For all atheists, what is your opinion on this quotation?

Question

One of the proofs and demonstrations of the existence of God is the fact that man did not create himself: nay, his creator and designer is another than himself.

It is certain and indisputable that the creator of man is not like man because a powerless creature cannot create another being. The maker, the creator, has to possess all perfections in order that he may create.

Can the creation be perfect and the creator imperfect? Can a picture be a masterpiece and the painter imperfect in his art? For it is his art and his creation. Moreover, the picture cannot be like the painter; otherwise, the painting would have created itself. However perfect the picture may be, in comparison with the painter it is in the utmost degree of imperfection.

The contingent world is the source of imperfections: God is the origin of perfections. The imperfections of the contingent world are in themselves a proof of the perfections of God.

Some Answered Questions by 'Abdu'l-Bahá

Answer 1

Thats not a question..its a rant...;

Answer 2

No, no, no wrong wrong wrong. Think about beautiful symphonies written by imperfect men, and yes paintings by VanGogh that many feel are perfect art, created by a very disturbed and imperfect artist. So, your argument is flawed not only by your obvious brainwashed mind, but also in the technicalities of reason itself. Stay in school, and take a break from your weekly brainwashing at your church. What looks like perfection in nature is the result of many trial and error of survival of the fittest. The plants with the biggest, prettiest flowers attract the most pollinators. The male birds with the nicest plumage attract the most mates and produce more offspring that is also stronger. Evolution, natural selection and survival of the fittest, is what makes it possible for you to type your silly question. Next......

Answer 3

Well, it's pretty hard to answer because you're PRESUMING we require a creator. The examples you use "like a painting" is very different than a human because paintings aren't biological. They can't replicate themselves (they REQUIRE a creator). We humans (and other life forms) can procreate and make little verions of us.

I don't really understand how the bulk of this arguement even applies to atheists, since it's about "imperfect" creations that require a creator. (Hint: atheists would contend that if one generation has an imperfection, it would get weeded out of the gene pool and the next generation would have fewer of that imperfection)

Yeah, THIS'll get best answer from ya! :P

Answer 4

Aside from a certain poetic quality, the substance of the quote is a series of unwarranted assumptions followed by even less warranted conclusions. It is, in effect, logically meaningless. His very first proposal is as arrogant as it is baseless.

I am always amazed how dogmatists can utter words like "creation" in such absurd ways, as if they had a clue as to what it implies. A painter doesn't "create" anything in the sense he's talking about. A painter merely reassembles EXISTING materials into new forms. 'Abdu'l-Bahá, like most who rant about such things, has never seen anything that resembles the process he glibly, and ignorantly describes as "creation."

Answer 5

That is moronic. The idea that perfection must precede imperfection is frankly ludicrous. Quite the reverse, it should be evident to anyone that it is impossible for a "perfect" being to exist without an "imperfect" precursor. Artistic masterpieces come from years of practice on the artist's part, just as humans are the result of æons of evolution.

Answer 6

The argument is flawed in that it can only be applied to things that do not have life. There are 2 things about life: 1. Life is an inevitable consequence of existence, and 2. The living can adapt. What we call man does not actually exist. Man is just an organism, similar to any other organism with certain adaptations that set it apart. These adaptations are a consequnce of adaptation to certain environments. Man did not have to be created. Man developed

Answer 7

You cannot assume:
a) that humans were created as they are, that has been disproved
b) that the creation of a being is at all similar to the creation of a painting. Using the same logic I could claim that people are entirely composed of paint and canvas.
c) that humans are perfect, you have nothing to compare us to.

Answer 8

Who created the creator then? You know what I think of this, it is a bunch of fancy talk that fools people who are impressed with intellectualism. AND it doesn't even try to prove god exists, it ASSUMES god exists, and argues that God is perfect.

Answer 9

Lots of assumptions there.
First off, nothing is or ever is created, this assumes that you can get "something" from "nothing". Where have you ever seen or heard of evidence of that ever happening? The universe and its matter has always existed and always has changed, but nothing can instantly "pop" into existence, as your quote infers. As nothing can "pop" out of existence, it simply changes form. Due to natural reactions.
There is no evidence for a supernatural reality, thus there is no evidence for a supernatural being that lives there either.
Make sense?

Answer 10

I see a spell checker button but no button that says I am a raving loon that cannot construct a coherent argument on the existance of God. Perhaps you should wait for one of those buttons before asking another question.

Answer 11

my opinion on this quotation is this: the idea of a divine creator is human self-centered nonsense... especially one that originally placed us at the center of the universe on a flat planet with a sun, stars, and planets revolving around us. Man was made in some god's image? huh.. it MUST be that SIMPLE!