does cosmic imperfection prove god doesnt exist?

[BULLDOG]

Omnipotence means there is no need for any steps to do anything. If you want light, just say "Let there be light" and there it is. An omnipotent god wouldn't need to have a star explode to get carbon to create man. If he wanted man, he could just say "let there be man" , and man would exist with all the carbon, and other things needed to make a man. The argument that a star would have to explode first contradicts the claims of omnipotence.

If you want to claim god just liked seeing stars explode, and later became bored and decided to make man, I have no way of arguing against that, but it would throw the conversation so deep into absurdity till there would be no basis for logical discussion.

You're taking liberties in your extrapolation of the word omnipotence, and then expounding on that which is not a justification of the claim to begin with. Omnipotence simply means unlimited power, which would include the power to decide the way in which you reach your goals and doesn't mean you, at all times and in all cases, make them "just be" with no steps.

Not what the bible says. Unlike Edison, god did not say he found 2000 ways not to make light. He said it, and --- boom --- it happened. Same way with all the miraculous healing and such that happened throughout the bible. Never once did it say god needed to gather materials before he could get started.

I'm not in defense of any God, I'm merely poking holes into a bad argument so that myself and others can learn - that's just how discourse works. A dissection of the OP is not a support of a deity...that seems to have been your assumption, is all.

Poke away. I know this sounds weird, but even though I hate being shown to be wrong, I still appreciate it because It keeps me from arguing for an unsupportable idea. Does that make sense?

It's normal/cool, I started doing it for small things around the house a lot of years ago, just listening to elderly persons teach the most practical ways of doing things because they've had a lot of years of the dumb mistakes & being impractical to learn from...efficiency of thought lead to efficiency of practice and helped improve little things in every-day life instead of being stubborn or something. Open mindedness is the most disciplined way I've learned...to learn. lol

As always, you should be open minded, but not so much till your brain falls out.

 

[G.T.]

The best argument for unbelief that I've seen to date has been the lack of sufficient reason(s)to believe. They call this "The Great Debate," and it's always interesting...in the sense that it sharpens our intellectual tools - but the Religious arguments just don't seem to reach any type of enlightenment, to me. I can't even find it practical, let alone convincing...so my areas of intrigue drift further and further from the great debate and more toward futurist ideas and theoretical physics...sometimes, philosophy.

 

[ding]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

Not big on allegory, I see.

 

[TNHarley]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

Not big on allegory, I see.

Shut up ding

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

You're spinning your wheels. Once "magic!" is introduced,all bets are off. One can make magic and gods mean anything they want. So one can just point at the universe and say it is exactly as god intended, and nothing anyone could say or do could ever weaken that position. Because....magic!

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.

To clarify, carbon is created during the star's lifetime. It's the explosion that sends the carbon into the rest of the universe, where it eventually collects in forming planets. Just in the mood to nitpick a bit.

If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?

Depends on what your definition if is is. You seem to be suggesting that complexity implies imperfection. But it could easily be argued that increasing complexity implies a higher degree of perfection. In other words, it's a feature, not a bug.

I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

Well, "perfect" is ultimately subjective. More accurately, they typically claim the tri-omni nature of God. And the question you're presenting is effectively a reiteration of the argument from suffering problem.

God is described as being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. That is to say, God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. And that creates a contradiction with the world as we know it where suffering exists. If people are suffering, and God allows them to suffer, then he must not be omnibenevolent. If the problem is that he is incapable of ending the suffering, then he isn't omnipotent. If he's not intervening because he's unaware, then he isn't omniscient. Every possible explanation contradicts one of the three omni, ultimately leading to the inescapable conclusion that if God exists, he can only possess no more than two of the three traits.

 

[ding]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

Not big on allegory, I see.

Shut up ding

I believe you are the one that doesn’t understand. How exactly do you believe ancient man passed down knowledge from one generation to the next? Text messages?

Seriously if you keep reading these accounts as fairytales everything you see will be skewed to those results. You will never get anywhere close to answering the question which is at the heart of the debate.

Considering that 6000 years ago man believed that space and time were created by spirit and that man was a product of that creation maybe you ought to cut them some slack. Or you could just keep calling them dessert savages. Your call.

 

[ding]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.

