How do you define "perfect" with respect to your god?

[Grega]

This thread may be followed by another but I just want to limit the potential for fuzzy usage of this term by getting a concrete (well concrete as I can reasonably expect) definition from you.




See if I were to state for example that P is a perfect plan to achieve a specific objective X then I would mean the following:

1. P is a set of well defined and viable procedures, furthermore all procedures in P act in some way to facilitate the outcome X (ie: nothing useless or redundant)
2. for any event(s) or circumstance(s) there exist a collection of procedures in P such that if X is not impossible under these conditions then X will be achieved by implementing this collection of procedures.
3. For any other plan Q there will not exist a collection of procedures in Q (where this collection isn't contained in P) that under some set of circumstances will result in a more or equally efficient/reliable/economical/ ... / accurate solution for X than any collection in P (else this would have been included in P!)
4. For any event or cirumstance then there exists one collection of procedures in P that results in X more efficiently/reliably/economically/ ... / accurately than any other collection in P (ie: no ambiguity or cause for confusion/hesitation).
5. If there exists another plan Q where for all conditions in which X is not impossible, X can be achieved just as efficiently/reliably/economically/ ... / accurately as it can be achieved with P then the number of procedures in each subset of P is equal to the number of procedures in the corresponding subsets of Q (ie: P = Q).
6. If it was person x that was tasked with having to achieve X whereby P was then formulated, then x is able to put P into effect and achieve X given any circumstances where X is not impossible.

So what exactly do you mean when you say that your god is perfect?...what are the attributes of something that is perfect?...what is stopping me (or someone else) from conceiving of something ahem...more perfect than your god?
Note that I'm not asking you to provide such a definition in a way that is analagous to that which I gave above for a perfect plan...I just want slightly more substance than say: "The Lord is my savior...he is Perfect [end of response]" or "He is perfect because He transcends everything else [end of response]" etc...


I'll be honest with you as well...I want a sound definition of perfect such that I may perhaps clearly state a number of troubling (contradictory) conclusions I infer from from how your god is defined (such that you may (try to?) explain them away entirely as opposed to half explaining them based on fuzzy interpretations)

*edit* there are probably better ways of defining a perfect plan than that which I gave above
*edit 2* a snippet from a later response I gave in this thread is along the lines of what I want from you:


here is a rudimentary but satisfactory way (for example) I might want (I don't) to define your God's perfection:

1. For all things that are possible to be known he knows them
2. For all things that are possible to be done he can do them
3. For all objectives to be achieved, God will never fail when others succeed
4. There exist no other entities that have these properties, and there never will
5. For all moral judgements that any entity x may have about another entity y's actions, the summation of his actions have the greatest positive magnitude in the eyes of x than any other entity.

Note: these in no way reflect my own views on what a perfect god is!

 

[tansy]

I don'y know how good this reply is, but I would say that God is perfect because He is total love, completely wise, just, merciful, compassionate (I could go on), and He makes no mistakes,
Hopefully someone else will give a better answer or more complete answer than this.

 

[DerSchweik]

This thread may be followed by another but I just want to limit the potential for fuzzy usage of this term by getting a concrete (well concrete as I can reasonably expect) definition from you.

Thank you for at least giving Christians some benefit of doubt in being able to answer this concretely, or to your satisfaction.

Perfect: "Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind. In a state of undiminished or highest excellence; without defect, flawless." New American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

There's my answer to your first question.

I'll be honest with you as well...I want a sound definition of perfect such that I may perhaps clearly state a number of troubling (contradictory) conclusions I infer from from how your god is defined (such that you may (try to?) explain them away entirely as opposed to half explaining them based on fuzzy interpretations)

*edit* there are probably better ways of defining a perfect plan than that which I gave above

If I read your signature correctly, I think I have an idea how you intend to implement your definition of "perfect plan." Suppose we do this - rather than waste time trying to define for you what Christians are bound to have difficulty defining, if I interpreted your first statement correctly, suppose you just go ahead and pose one (1) of the contradictory conclusions you infer and solicit response on that? You are welcome to start other threads posing other contradictions you infer as well. But let's limit these contradictions to one at a time, one per thread.

