Free Will x Infinity =...

[Paradoxum]

Ok, but the question basically remains the same:
If god is capable of making it happen that people - despite having the physical capacity to do evil - don´t have and never will have a desire to (are unable to), why didn´t he do that right in the beginning?

I don't know

 

[quatona]

I don't know

Ok.
The point however is that without an answer to this question the entire theological "freewill"-defense doesn´t explain what it´s meant to explain. Would you agree?

 

[Resha Caner]

Perhaps the quatona's question can be asked this way (forgive me, quatona): What sort of perfection is it that entails a lack that can be fulfilled? Aristotle, IIRC, had it that the supreme being in its perfection did nothing at all except contemplate itself as it is completely fulfilled in and of itself. As such, creation is an accidental emanation from the supreme being that it itself was perhaps unaware of.

FYI, John Warwick Montgomery classifies Aristotle's concept of god as EC where he classifies Christianity as ECK, where the letters in his scheme are denoted by:

E = eternal
T = temporal
C = conscious
K = knows the world
W = includes the world

 

[quatona]

FYI, John Warwick Montgomery classifies Aristotle's concept of god as EC where he classifies Christianity as ECK

Except, of course, in periods when god had "to choose voluntary nescience".

 

[Tinker Grey]

I appreciate the information. Can you answer the question, though? Here it is again: What sort of perfection is it that entails a lack that can be fulfilled?

Aristotle's god is an example of why the term perfection can be problematic.

 

[Resha Caner]

Do you have an answer to the two questions that remained unanswered so far?

With respect to the relevance of my analogy: It is my answer to your question.

Your question has:
A) a perfect being
B) a change enacted by the perfect being

If you think it necessary to make a specific association of A & B to my analogy, then ...

My analogy has:
1) circle
2) triangle

This allows for 2 combinations:
1st) 1=A & 2=B
2nd) 1=B & 2=A

The choice between the 1st and the 2nd can be made by going to this website (RANDOM.ORG - True Random Number Service) and pushing the button marked "Generate." A number less than or equal to 50 indicates the 1st. Otherwise, it is the 2nd one.

 

[Resha Caner]

I appreciate the information. Can you answer the question, though? Here it is again: What sort of perfection is it that entails a lack that can be fulfilled?

I'm sorry if I appeared to brush you off, Tinker. You've been nothing but polite.

Aristotle's god is an example of why the term perfection can be problematic.

Right. It certainly does. I was trying to indicate that one can imagination many different embodiments of a "perfect being", but I wasn't think of Aristotle's idea for my answer. As far as answering the question, I'm trying.

Since I started the answer with a question, I didn't want to assume an answer before I moved on. So, I'm still waiting for answer.

 

[quatona]

With respect to the relevance of my analogy: It is my answer to your question.

Your question has:
A) a perfect being
B) a change enacted by the perfect being

Well, I can understand why you would think that that´s what I was asking about, but it was not.
My question had a perfect state of overall affairs (a state in which there was nothing imperfect, i.e. which left nothing to desire).
A wish to change the overall state of affairs (e.g. to create something) indicates that there must have been something left to desire or that something was imperfect about the original state.
I am not seeing how this inner contradiction can be solved.

Another logical problem:
The act of creation changed the perfect state of affairs to the worse - something imperfect resulted. (I´m sorry I had to use a negative word here, but as far as I know the imperfection of the physical world is an essential creed of Christian doctrine - so it´s not something I am trying to make look bad, while Christianity sees it as perfect).
How can a being be perfect when he finds pleasure in changing things to the worse (perfection with nothing else -> imperfection)?

 

[Resha Caner]

(The emphasis below is mine)

Well, I can understand why you would think that that´s what I was asking about, but it was not.
My question had a perfect state of overall affairs (a state in which there was nothing imperfect, i.e. which left nothing to desire).
A wish to change the overall state of affairs (e.g. to create something) indicates that there must have been something left to desire or that something was imperfect about the original state.
I am not seeing how this inner contradiction can be solved.

It can't.