To clarify, carbon is created during the star's lifetime. It's the explosion that sends the carbon into the rest of the universe, where it eventually collects in forming planets. Just in the mood to nitpick a bit.

If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?

Depends on what your definition if is is. You seem to be suggesting that complexity implies imperfection. But it could easily be argued that increasing complexity implies a higher degree of perfection. In other words, it's a feature, not a bug.

I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

Well, "perfect" is ultimately subjective. More accurately, they typically claim the tri-omni nature of God. And the question you're presenting is effectively a reiteration of the argument from suffering problem.

God is described as being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. That is to say, God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. And that creates a contradiction with the world as we know it where suffering exists. If people are suffering, and God allows them to suffer, then he must not be omnibenevolent. If the problem is that he is incapable of ending the suffering, then he isn't omnipotent. If he's not intervening because he's unaware, then he isn't omniscient. Every possible explanation contradicts one of the three omni, ultimately leading to the inescapable conclusion that if God exists, he can only possess no more than two of the three traits.

Exactly. Given the universe’s proclivity towards disorder it is quite remarkable that order from chaos occurs. It’s certainly no accident. It’s literally programmed into the laws of nature.

 

[ding]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.

To clarify, carbon is created during the star's lifetime. It's the explosion that sends the carbon into the rest of the universe, where it eventually collects in forming planets. Just in the mood to nitpick a bit.

If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?

Depends on what your definition if is is. You seem to be suggesting that complexity implies imperfection. But it could easily be argued that increasing complexity implies a higher degree of perfection. In other words, it's a feature, not a bug.

I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

Well, "perfect" is ultimately subjective. More accurately, they typically claim the tri-omni nature of God. And the question you're presenting is effectively a reiteration of the argument from suffering problem.

God is described as being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. That is to say, God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. And that creates a contradiction with the world as we know it where suffering exists. If people are suffering, and God allows them to suffer, then he must not be omnibenevolent. If the problem is that he is incapable of ending the suffering, then he isn't omnipotent. If he's not intervening because he's unaware, then he isn't omniscient. Every possible explanation contradicts one of the three omni, ultimately leading to the inescapable conclusion that if God exists, he can only possess no more than two of the three traits.

Or it could be that God is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions.

There’s not much virtue in being forced to be virtuous.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Or it could be that God is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions.

So he'll only eliminate suffering when it suits him? Then he's not omnibenevolent.

There’s not much virtue in being forced to be virtuous.

So he can't achieve virtuous humans without forcing them? Then he's not omnipotent.

 

[BreezeWood]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

.

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon.

that is a rather week argument for imperfection when each element of the periodic table represents a distinct and inalterable state responsible for all things known in the universe - and are created by a cauldron of unimaginable intensity. and are responsible for the progression of life. there is a difference between mechanical perfection and metaphysical purity the heart of religion. purity, not perfection is the true sabbath responsible for life in the Everlasting.

Is their god really not perfect? Was his their story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand ...

no, not just madeup -

their self motivated corruption has dwelled and captured for centuries a political manifestation for their itinerary having nothing whatsoever to do with what they eviscerate to accomplish their own illicit goals through deceit. all three desert religions.

 

[ding]

Or it could be that God is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions.

So he'll only eliminate suffering when it suits him? Then he's not omnibenevolent.

There’s not much virtue in being forced to be virtuous.

So he can't achieve virtuous humans without forcing them? Then he's not omnipotent.

The best example I can think of for power is accomplishing one’s objective without the use of force. In fact, if God met his objective through the sheer power of force, rather than being a sign of strength it would be a sign of weakness.

 

[ding]

Or it could be that God is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions.

So he'll only eliminate suffering when it suits him? Then he's not omnibenevolent.

There’s not much virtue in being forced to be virtuous.

So he can't achieve virtuous humans without forcing them? Then he's not omnipotent.

Suffering serves a purpose much like forest fires serve a purpose.

Are you telling me that you would only wish to live a life of ups and no downs? Of only successes and no failures? Of only good times and no bad times?

Where would the fun be in that?

 

[gfm7175]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

It is impossible to prove/disprove God, as God is not falsifiable. He can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis. Trying to go beyond that leads to logical fallacies, especially the argument from ignorance fallacy (and the circular argument fallacy).

The best that you are providing here is evidence for God's non-existence. Evidence is NOT proof in any way, however.