Understand - the purpose of E.C. is to give honest seekers opportunity to pose questions about the Christian faith. But using this forum as a platform for debating these issues is not appropriate here, ok? The presumption is that you are sincerely interested in knowing more about the Christian faith, that there are no ulterior motives for asking the questions you do - e.g. to start a debate. I am a little concerned about the attitude that you want members to respond merely to give you an opportunity so you can prove them wrong - in other words - "setting the stage" for some pre-defined "whamo" you seek to levy on members here. If I presume too much in stating this, I do apologize.

 

[Ikuis]

So what exactly do you mean when you say that your god is perfect?...what are the attributes of something that is perfect?...what is stopping me (or someone else) from conceiving of something ahem...more perfect than your god?

Note that I'm not asking you to provide such a definition in a way that is analagous to that which I gave above for a perfect plan...I just want slightly more substance than say: "The Lord is my savior...he is Perfect [end of response]" or "He is perfect because He transcends everything else [end of response]" etc...

Personally, I don't think it is possible to provide you with what you ask. Whatever we might come up with in the form of a formula, template, definition, judgment, subjective analysis or even mathematic or logical deduction, it would always be in human terms and since God created human terms he cannot be objectively assessed or measured by his own creation. He is above and beyond such analysis.

Basically, I think God's perfection is a function of human belief as much as belief in his very existence. People try often to moralise of God's behaviour, especially in some of the OT stories, and much of what he does and does not do raises many questions regarding his motives. Human suffering is one huge area for questioning can God a) exist and, if so, b) how can he be called good or perfect? The bottom line, though, is that without perfect knowledge of the whole picture, the whole of God, the whole of the universe and the whole of God's intentions, how can any human decide what constitutes perfection and whether God fits that definition?

So, ultimately, we are left with believing he is perfect simply because he says so and there is no viable yardstick to measure it against. Unless and until something bigger and greater than God, and which is independent of God, comes along we are stuck with it right there.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Grega. This is my 2nd reply reply to " perfect " with respect to God, the first answer must have got lost. Jesus told us to become perfect, as God is perfect. God is LOVE. Jesus gave us 2 Commandments, 1) Love God with all our hearts, all our souls, and all our minds. 2) Love our neighbour as we love ourselves. That shows that God wants us to LOVE, truly and with no strings attached. Our neighbour is EVERYBODY. God made us in His image, God, reincarnated, gave His Life-Blood to pay for our transgressions, the debt is paid now, we are free to return to where we came from, Heaven our original home. Jesus, God-Son is the Way back, He is our Redeemer, Intercessor and Guide. We have been given years to to learn to become perfect as God is perfect, and God can see our hearts, He will know how hard we try to become perfect, as God is perfect. Perfect LOVE, our Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer. I say this humbly and kindly, Grega. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[Grega]

Thank you for at least giving Christians some benefit of doubt in being able to answer this concretely, or to your satisfaction.

Perfect: "Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind. In a state of undiminished or highest excellence; without defect, flawless." New American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

There's my answer to your first question.
If I read your signature correctly, I think I have an idea how you intend to implement your definition of "perfect plan." Suppose we do this - rather than waste time trying to define for you what Christians are bound to have difficulty defining, if I interpreted your first statement correctly, suppose you just go ahead and pose one (1) of the contradictory conclusions you infer and solicit response on that? You are welcome to start other threads posing other contradictions you infer as well. But let's limit these contradictions to one at a time, one per thread.

Understand - the purpose of E.C. is to give honest seekers opportunity to pose questions about the Christian faith. But using this forum as a platform for debating these issues is not appropriate here, ok? The presumption is that you are sincerely interested in knowing more about the Christian faith, that there are no ulterior motives for asking the questions you do - e.g. to start a debate. I am a little concerned about the attitude that you want members to respond merely to give you an opportunity so you can prove them wrong - in other words - "setting the stage" for some pre-defined "whamo" you seek to levy on members here. If I presume too much in stating this, I do apologize.

See, the reason I don't believe in Christianity is because I see problems...and these problems have not been reconciled because most people take for example the statement "God is perfect", read the dictionary definition of "perfect" and then substitute this into "God is perfect" to derive: "God is [dictionary definition]"
What many fail to do is consider what must then also be true given that the definitions are true.
If I try to articulate a problem many will at some point fall back on the "God is perfect" answer without seeing that it is this answer itself that is causing many of the problems!