(Again, the emphasis below is mine)

Another logical problem:
The act of creation changed the perfect state of affairs to the worse - something imperfect resulted. (I´m sorry I had to use a negative word here, but as far as I know the imperfection of the physical world is an essential creed of Christian doctrine - so it´s not something I am trying to make look bad, while Christianity sees it as perfect).
How can a being be perfect when he finds pleasure in changing things to the worse (perfection with nothing else -> imperfection)?

I'm sure someone at this forum is clever enough to find a way. My answer, though, would again be: it can't.

Also, I don't subscribe to the doctrine you're attaching to Christianity. But I didn't see anything that limited your question to Christianity. The question just mentioned some general, abstract, "perfect being."

So, my question again: Is there only one perfection?

 

[quatona]

(The emphasis below is mine)


It can't.

(Again, the emphasis below is mine)


I'm sure someone at this forum is clever enough to find a way. My answer, though, would again be: it can't.

Ok, until we get a compelling answer I am left with the conclusion that something doesn´t add up there.

Also, I don't subscribe to the doctrine you're attaching to Christianity.

The doctrine that the physical world is not perfect?
So in your theology it´s perfect, and the entire sin/salvation plot that mainstream Christianity downright is circled around is just bogus?

But I didn't see anything that limited your question to Christianity. The question just mentioned some general, abstract, "perfect being."

Well, theism (including and first of all Christianity) is - to my knowledge - the only field that operates with the idea that there is a "perfect being", which on top is the sole perfect being.
Thus, the "perfect being", as claimed in Christianity, is not only included in the concept "perfect being", but appears to be downright protagonistic.

So, my question again: Is there only one perfection?

I tried to answer your question about different shapes. Are you merely re-posting your question or are you asking something else now?
The best generic definition of "perfection" is "a condition that leaves no space for improvement". Of course, since triangles, the overall state of affairs of everything that exists, gods and steaks are different there are different criteria for each of them.
I still don´t understand, though, how this is of any relevance for the problem I have pointed out:
If something can be improved it is somewhat lacking (sorry for the negative term, but I won´t suspend logic just to please you).

 

[Resha Caner]

Ok, until we get a compelling answer I am left with the conclusion that something doesn´t add up there.

Why? Give your starting point, your definitions, that is the answer one gets. Aren't we in agreement that, as you have posed the problem, it creates an "inner contradiction"? That was your conclusion. I'm agreeing.

I tried to answer your question about different shapes. Are you merely re-posting your question or are you asking something else now?
The best generic definition of "perfection" is "a condition that leaves no space for improvement". Of course, since triangles, the overall state of affairs of everything that exists, gods and steaks are different there are different criteria for each of them.
I still don´t understand, though, how this is of any relevance for the problem I have pointed out:
If something can be improved it is somewhat lacking (sorry for the negative term, but I won´t suspend logic just to please you).

I didn't realize you consider that to be an answer. I was expecting yes or no.

My answer is, "No, there is not a single perfection." Just as one can define a perfect circle, one can also define a perfect equilateral triangle. They are both perfect, but they are different from one another.

It is true that they cannot be improved. That is a tautology related to the word perfection. But is the opposite true or false? Can the perfect be corrupted?

 

[quatona]

I didn't realize you consider that to be an answer. I was expecting yes or no.

Ah, I see. I should have known, since you are notorious for answering questions simply yes or no.

My answer is, "No, there is not a single perfection." Just as one can define a perfect circle, one can also define a perfect equilateral triangle. They are both perfect, but they are different from one another.

Yeah, that´s what I think I said: Since a triangle is different from a circle obviously a perfect triangle is different from a perfect triangle.
I find the paraphrasing of this fact as "There are different perfections" doubtful. I mean, a green triangle is different from a green circle, either - yet the conclusion (or paraphrase of this observation) "there are different greens" is fallacious.
The definition of "perfect" and the definition of "green" remains the same.

Anyway, I´m still curious if there´s any relevance of all this for my point.

It is true that they cannot be improved. That is a tautology related to the word perfection.

