with all the animals (the most perfect the world can be within the parameters that we will have to eat each other)?

Like, a 10-question test has a perfect score, but so does a 1-question test. The latter should be easier to ace but the former may be more perfect due to its higher difficulty. In this way of thinking, there could not be a finite set of possible worlds, much less a single perfect world. Indeed, the most, most, most perfect world would be the perfectest version of the most complicated world imaginable!

And how could God ever be limited by the number of complications He could think of to add? As soon as He arrives at the highest magnificence of any world's order, He simply adds a new bug (literal or figurative) to screw everything up and then resolves that new wrinkle to its highest order of perfection.

Hmmm...

the Weasel


Hi, Weasel!
Great points. Yes, indeed, had the goal been to make the world "perfect", the Creator(s) could have achieved this by making it much simpler. Think

So there should be something more to it than just creating a "perfect" toy.

One hypothesis I have is that God or Gods created this world for themselves, so they wanted to make it an interesting place to be in, i.e. a place complex enough to carry out a broad range of things.

This kind of overlaps with FD's idea that we (humans) are the gods... Of course I don't think we are (yet), certainly not at this point in history. But I agree in the sense that humans may be one attempt of Gods to enter this world. Technically this is achieved by way of very sophisticated engineering that allows for (digitalized?) ideas to be modeled and processed on neurons in our brains. In this way although humans can never achieve the ideal, they can get infinitely close to the ideal and thus become (almost) gods themselves, if only it all went right.

Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, September 28, 2020 8:07:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 5,309
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
FounDit wrote:
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
FounDit wrote:
[quote=Kirill Vorobyov][quote=Hope123] Maybe a perfect one was NOT possible.



I think this is a great point. For a physical world to work, the laws of physics must be organised in certain consistent ways. So even God(s) cannot do just anything. Logic is above them? Think
But if a God can create matter and thus a universe, yet cannot make it perfect, can this really be a God? A God doesn't have limitations, right?

No, I don't think so. I think logic (Logos) is above God(s). A physical universe must be governed by a set of logically non-contadictory laws, so that it doesn't "fall apart". Now, there perhaps can be different sets of laws of physics that would bring about a stable universe (and I've even read about theoretical studies about what such "alternative" physics could look like), but they cannot be just anything.
Hmmm...well, then, it seems we have to first agree as to what the powers of a God are. I think of a God as having unlimited powers. To me, a God with limited power isn't really a God.


This is where my view differs not only from yours, but also from those propagated by main contemporary religions. To me the idea of totally unchecked God or Gods has always looked simplistic and impossible. But it took me some years to realise why exactly. I do think formal logic is above God(s).


This, of course, brings up the position that it is we, you and I, who are defining God. The creature defines the Creator. Can that be possible? If so, then is it not then WE who are Gods? If we can create them, and limit their powers, then are we not more powerful than they?



No, I don't think I "define" the Creator. As far as I am concerned, I am just faced with an unknown to us creative force having shaped physical matter in unbelievably sophisticated forms (meaning living creatures). Not only did this involve a master application of the laws of physics, but also development of the "software part". So I call that creative force the Creator, or Creators, as I have no idea whether there may have been multiple entities involved.

I look at all this not as a religious person. I don't care about religious books, frankly. To me they are just historical documents and only have value as such. Rather, I personally ground my beliefs on the following:

(i) there are things that are truly real and eternal, and these are not objects of the physical world.
This is a matter of faith since there is no proof or evidence of things that are not part of the physical world.


Brick wall This is not a matter of faith at all, this is a matter of abundant hard evidence. I've argued about this with other people, and I am still completely at loss why you guys think two "parallel" sticks in your garden are any more real than the idea of parallel lines?

The sticks only exist as an illusion made up of physical particles, so stricltly speaking there are no sticks at all. Only an image of them that is produced in your brain as a result of interaction of those partciles with your senses. Plus the sticks, as all physical objects, evolve over time, so they are never the same and with time cease to exist.

While the idea of parallel lines is eternel and firm as nothing physical can be. Isn't this obvious, or you guys 've been kidding me?

In the physical world nothing is perfectly defined, all these "objects" exist only in motion, as long as time is ticking. At a given moment nothing has a specific location in space. So if time stopped, this whole great universe would turn into a homogeneous chaos at a 1e-30 sec tick. So what's so real about my or your whisky? It's a delicate and vulnerable situation. I wouldn't worry though, it is still ticking, and we can keep enjoying the game. Dancing I like it.