If there does exist something beyond my perception or ability to detect/measure I see no reason to accept it is perfect let alone anything else.

I know you folks are not fond of debating but where I can articulate my concerns well enough I'd like to be able to make statements such as:
P => Q, S => R, Q => ~R, we are given that P and S are true...please explain
Such statements need not necessarily *disprove* P and S are true merely that the the premises need to be analysed.
That is what I want to do here, clearly define the premises you hold to be true by assumption and then show you why I'm having problems with them.

 

[tansy]

Well, I suppose it does epend on one's definition of "perfect". Some people would find their "perfect" holiday is scuba diving, others would say their "perfect" holiday is lying around in the sun.
I'm not sure that your question is really answerable,,,,,maybe it depends on your point of view, Does Satan think tht God is perfect? Or does he acknowledge that He is but hate Him anyway?

 

[Grega]

Personally, I don't think it is possible to provide you with what you ask. Whatever we might come up with in the form of a formula, template, definition, judgment, subjective analysis or even mathematic or logical deduction, it would always be in human terms and since God created human terms he cannot be objectively assessed or measured by his own creation. He is above and beyond such analysis.

Basically, I think God's perfection is a function of human belief as much as belief in his very existence. People try often to moralise of God's behaviour, especially in some of the OT stories, and much of what he does and does not do raises many questions regarding his motives. Human suffering is one huge area for questioning can God a) exist and, if so, b) how can he be called good or perfect? The bottom line, though, is that without perfect knowledge of the whole picture, the whole of God, the whole of the universe and the whole of God's intentions, how can any human decide what constitutes perfection and whether God fits that definition?

So, ultimately, we are left with believing he is perfect simply because he says so and there is no viable yardstick to measure it against. Unless and until something bigger and greater than God, and which is independent of God, comes along we are stuck with it right there.

Personally, I don't think it is possible to provide you with what you ask. Whatever we might come up with in the form of a formula, template, definition, judgment, subjective analysis or even mathematic or logical deduction, it would always be in human terms and since God created human terms he cannot be objectively assessed or measured by his own creation. He is above and beyond such analysis.
I agree with you in what I quote in grey, but with the last part I could use this line of argument to say that if told that God made a triangular square you would not have justification to assess its truth value because God is beyond your analysis.

I would grey out a similar proportion of your next paragraph and raise issue with the rest for similar reasons


So, ultimately, we are left with believing he is perfect simply because he says so and there is no viable yardstick to measure it against. Unless and until something bigger and greater than God, and which is independent of God, comes along we are stuck with it right there.
Believing because [the Bible] says so is not feasible for me

 

[tansy]

We don't believe simply because the Bible says so...there are other factors, but we find that as we follow God, that the Bible is true - sorry, probably haven't put that very well.

 

[Grega]

Well, I suppose it does epend on one's definition of "perfect". Some people would find their "perfect" holiday is scuba diving, others would say their "perfect" holiday is lying around in the sun.
I'm not sure that your question is really answerable,,,,,maybe it depends on your point of view, Does Satan think tht God is perfect? Or does he acknowledge that He is but hate Him anyway?

Indeed!...what does it mean to say God is perfect?
To me "perfect" when applied to your God means, "best by decree" and since I don't yet see the Bible to be a true account of our history I find the notion of perfect to be a problem.

 

[Grega]

We don't believe simply because the Bible says so...there are other factors, but we find that as we follow God, that the Bible is true - sorry, probably haven't put that very well.

Even if you hold that is true, for me I would have to work on a *the Bible says so* principle...and I cannot!

 

[DerSchweik]

See, the reason I don't believe in Christianity is because I see problems...and these problems have not been reconciled because most people take for example the statement "God is perfect", read the dictionary definition of "perfect" and then substitute this into "God is perfect" to derive: "God is [dictionary definition]"
What many fail to do is consider what must then also be true given that the definitions are true.
If I try to articulate a problem many will at some point fall back on the "God is perfect" answer without seeing that it is this answer itself that is causing many of the problems!