Yes, that´s what an excellent (or dare I say "perfect"? ) definition is supposed to be. Thanks for the compliment!

But is the opposite true or false? Can the perfect be corrupted?

Well, a corruptable thing certainly leaves space for improvement - it would be better if it were uncorruptable. So no.
(E.g. if god turned out to be corruptible - would you still call him "perfect"? I have often heard god´s incorruptability praised to be a primary aspect of his perfection... )

 

[Resha Caner]

I find the paraphrasing of this fact as "There are different perfections" doubtful. I mean, a green triangle is different from a green circle, either - yet the conclusion (or paraphrase of this observation) "there are different greens" is fallacious.

If that's so, you need to find a different way to explain your concern. I think you're confusing the object with its properties. The thing is not possessed of 2 objects: triangle and green. Green is a property of the triangle. If you want to include green as your requirement for perfection, so be it. Then your equilateral triangles must be green.

Mine can be any color. So, they could change from green to red and still be perfect.

Are you saying that all properties must be fixed for something to be perfect? I don't think I would agree with that.

Well, a corruptable thing certainly leaves space for improvement - it would be better if it were uncorruptable. So no.
(E.g. if god turned out to be corruptible - would you still call him "perfect"? I have often heard god´s incorruptability praised to be a primary aspect of his perfection... )

Touche'. This poses an interesting problem. There's something about it that doesn't seem quite right, but I'm not sure I can put my finger on it.

I would take this to mean that all perfect things must contain the property that they are incorruptible. But it creates this really weird conundrum. Let's see if I can lay it out.

If I define an equilateral triangle as one where all 3 sides are congruent, and I give triangle ABC as a triangle with 3 congruent sides, then it is equilateral. Since it has met the requirements, doesn't that make it "perfect"? But, by your definition, I should not be able to corrupt it.

That means I cannot cut the triangle. If I draw a line that cuts the triangle to make 2 new triangles, I have corrupted the equilateral triangle. It is no longer one equilateral triangle. It is now 2 non-equilateral triangles. That would seem to say it was never perfect in the first place. But how? What criteria did it violate?

So, is there such a thing as a "perfect" equilateral triangle and an "imperfect" equilateral triangle? If so, how would I distinguish them? If I cannot, that distinction is meaningless. If the conclusion is that no "perfect" equilateral triangles exist, then your definition of "perfect" becomes useless. I would need a new term - something like "fully compliant with the requirements", which seems a bit silly given that the word "perfect" seems to work quite nicely.

Does that make sense, or did I miss something?

 

[quatona]

If that's so, you need to find a different way to explain your concern. I think you're confusing the object with its properties. The thing is not possessed of 2 objects: triangle and green. Green is a property of the triangle. If you want to include green as your requirement for perfection, so be it. Then your equilateral triangles must be green.

Mine can be any color. So, they could change from green to red and still be perfect.

Are you saying that all properties must be fixed for something to be perfect? I don't think I would agree with that.

No, that was not at all the point I was trying to make.
I didn´t mean to make any connection between colour and perfection (i.e. I wasn´t talking about perfect green triangles or what being green means for their perfection or something.

The only point was: The fact that different objects can have the same property doesn´t allow for the conclusion that this property is different for all those objects.
Two different objects, say, pen and an eraser (and forget about perfection for a moment, please) are green. The conclusion "there are different greens/greennesses" is fallacious: The definition of "green" is unaffected by this fact.
Likewise, the property "perfection": The generic definition of "perfection" would be unaffected by the fact that different things can be perfect.

