Originally posted by 667joe I thought that god is supposed to be perfect.
Perfection is a human concept. It tries to point the finger at the type of life/actions which are exempelary . Still the term 'perfection' has its opposites.
God is beyond all human classification. We may as well not even talk about it in scientific terms because we cant isolate a part of god that is independent of the whole. So in this sense the athiests are right. There is no god. Not one that we can sink our teeth into anyway
Originally posted by 667joe According to Dr. Pangloss, this is the best of all possible worlds. Was Dr. Pangloss correct? If it's not the best of all possible worlds, did god mess up?
The real question here is how you evaluate possible worlds. What makes one possible world better than another?
For example, if I was happier for one day with all else the same, would the world be better?
If I lived one day longer would the world be better?
If the answer is yes to the above then God did mess up or he is incapable of making me happier without causing undesirable consequences. If the answer is no, then I would love to hear what the reasoning is.