If there does exist something beyond my perception or ability to detect/measure I see no reason to accept it is perfect let alone anything else.

I know you folks are not fond of debating but where I can articulate my concerns well enough I'd like to be able to make statements such as:
P => Q, S => R, Q => ~R, we are given that P and S are true...please explain
Such statements need not necessarily *disprove* P and S are true merely that the the premises need to be analysed.
That is what I want to do here, clearly define the premises you hold to be true by assumption and then show you why I'm having problems with them.

Fair enough Grega. I'm ok with this. FYI, I did not intend my quoting the dictionary to be a trite or dismissive response to your question. It seemed the only logical way to respond without a deeper understanding of the question.

Strictly from a practical perspective, it might be good to try to articulate a specific issue you're having in this regard and then pose that as a question for members to try to answer. In my experience, lengthy attempts at preparing foundation often end up with the discussion veering far off course and never reaching the original goal.

I understand there may be some background preparation for such a question and that's ok too. Members need to understand the question and the reasons why you are asking it. But where at all possible, try to be as succinct and brief as you can. Long trips are typically a connected series of short ones, with each giving brief respite to prepare for the next.

I'm glad, for example, my college courses were broken up into a series of 101's, 102's, 201's, 202's - gave my brain time to digest what I'd learned before moving on to the next level.

The use of formal philosphical symbology to pose either the question or lay its foundation may not be something everyone understands - since not all have had formal philosophical training/education, though I totally understand wanting to use it as economical shorthand for more complex or lengthy principles. I'd recommend trying to avoid its use however - try to keep things simple. I do understand that the reason for some of your questions probably originate from a formal education in philosophy. But given most don't have that education, it's probably best to limit discussion to more commonly understood language and illustrations - formal philosophical arguments are probably best kept in formal philosophical environments. - if that makes any sense.

 

[tansy]

Even if you hold that is true, for me I would have to work on a *the Bible says so* principle...and I cannot!

Well, I think I see what you mean.....but, maybe look at it a slightly different way.

Some people become madly in love with a person, they're infatuated with them,,,think they're perfect. They get married to them, and quickly discover they're not so perfect after all.
With God I would say it's the other way round (well to a point). To begin with one isn't sure about God, but as one enters into a relationship with Him and gets to know Him, one discovers more and more just how "perfect" He is.
I think it would be very difficult to narrow it all down to a 1 and 1 = 2 type thing.

 

[Grega]

Fair enough Grega. I'm ok with this. FYI, I did not intend my quoting the dictionary to be a trite or dismissive response to your question. It seemed the only logical way to respond without a deeper understanding of the question.

Strictly from a practical perspective, it might be good to try to articulate a specific issue you're having in this regard and then pose that as a question for members to try to answer. In my experience, lengthy attempts at preparing foundation often end up with the discussion veering far off course and never reaching the original goal.

I understand there may be some background preparation for such a question and that's ok too. Members need to understand the question and the reasons why you are asking it. But where at all possible, try to be as succinct and brief as you can. Long trips are typically a connected series of short ones, with each giving brief respite to prepare for the next.

I'm glad, for example, my college courses were broken up into a series of 101's, 102's, 201's, 202's - gave my brain time to digest what I'd learned before moving on to the next level.

The use of formal philosphical symbology to pose either the question or lay its foundation may not be something everyone understands - since not all have had formal philosophical training/education, though I totally understand wanting to use it as economical shorthand for more complex or lengthy principles. I'd recommend trying to avoid its use however - try to keep things simple. I do understand that the reason for some of your questions probably originate from a formal education in philosophy. But given most don't have that education, it's probably best to limit discussion to more commonly understood language and illustrations - formal philosophical arguments are probably best kept in formal philosophical environments. - if that makes any sense.

Hmm...I can see your point with the usage of symbols and accept that for some it may be a problem...I just find it much easier to construct and discern the meaning of a gramatically and utilitarianly (<-- not a word that) correct statement using symbols as opposed to getting bogged down with lengthy words and combinations of words, and then having to fend off challenges towards my phraseology as opposed to my view points...to put it another way, my vocabulary isn't so strong as I'd like it to be

With respect to posing one of my questions right now...I'd rather take some time to mull it over, and construct it with a set of parameters most of you hold to be true, than be sent off packing with tail between legs due to inadequate planning, and weariness from explaining what is actually my position.