Let me, however, make a general caveat: When discussing ideas both of us should be aware that there is the danger of pretending to refute the idea by means of semantics. It seems to me that we are awfully close to that.
I´m not blaming you or something - it´s just that that happens often (and it happens to me, too), and we often do it without even noticing.
E.g.: I think what you actually meant to submit was: "for a triangle and a square it means something different to be perfect". I understand what you mean, and I agree with that. Thus, my above objection technically refutes the semantic presentation of your idea - but the idea is not affected by that.
I do think, however, that the problem started earlier: It was when you presented the idea of a "perfect" triangle, thereby suggesting that this would be an analogy to "God is perfect" or "the overall state of affairs is perfect".
"Perfect triangle" is a technical term for a concept in mathematics. Beyond that it doesn´t make sense. Something is either a triangle or it´s not. Something either matches the definition of "triangle" (it has three sides and three angles) - then it´s a triangle, or it doesn´t - then it´s not. In this context "perfect" simply means "congruent with the definition". And we do have a definition first, and later we can compare the object to the given definition.
This is entirely different with e.g. the statement "God is perfect". The fact that semantics actually induce the problem starts much earlier, imo. Namely exactly at that point. "God is perfect" appears to be thrown out merely for its positive connotation value, for the connotated superiority and singularity, but it comes without any definition. This renders the statement patently meaningless at that point in time.
I guess the best thing to do with such a statement would be to point that out and be done with it. Instead, somehow, theists regularly manage it to make me accept the burden of defining their terms for them, to give them meaning. Only to find out that the person who introduced the term as a keyterm starts submitting that "perfect" can have different meanings and means something different for every object and that that´s not what they had in mind when using the term. They come up with a priori clearly defined concepts ("triangle") for a comparison (simply ignoring the fact that this is exactly what they have NOT done with their keyterm - thereby inducing the problem).
"God is perfect" at that time is not a description of god. It is thrown out as an untouchable tautology. Rather would you shift around the definition of "perfect" so that the statement can be kept true than allowing for the fact that the statement could be shown to be inaccurate. "God" is defined as "perfect" and "perfect" as "what god is".
I´m stupid. I shouldn´t accept this procedure, yet I fall for it time again.
The statement "god is perfect" deserves the response "What does it mean for god to be perfect? Until you give me a chart of defining properties that fill this generic term with meaning, I have no idea what you are talking about, and I won´t accept this as a keyterm for the discussion."

Touche'. This poses an interesting problem. There's something about it that doesn't seem quite right, but I'm not sure I can put my finger on it.

I would take this to mean that all perfect things must contain the property that they are incorruptible. But it creates this really weird conundrum. Let's see if I can lay it out.

If I define an equilateral triangle as one where all 3 sides are congruent, and I give triangle ABC as a triangle with 3 congruent sides, then it is equilateral. Since it has met the requirements, doesn't that make it "perfect"? But, by your definition, I should not be able to corrupt it.

That means I cannot cut the triangle. If I draw a line that cuts the triangle to make 2 new triangles, I have corrupted the equilateral triangle. It is no longer one equilateral triangle. It is now 2 non-equilateral triangles. That would seem to say it was never perfect in the first place. But how? What criteria did it violate?

So, is there such a thing as a "perfect" equilateral triangle and an "imperfect" equilateral triangle? If so, how would I distinguish them? If I cannot, that distinction is meaningless. If the conclusion is that no "perfect" equilateral triangles exist, then your definition of "perfect" becomes useless. I would need a new term - something like "fully compliant with the requirements", which seems a bit silly given that the word "perfect" seems to work quite nicely.

Does that make sense, or did I miss something?

