Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
Ok.I don't know
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.
Except, of course, in periods when god had "to choose voluntary nescience".FYI, John Warwick Montgomery classifies Aristotle's concept of god as EC where he classifies Christianity as ECK
Do you have an answer to the two questions that remained unanswered so far?
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.
Well, I can understand why you would think that that´s what I was asking about, but it was not.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)?
Ok, until we get a compelling answer I am left with the conclusion that something doesn´t add up there.(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.
The doctrine that the physical world is not perfect?Also, I don't subscribe to the doctrine you're attaching to Christianity.
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.But I didn't see anything that limited your question to Christianity. The question just mentioned some general, abstract, "perfect being."
I tried to answer your question about different shapes. Are you merely re-posting your question or are you asking something else now?So, my question again: Is there only one perfection?
Ok, until we get a compelling answer I am left with the conclusion that something doesn´t add up there.
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).
Ah, I see. I should have known, since you are notorious for answering questions simply yes or no.I didn't realize you consider that to be an answer. I was expecting yes or no.
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.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.
Yes, that´s what an excellent (or dare I say "perfect"?It is true that they cannot be improved. That is a tautology related to the word perfection.
Well, a corruptable thing certainly leaves space for improvement - it would be better if it were uncorruptable. So no.But is the opposite true or false? Can the perfect be corrupted?
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.
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... )
No, that was not at all the point I was trying to make.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.
I see and understand your point here.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?
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?
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.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,
God? What do you mean??I would rather know if it is justified to believe in God in light of reason and evidence.
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.
... 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 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.
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".
"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.
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.
I would rather know if it is justified to believe in God in light of reason and evidence.
Only because you asked (and no hard feelings):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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.2) You seem to think that any "dynamic" must have a "good" side and a "bad" side, and I don't.
I am hoping that your conclusive definition of "perfection" will allow me to understand better.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 hope your conclusive definition of "perfection" will tell my why that is.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.
Correct.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.
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.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.
I think you should realize that it is a difficulty for you, in the first place.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.
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.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.
The more technical, the more down-to-earth, the more concrete the better, I say. That´s exactly what I am looking for.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?