 

[Grega]

Well, I think I see what you mean.....but, maybe look at it a slightly different way.

Some people become madly in love with a person, they're infatuated with them,,,think they're perfect. They get married to them, and quickly discover they're not so perfect after all.
With God I would say it's the other way round (well to a point). To begin with one isn't sure about God, but as one enters into a relationship with Him and gets to know Him, one discovers more and more just how "perfect" He is.
I think it would be very difficult to narrow it all down to a 1 and 1 = 2 type thing.

Some people become madly in love with a person, they're infatuated with them,,,think they're perfect. They get married to them, and quickly discover they're not so perfect after all.
This demonstrates that assuming a premise true without evaluating it properly can cause problems later on

With God I would say it's the other way round (well to a point). To begin with one isn't sure about God, but as one enters into a relationship with Him and gets to know Him, one discovers more and more just how "perfect" He is.
I doubt again that such an approach would be viable for me since I am a suspicious person...and I am suspicious that if I did *see* God's perfection using that route that it would be a placebo/positive feedback loop type of belief.

 

[Ikuis]

I agree with you in what I quote in grey, but with the last part I could use this line of argument to say that if told that God made a triangular square you would not have justification to assess its truth value because God is beyond your analysis.

Well yes - because it would mean that God had told me it was a triangular square, and also, by definition, created my understanding mechanism of what he tells me. So I would have no basis for assessing its truth independently. Therefore I would be, once again, left only with trust and faith.

Believing because [the Bible] says so is not feasible for me

I fully understand that. It is perfectly natural and indeed recommendable not to place one's trust 100% on a book. But that does not prevent one from exploring what that book says by adopting its teachings and trying, for example, regular prayer, and if it appears to stand up for itself in those areas then extending that trust to assume that other concepts may also be true when they are compatible with what one has found so far?

But even if one did do that, no matter how far one got with a growing suspicion that God, is perhaps perfect afterall, it will never be possible to prove it as a human being because a human being cannot know the whole of God to make such a complete assessment - once again we are forced back into trust and faith.

So many people are so desparate to find a way around this trust and faith requirement, but it is uncanny how it always remains an insurmountable obstacle. It seems to me that all attempts to prove God's existence or even his qualities through objective analysis and logic are the equivalent of trying to force God to come to us on our terms, when I suspect God's purpose is for us to answer his call and come to him on his terms, which are - trust and faith.

 

[DerSchweik]

Hmm...I can see your point with the usage of symbols and accept that for some it may be a problem...I just find it much easier to construct and discern the meaning of a gramatically and utilitarianly (<-- not a word that) correct statement using symbols as opposed to getting bogged down with lengthy words and combinations of words, and then having to fend off challenges towards my phraseology as opposed to my view points...to put it another way, my vocabulary isn't so strong as I'd like it to be

I think the word is "utilitarianistically" LOL.

Hey, not a problem - I'm more a mathematician than I am a philosopher and were it not for symbols, there's very little that would get accomplished in the realm of numbers without them - so I understand the desire to use them. And don't get me wrong, it's not wrong at all to use them - but it is important to consider your audience too, something I learned the hard way, trying to explain algebra to my wife

Not all here are entirely unversed in philosophy either so I don't want to totally discourage their use... 'nuff said on that, I guess

With respect to posing one of my questions right now...I'd rather take some time to mull it over, and construct it with a set of parameters most of you hold to be true, than be sent off packing with tail between legs due to inadequate planning, and weariness from explaining what is actually my position.

Again, fair enough

 

[salida]

Can you keep the 10 Commandments 100% of the time all the time? Only Jesus could. This is a start in the world of perfection. You may want to go to www.livingwaters.com/good/ Are you a good person?

 

[solarwave]

I would say it is because He is sinless, His knowledge is perfect and never wrong, His love never fails and is unconditional, He always does the right thing.

Basically perfection is to be without error and God is completely without error.

 

[Angel4Truth]

The word defined as perfect in the bible means complete. We imperfect being incomplete apart from God. Sin separates us from God - receiving Christ reunites us to God.