I see and understand your point here.
Except: it is far from any idea we are actually discussing. Compared to the topic at hand, it is full of equivocations (e.g. "corrupt" as a negative value statement, and "corrupt" as merely "changed". And just like my objection in the beginning of my post semantically distracted from the idea you actually meant to communicate, all this does not affect the point I am trying to communicate.
Don´t get me wrong: semantics are extremely important. I´m not at all opposed to defining terms properly. If that´s what you want, simply do it with your keyterms. Don´t say "God is perfect", suggesting it should tell me something, and later start asking me "Yeah, but what does actually it mean for god to be perfect?". You should know that and tell me (and at best along with the statement already), not vice versa.
A löt could be said in response (and this might be an interesting discussion) but, anticipating your permission, I won´t go into these details.
(Let me just tell you this - not as a point or an argument for or against something, but because it might simply interest you how different our views are: "Perfection", for me, is anything else but a positively connotated term. Exactly for the reason that it implies complete static, immovabilty, unchangeability. Perfection is death. I don´t want stuff to be perfect - because else there would be nothing left to do for me. I would be entirely happy with a non-perfect god, a god for whom to act makes sense because he is changing himself, e.g. a god who is bored with himself in all his static glory, a god who feels lonely, a god who feels he should get out more and therefore creates a physical world with all the dynamics that he´s missing. A god who has needs, and therefore a reason to do something. A god who is not omniscient but has the privilege of experiencing surprise, disappointment, hope. A god who has a desire to participate in all that, and therefore steps down and becomes human himself. The latter being a motif common to many religions and - minus the intention I have ascribed - even Christianity. I love the idea of god trying his best correcting his mistakes and compensating his creatures for all the drama that necessarily came with his wish for there to be non-perfection.
But then, I don´t like the idea that this compensation results in a Heaven - allegedly a state of perfection similar to the state god himself couldn´t stand anymore in the beginning. It doesn´t make sense, and it´s not desirable).

I´m sorry for all the - in your perception - negatively connotated words I am using here. I assure you - it´s not to make god look bad. It´s an attempt to make look good, because I have different value connotations than you.

Finally, I´ll try to reword the problem I see (and which I felt was lost in the semantics discussion what perfection might be NOT). I won´t even use the word "perfection":

God with himself in all his glory had a desire to change the state of affairs. He changed it in a way that every only halfway intelligent being would immediately know would inevitably come with drama, emotions, suffering, joy, all the stuff that requires dynamics.
Now, either this was exactly what god wanted and desired (i.e. the very motive for doing what he did),
OR it was an undesired byproduct that needed to be fixed and brought back to the original state.
We cannot have it both ways, and - unless we assume that god had no plan whatsoever and just created randomly, purposelessly, without driven by a motive, and without knowing what he did) - it must be one of the two.

The question in short: Does/did god desire there to be drama/dynamics (which can´t be had without good and bad, joy and suffering etc.) or does god desire a state with only good?
And the follow up questions:
In the first case: why does he complain about there being good and bad (or even accuse us of being what he created us for)? Why the heck is there a problem to be solved when this very "problem" is intrinsic part of what he desired for?
In the latter case: Why did god create something that predictably for even a non-omniscient being (I mean, all that´s required is basic logic) created the state he did not desire?

And an analogy:
If I invent a competitive game this implies that someone must lose.
It doesn´t make sense for me to later step up and say: I wanted this competitive game, but I didn´t want anyone to lose. Win/loss is an essential, inevitable consequence of a competitive game. It´s not only not a byproduct, it is what competitive games are about.

 

[Paradoxum]

Ok.
The point however is that without an answer to this question the entire theological "freewill"-defense doesn´t explain what it´s meant to explain. Would you agree?

I know it needs to be answered, and I do know a number of replies to it, its just that I don't know if they are good replies or not. Also this isn't a major issue for me right now, I would rather know if it is justified to believe in God in light of reason and evidence.

 

[quatona]

I know it needs to be answered, and I do know a number of replies to it, its just that I don't know if they are good replies or not. Also this isn't a major issue for me right now,

Oh, that´s perfectly fine with me. Far be it from me to urge you into a discussion that is of no interest to you, or at least not worth the effort at this point in time.
(It´s just the fact that you started playing devil´s advocate here that gave me the idea you had an interest.)

I would rather know if it is justified to believe in God in light of reason and evidence.

God? What do you mean??
Which god? I think the very point of these discussions is to find out whether certain god concepts can be reconciled with reason and evidence.
So the idea is probably at least to exclude which god concept can be excluded when applying these criteria.

Out of curiosity: How would you go about pursuing the goal to find out if it´s justified to believe in god inlight of reason and evidence - other than comparing god concepts to logic, reason and evidence?

 

[Resha Caner]

You make some good points (which I'll note in a bit). Maybe you now see some relevance in me pushing in this direction? Maybe not. But it worked for me. I see some key differences in our positions, and I'll note those up front, as it's probably useful for you to consider them as I respond. Not that I expect you to agree, but it will give you some context for my response.

1) You see perfection as a static thing, and I don't. So, you seem to think that if something becomes "corrupted", it was never "perfect" in the first place.
2) You seem to think that any "dynamic" must have a "good" side and a "bad" side, and I don't.
3) Because of #1 and #2, you seem to think an interaction between 2 beings can only occur if one of them isn't perfect. I don't see how you could allow for 2 "perfect" (not infinite, just perfect) beings to be "satisfied" by interacting with each other. I think they could be.
4) Even moreso, if one being created the other, you seem to think there must have been something "lacking" in the first being. I don't see that as a necessity.
5) Finally, you give an impression of the position that if one being creates another, the creator eternally bears all responsibility for the actions of the created and the created bears no responsibility. I doubt that is really your position - I wouldn't think you would expect that of earthly parents. But, you've given no indication of how you would divide the responsibility.

With that ...

The only point was: The fact that different objects can have the same property doesn´t allow for the conclusion that this property is different for all those objects.

Good point.

... there is the danger of pretending to refute the idea by means of semantics. It seems to me that we are awfully close to that.

Another good point, and maybe that is true. I'm not sure yet.

I do think, however, that the problem started earlier: It was when you presented the idea of a "perfect" triangle, thereby suggesting that this would be an analogy to "God is perfect" or "the overall state of affairs is perfect".
"Perfect triangle" is a technical term for a concept in mathematics. Beyond that it doesn´t make sense. Something is either a triangle or it´s not...

"God is perfect" at that time is not a description of god. It is thrown out as an untouchable tautology.

Yes and no. So, you get 1/2 a point.

Not that this was a new realization, but it is new for me to put it in these terms. To say God is perfect is basically a tautology (if one assumes God is the creator of all things). At this point I'm not sure what to do with that, but I can see how it would be a difficulty for you.

With that said, I think "perfect" is defined by meeting a standard. If there is no standard, then the word is meaningless. You want me to define the standard for God's perfection. I can understand that. But then you can't reject my standard for perfect triangles. It doesn't matter if that definition seems like a mere technicality to you. My new realization here is that all definitions of perfection, once given, will probably seem somewhat like a trivial technicality.

I see and understand your point here.
Except: it is far from any idea we are actually discussing. Compared to the topic at hand, it is full of equivocations (e.g. "corrupt" as a negative value statement, and "corrupt" as merely "changed".

Good point. But I can distinguish the two. A change which is a "corruption" is one which causes the object to violate one of the requirements for perfection. So, cutting an equilateral triangle, even though the result is 2 new triangles, is corruption (give my definition of the "perfect" equilateral triangle). I have to say I like that because were I to draw an analogy between triangles and people (Hmm. Ever heard of "Flatland"?), the "corrupted" triangle is still a triangle just as a corrupted person is still a person.

On the other hand, changing from green to red is not corruption. It is simply change. So ...

"Perfection", for me, is anything else but a positively connotated term. Exactly for the reason that it implies complete static, immovabilty, unchangeability. Perfection is death.

I think comparing this quote to what I just said confirms difference #1 that I noted at the beginning. As such, I don't think what follows is necessary for God.

I don´t want stuff to be perfect - because else there would be nothing left to do for me. I would be entirely happy with a non-perfect god, a god for whom to act makes sense because he is changing himself, e.g. a god who is bored with himself in all his static glory, a god who feels lonely, a god who feels he should get out more and therefore creates a physical world with all the dynamics that he´s missing.

-

And an analogy:
If I invent a competitive game this implies that someone must lose.
It doesn´t make sense for me to later step up and say: I wanted this competitive game, but I didn´t want anyone to lose. Win/loss is an essential, inevitable consequence of a competitive game. It´s not only not a byproduct, it is what competitive games are about.

This is a good analogy, because it allows me to point out something about the "dynamic" you seek. When I was younger, I hated to lose. It ate me up. That's not really true anymore. So, I think maturity brings the ability to compete without taking a loss as "bad." I think "perfect" beings could compete - could win & lose - without that being bad. Losing is an opportunity to learn, and I love to learn.