 

[gfm7175]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

I would lean toward this being one of the bad arguments against a deity, because it could be addressed in several ways...

1. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy - "we can't think of any other reason stars would die, if it weren't due to error or imperfection., therefore, they're designed imperfectly" = a.f.i. fallacy.
2. It's a categorical error - you're equivocating death with imperfection without knowledge of any intended goal of a star.
3. Their appeal to "god works in mysterious ways" is annoying, but works to address the claim of contradiction and exacerbates that it's an argument from ignorance Ala point 1.

That's a start.

Correct. You also seem fairly familiar with logic.

The issue with the OP's post right from the start is that it is impossible to prove/disprove God, as attempting to do so leads to fallacies such as the argument from ignorance (as you pointed out) and the circular argument fallacy (in other words, trying to prove circular reasoning, which is typically referred to as 'fundamentalism').

God can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.

 

[gfm7175]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

maybe the problem is you assuming what and how things are created,,,

it takes a lot of arrogance to say you know how something happened 300 billion yrs ago when most of the evidence says otherwise

I'm gonna have to say the problem is you not god

The issue is that science has no theories about past unobserved events. We simply don't know what happened [insert very large number here] years ago; we weren't there to observe it, and we don't have functional time machines to go back in time to observe them. Many theories of the sort get masqueraded as "science", but they are actually religions, much like the religions that people enjoy bashing (such as Christianity).

To be clear on how I am using the terms:

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.

 

[G.T.]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

I would lean toward this being one of the bad arguments against a deity, because it could be addressed in several ways...

1. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy - "we can't think of any other reason stars would die, if it weren't due to error or imperfection., therefore, they're designed imperfectly" = a.f.i. fallacy.
2. It's a categorical error - you're equivocating death with imperfection without knowledge of any intended goal of a star.
3. Their appeal to "god works in mysterious ways" is annoying, but works to address the claim of contradiction and exacerbates that it's an argument from ignorance Ala point 1.

That's a start.

Correct. You also seem fairly familiar with logic.

The issue with the OP's post right from the start is that it is impossible to prove/disprove God, as attempting to do so leads to fallacies such as the argument from ignorance (as you pointed out) and the circular argument fallacy (in other words, trying to prove circular reasoning, which is typically referred to as 'fundamentalism').

God can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.

I think that's the most reasonable current-day conclusion. I haven't seen any compelling evidence for a deity, so I go on as though the proposition isn't very interesting...or, no more interesting than what the Pastafarians believe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The issue is that science has no theories about past unobserved events.

We have never seen a star ignite. We have never watched a fish evolve into a mammal. Yet we have robust theories that explain both and do not require any faith to accept. So maybe I'm confused as to your meaning.

 

[gfm7175]

The only thing observable about your god is an ancient book put together by a select group of individuals that was written by ignorant desert savages that wiped their ass with their hands and fucked their relatives

Argument From Ignorance.

 

[gfm7175]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

I would lean toward this being one of the bad arguments against a deity, because it could be addressed in several ways...

1. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy - "we can't think of any other reason stars would die, if it weren't due to error or imperfection., therefore, they're designed imperfectly" = a.f.i. fallacy.
2. It's a categorical error - you're equivocating death with imperfection without knowledge of any intended goal of a star.
3. Their appeal to "god works in mysterious ways" is annoying, but works to address the claim of contradiction and exacerbates that it's an argument from ignorance Ala point 1.

That's a start.

Correct. You also seem fairly familiar with logic.

The issue with the OP's post right from the start is that it is impossible to prove/disprove God, as attempting to do so leads to fallacies such as the argument from ignorance (as you pointed out) and the circular argument fallacy (in other words, trying to prove circular reasoning, which is typically referred to as 'fundamentalism').

God can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.

I think that's the most reasonable current-day conclusion. I haven't seen any compelling evidence for a deity, so I go on as though the proposition isn't very interesting...or, no more interesting than what the Pastafarians believe.

And I DO believe in a deity. I've had experiences in my life which have led to the strengthening of that belief. I accept on a faith basis that the Christian God exists; You, in a likewise manner, reject deities on a faith basis. You can't prove that there are indeed none, and I can't prove that there indeed IS one (or several). It's a belief based on faith. That's what it comes down to.