The truly real things are governed by logic. If A leads to B, and B leads to C, then A leads to C, and this fact is a timeless truth that is more firm than anything in the physical universe could ever be in principle. In other words, the truly real world is the one of ideal objects, not that of physical matter.
What kind of evidence of objects are you aware of that are not in the physical world? I can't think of any. And I know of no one who has ever produced evidence of this. Also, there are actions at the quantum level that seem to defy logic, such as influence at a distance and the fact that simply observing something alters its behavior.


Quantum effects do not defy logic, they only defy some people's understanding of how the physical world works. Because they struggle to realise that physical world is just a special part of actual bigger reality, they cannot see how physical objects that are seemingly not in physical contact still can interact with each other.

(ii) forms of life that we know - take our own human bodies and psyches as an example - are unbelievably complex structures. To me, the notion that physical matter could somehow have evolved into these super-complex forms by itself is a sheer nonsense. This is a theory propagated by individuals who want everybody to believe that there are no values apart from earthly power and wealth, and they have always been doing this for political purposes. These people are not fools, at least some of them, and those who are not fools know it's all BS. There must have been a design involved, which is a logical construction. And therefore the physical universe that we know, and life in it, must have somehow originated from that ideal world that I talked about in (i). Traditionally in this context humans have been talking of God(s) that exist "above and beyond" physical world and who have given birth to it. But the only thing we know is that we don't know anything about it for sure, except (in my opinion) the very fact that there must have been a creative touch to all of this.
That's fine. There are many who believe in a Creator, but again, that is all it is, belief/faith. I have no problem with that, but I do have difficulty accepting it as fact.


And once a physical matter organised in a certain way is there, it seems it imposes firm restrictions on how "life" can be organised, doesn't it? E.g. in our world the desire for biodiversity and complexity of life dictates that creatures must eat each other, because there does need to be a process for transmission and recycling of material from which their bodies are made.
The "it" you say organizes everything, and imposes the restrictions on how life is organized, would have to be the God you believe is responsible, yes?

But if the God organized the physical matter according to personal desires, then there is no reason it cannot be perfect. It seems to me that all a God would have to do is desire it to be perfect, and that Will becomes reality.

That would be fine, however, as long as creatures' simple "psyches" do not subjectively suffer from being eaten.
Would your psyche suffer if you were eaten by a lion, for example? You don't think animals suffer when they are being eaten alive? The sounds they make cause me to believe they do suffer.



Well , I guess you are right. Perhaps the simplest creatures, like plants, do not suffer when they are eaten. But those with more developed "software part" (psyche) probably do suffer. I guess there is an unavoidable trade-off between making the world complex and making everybody in it happy. Which is also to my point that God(s) / Creator(s) are restricted in what they can do by Logos. (= formal logic)

So I guess for the God(s)' sake this world may in fact have been a pretty perfect place as long as it was populated by creatures that only lived their lives according to certain programs and were not able to change the world itself. But then that was probably boring.Dancing
Boring to whom? Certainly not to the creatures who lived it.

So the Creator(s) decided to run a big risk and create a being (a human) who'd be invested with an imperfect replica of God(s)' own creative powers. I guess the idea was that humans inspired by the idea of Good would develop this world from within to further and infinitely improve the Creation, its quality and beauty... Hasn't worked quite that way though. I think it does require a thorough historical analysis - who and how exactly have screwed it all up. It's not God(s) fault, it's all about human deeds, specific people having done or doing specific things that corrupt this world.
So did God make a mistake, or were humans created because of boredom with the "perfect" world of animals whose simple psyches didn't suffer when eaten?

If it was a mistake, then according to my definition that isn't a God. Gods don't make mistakes, especially if they have all knowledge and know what is going to happen before it does.

If God was bored and created humans for entertainment, then there is nothing to complain about because it seems we are certainly entertaining with our radical ability to be tender and vicious from one moment to another.


This is my thinking anyway.Dancing How can we know exactly?

I don't think we can know. We simply have to accept the idea that we can't and try to do the best we can.I 100% agree. Also the world is popultaed by groups who want to take it in very different directions, so whatever the broader context is, the current state of the game is not boring at all The alternative is to destroy either ourselves, or the planet. Either way, we won't be boring.

Certainly a thought-provoking subject...Dancing
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.