 

[Resha Caner]

I would rather know if it is justified to believe in God in light of reason and evidence.

In short, no.

Given that we probably share some similarity in thinking of God as infinite in some way, a little bit of thought should convince you that the finite can never approach the infinite.

But even if you were pursuing a finite god, as long as that god is a person, the answer is still no. There are just some things about a person that the "reason and evidence" approach doesn't convey.

If all you want is a stone god, then maybe the answer would be yes, but that hardly seems a worthwhile pursuit.

 

[quatona]

You make some good points (which I'll note in a bit). Maybe you now see some relevance in me pushing in this direction? Maybe not. But it worked for me.

Only because you asked (and no hard feelings):
I still can´t help but feeling that you are pushing me to do your work for you. I understand how you feel that this works for you. I´m still not overly enthusiastic about this approach.

I see some key differences in our positions, and I'll note those up front, as it's probably useful for you to consider them as I respond. Not that I expect you to agree, but it will give you some context for my response.

Again, only for a methodological feedback (and not as a complaint or accusation): Since this is all about your concepts I think it would have been a better approach had you been the one who started to define your terms and concepts first - instead of keeping me guessing and then contradicting me.

Now for the differences as you noted them:

1) You see perfection as a static thing, and I don't. So, you seem to think that if something becomes "corrupted", it was never "perfect" in the first place.

Let me first clarify something concerning language in general. It´s not like "I see perfection as...a thing". It´s the definition I am applying.
I am willing to accept any other definition for purposes of the discussion of someone else´s concepts. For me, you could define "perfection" as "buttermilk" for purposes of discussing your ideas in which it is a key-concept and I would willingly accept this definition for purposes of that discussion. But you would have to do it. It´s your job. Throwing out a term, refusing to define your use of it before-hand, leaning back and have me guessing just to say "no, that´s not what I mean" is not quite fair, I think.
Thus, if you want me to understand what you mean when saying "God is perfect" you tell me what it means for god to be perfect. Now.
This includes giving me a possibility to discern a perfect God from a non-perfect God. I would have to get an idea what it would mean God to not be perfect.

2) You seem to think that any "dynamic" must have a "good" side and a "bad" side, and I don't.

No, a dynamic generally requires different sides. Dynamics in music require there to be soft and loud. Dynamics in size require there to be small and big. Dynamics in valuations require there to be good and bad. Since we were talking about perfection (and I was assuming you used that as a valuating term) I was also assuming we were talking values. Particularly since all my efforts to keep values out of the discussion just met your insistence on discussing values.

3) Because of #1 and #2, you seem to think an interaction between 2 beings can only occur if one of them isn't perfect. I don't see how you could allow for 2 "perfect" (not infinite, just perfect) beings to be "satisfied" by interacting with each other. I think they could be.

I am hoping that your conclusive definition of "perfection" will allow me to understand better.

4) Even moreso, if one being created the other, you seem to think there must have been something "lacking" in the first being. I don't see that as a necessity.

I hope your conclusive definition of "perfection" will tell my why that is.

5) Finally, you give an impression of the position that if one being creates another, the creator eternally bears all responsibility for the actions of the created and the created bears no responsibility.

Correct.

I doubt that is really your position - I wouldn't think you would expect that of earthly parents. But, you've given no indication of how you would divide the responsibility.

In an early stage of our discussion you rightfully pointed out the immense differences between creation and procreation. I was a little surprised you´d do that because I felt this would ultimately fall back against you. Now this time has come.
We do not create in the sense god is said to have created. We manipulate and modify that which is already there. Huge difference. Not to be equivocated.
To remind you of the most important differences you yourself pointed out: God created not only humans, but everything around including the conditions. Everything.
On another note: Humans are not omniscient and omnipotent. So huge difference there, too.

Not that this was a new realization, but it is new for me to put it in these terms. To say God is perfect is basically a tautology (if one assumes God is the creator of all things). At this point I'm not sure what to do with that, but I can see how it would be a difficulty for you.

