Soule Posted August 16, 2006 Author Share Posted August 16, 2006 well to say god is more perfect than humans would be correct. however when dealing with such things as absolute perfection, as in there is no possible way for any of the atributes of god to be improved upon, then i guess it would depend on the atribue you are speaking of. however a single flaw in any of these said atributes would, by definition, negate the lable of absolute perfection. No it wouldn't, unless you could first say that humans are perfect. One cannot be 'more perfect' unless COMPARED to something that is considered perfect. Now that you've defined the nature of god's perfection, how would we know (aside from assuming for the sake of an argument) that god's perfection is infinite? And how does that factor into your previous argument about the people's belief in god's perfection, and how anything less than unanimous opinion negates that perfection? Also, how could his perfection be contingent upon a consensus if everyone didn't believe he exists? because we are assuming that the christian god exists in order to argue against him, we are going to assume what they believe the nature of god to be is aplied to him. thus infinitely perfect. other than that we dont know god is infinitely perfect. interesting link bluegiant. yes i would have to say that what i mean by absolute perfection is alot like that. if god was absolutely perfect, then he would be perfect at being perfect. everyone and everythign would agree that he is perfect. his perfection would be self evident. perfectly self evident. thus everyone would agree that he is perfect. because that is not so, we can say that god is not perfect. even if something dosnt exist, such as a story book character, one can still hold certain opinions of that character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Quantifiable, measurable and verifiable things with upper or lower limits (like no-hitters, 300 in bowling, or 100% on a math test) could be considered objectively perfect. As soon as qualitative factors come into play, gooood luck. I think "perfection" is a completely meaningless word whenever it crosses into the realms of art, emotion, and *ahem* religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 if god was absolutely perfect, then he would be perfect at being perfect. everyone and everythign would agree that he is perfect. his perfection would be self evident. perfectly self evident. thus everyone would agree that he is perfect. because that is not so, we can say that god is not perfect. That doesn't make sense. According to your definition, only god's perfection would be such. He wouldn't be 'perfect at being perfect', he would just be perfect, as only things that had reached his infinite level would be perfect, and presumably, that would be only him. How would his perfection be 'self evident'? What way could god be perfect in that everyone could acknowledge and agree with? And, if that be the case, how could not everyone believe he exists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 17, 2006 Author Share Posted August 17, 2006 if god was absolutely perfect, then he would be perfect at being perfect. everyone and everythign would agree that he is perfect. his perfection would be self evident. perfectly self evident. thus everyone would agree that he is perfect. because that is not so, we can say that god is not perfect. That doesn't make sense. According to your definition, only god's perfection would be such. He wouldn't be 'perfect at being perfect', he would just be perfect, as only things that had reached his infinite level would be perfect, and presumably, that would be only him. How would his perfection be 'self evident'? What way could god be perfect in that everyone could acknowledge and agree with? And, if that be the case, how could not everyone believe he exists? no. if god is absolutely perfect, then all of his atributes would indeed be perfect. since one of his atributes is perfection, he would be "perfect at being perfect." his perfection would be self evident because of this "perfection of perfection". to be perfectly perfect means that everyone would have to recognize this perfection. because everyone dosnt, hes not perfectly perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Okay, that still doesn't make sense. Absolute perfection is the pervasive attribute that encompasses all the others. Therefore, there is no perfection of perfection, according to your definition, there's JUST perfection. Anything less is not perfect, according to your definition. To be suited to properly perform a task is a type of perfection, entirely unrelated to your definition. It does not qualify, and if you look at it, it doesn't even make sense in this context; you can be able to do a job right, but to do it 'perfectly' is another thing entirely. According to your definition, perfection is not one of his attributes, Absolute Perfection is. his perfection would be self evident because of this "perfection of perfection". to be perfectly perfect means that everyone would have to recognize this perfection. because everyone dosnt, hes not perfectly perfect. I would posit that to recognize an infinite suitability to any task would not be possible. Such perfection could never be adequately tested, which is why I keep asking how people would know that god is perfect. At best, we could simply test it to sheer exhaustion and then accept on faith that any further test would yield the same results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 It's meaningless. Get over it! Otherise I'll Buster Keaton you til th Schwanterzenger to Brad Pitt..to goddammittt... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... < + < Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- AUB - Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Platonic Idealism is it. Christianity’s metaphysical framework is based on Aristotle and Plato’s Idealism, which works in the abstract, but has no relation to Empirical reality. That is why neither science or modern philosophy uses it, its bunk. It’s no point arguing over it as only theists still think in those terms, its a dead paradigm in ever other sense. See it as a form of theology, you wouldn’t argue within the terms of Catholic theology who you? You have to have bought into it in the first place, like Christian apologetics, its internal, incestuous, and meaningless outside the bubble. I can’t stand Idealism personally, “Perfection” especially in biological terms is meaningless, but when used in pseudo-science to argue for god, or for racial supremacy in the case of nazism, it just produces lies, and suffering. Remember that “4 point perfect proof of god” guy? His error, (one of many) was to apply Idealism to Evolution, and as a result made a complete arse of himself. As to god, its like “omnipotent”, “omniscient” etc, I’m sure it means allot to theists, but you could apply such terms to any mythical entity, and it would make no more or less sense, prove as much or as little. Perfection, like all idealism or absolutism is a claim to the objective that is purely subjective (or relative), within the empirical universe, with no objective evidence. In essense, empty words. Plato has a lot to answer for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knightley Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 simple question do you believe that there is a such thing as objective perfection? why? There's no such thing as perfection, I like that things aren't perfect. I doubt it'd be very interesting otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGiant Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 If you assert that god is perfect at being perfect, and that by this its perfection is self-evident, then you may have a problem. You stated that the criterion for this self-evident perfection is that all would recognize it as being perfect. But it is clear that many (myself included) do not recognize the existance of that sort of perfection (or a being with that quality). Therefore, that sort of god does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts