I was expecting you to adress my points. I just made a point a few posts early this week that a perfect god can only creat perfect things. You brought the idea of god being able to creat imperfect things. I argued for my position and I was hoping for you to reply.
I'm just curious to see how would you defend what you've said taking in accout my latest point.
I don't know if my point of view is correct. For me is more logical. But if it's not I would like to know why.
Expect all you like. If I don't have the time I'm not going to give you huge replies.
As far as I can tell, your logic is the logic of definitions. You say that a perfect god can only create perfect things, because that's your definition of a perfect god.
There's no point arguing against that, and there's no logically undermining it. It's circular logic, it supports itself. So I'm unlikely to attempt to refute your points, as much as I am to ask for clarification where I feel that it's necessary.
For example:
Imari
Because if god can fail, he can not demand us to be perfect and condemn us to eternal hell for our failures.
Why not?
I'd quite like to see you address this. Why is it that someone who can fail (but not necessarily does fail) incapable of demanding perfecting and meting out punishment?
As far as the stuff you said previously.
you are assuming that religion doesn't make any logical sense.
Religion is more or less by definition illogical. It's a belief in something for which there is no objective evidence, and so is there for illogical. Still, some people seem to enjoy it.
I think it's a bit foolish to be criticising a religion for having an illogical God, when the religion is illogical from the word go.
If you open the possibility of a perfect god be able to create imperfect things, there is no worng with anything that's imperfect,
Why would there be anything wrong with imperfect things?
there is no wrong with satan/lucifer
Satan is not "wrong" simply because he is Satan. He's "wrong" (and I hope I know what you mean by that word) because he does evil things. Stuff isn't wrong simply because it exists.
there is no wrong with sin
Sin is not created, like a book or a flower or a person. It is performed. There is a major difference. But still, a lot of things that are sinful I can see nothing wrong with. Homosexuality, for instance.
and ultimately there is no wrong/evil.
I'd like to see someone prove that good and evil exist in the sense that some things are created evil or created good. Good and evil are convenient concepts for describing behaviours.
If god is perfect, everything he creates has to be perfect.
Why is this logically true?
If not, he's not perfect and he's not god.
Correction, he's not God, with a capital G. You're referring to one very specific incarnation of a god, the Judeo/Christian God. That God has extremely specific attributes that are logically impossible.
But since believing in him is logically untenable, and one of God's logically impossible attributes is that he can do anything even if it's logically impossible, I doubt it bothers many believers.