I think you should realize that it is a difficulty for you, in the first place.
I can simply respond "this is a meaningless statement, give me something to work with, if you want me to consider your idea".

With that said, I think "perfect" is defined by meeting a standard. If there is no standard, then the word is meaningless. You want me to define the standard for God's perfection.

Hang on. That´s a slight misrepresentation of the situation. As long as you don´t say things like "god is perfect" I don´t want you to do anything like that. It is not my term, it is not my concept. I´m simply stating that the statement "God is perfect" tells me nothing unless you tell me what it means for god not to be perfect. That´s not a matter of my desires, it´s simply how communication becomes meaningful.

I can understand that. But then you can't reject my standard for perfect triangles.

What again was your standard for a perfect triangle and where did I reject it?

It doesn't matter if that definition seems like a mere technicality to you. My new realization here is that all definitions of perfection, once given, will probably seem somewhat like a trivial technicality.

The more technical, the more down-to-earth, the more concrete the better, I say. That´s exactly what I am looking for.

This is a good analogy, because it allows me to point out something about the "dynamic" you seek. When I was younger, I hated to lose. It ate me up. That's not really true anymore. So, I think maturity brings the ability to compete without taking a loss as "bad." I think "perfect" beings could compete - could win & lose - without that being bad. Losing is an opportunity to learn, and I love to learn.

In the beginning of our conversation it would have taken much less than saying "In this instance god lost" for you to be all up in arms about me making god look bad. Now you tell me that losing is (or can be) a good thing. I like this change.

 

[Resha Caner]

I still can´t help but feeling that you are pushing me to do your work for you. I understand how you feel that this works for you. I´m still not overly enthusiastic about this approach.

I wouldn't feel bad about pushing you to work unless you gained nothing from the conversation. If that is the case, then I'll apologize if I dragged you into this and release you from whatever obligation you might feel to continue.

Maybe there are some general misunderstandings between us about why this conversation ever happened in the first place. My original reply was to the OP, not to you. You objected to that post. So, you must have made some assumptions about my meaning before I ever defined anything. To then turn around and insist that I define everything seems a bit disingenuous.

I say "a bit" because this has long since been a conversation only between you and me. So, I think we both recognized a certain re-entrenchment of our positions. With that said, neither one of us has ever really accepted the other's terms. If it is fair for you to demand definitions from me, it is likewise fair for me to demand of you the process you will use for assessing those definitions.

You spent all your time insisting the onus was completely on me to provide definitions, and never willingly gave up the process you would use to assess those definitions. I was reluctant to ever give definitions without knowing your process - hence my sarcastic comment about you providing a "comprehensive" definition of your own. You and I both know the "perfect" definition is not humanly possible.

With that said, I will admit one "fault". Until we came to the end of this conversation, I was not able to clearly express what I was asking of you. I'm qualifying "fault" because, from my very first reply to you I noted that I wasn't quite sure how to frame my reply. That you continued with the discussion seems a de facto acceptance of that. And, if my having learned from this is a "fault", then I intend to commit many similar faults in the future.

In the end, I did get what I needed. The process you would have used to assess my definitions contained, from the outset, assumptions that would have led you to conclude my theological system has contradictions. Now that I know what they are, and since you seem willing to replace them "for the sake of the argument" we could proceed. But proceeding may be moot.

In the beginning of our conversation it would have taken much less than saying "In this instance god lost" for you to be all up in arms about me making god look bad. Now you tell me that losing is (or can be) a good thing. I like this change.

So, as a final comment, I'll note that much of what I said at the end was predicated on comments I made about a shift toward a generalized perfect being which opened the door to the inventing-as-you-go that you so detest. As such, phrases like "in this instance god lost" cannot be assumed to apply ipso facto to my specific theology. You'll take that as equivocation. (shrug) I can't help that. All I'm indicating is an openness to searching the concept "in this instance god lost" because I can see a road from there to elements of my theology. But the final semantics of how the concept is expressed would, in the end, be very important to me.