• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did God Create Perfection?

Did God create perfection?

  • Total voters
    32
Tucker Case said:
This still views the individual parts as the creation instead of viewing the sum of the parts as the creation. The perspective needs to be shifted from the small-picture to the big picture. While flaws may exist on individual parts, this might be a necessary thing in order to create the perfect system. IF the creation is the system, and in order to be perfect it must have individual parts that are flawed, the perfect action is to make imperfect parts.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't address the key problem here that lies within the capacity of the being to even act in a way to create imperfection. You're focusing on the end result where I am focusing entirely on the basis of the perfect will. Is it possible that imperfection in cooperation may produce perfection? Absolutely. But the definition of perfection invalidates the will from having the imperfect ideas to act upon. Therefore, it could not occur.

The perfect will would be free from flaws. Creating imperfect parts by design is not a flaw if the imperfection leads to a perfect creation.
Click to expand...

But the very idea to create imperfection in itself is a flaw and thereby rendered outside of the capacity of a perfect being to even have. Focusing on stage 4 when stage 1 is impossible doesn't make your argument work.

The analogy states that the creation itself is not imperfect. It is indeed perfect. It would be imperfect if the parts that go into that creation were perfect, though.
Click to expand...

But perfection is defined as without flaws. A perfect creation made from imperfect parts would contain flaws at an individual level. Your analogy actually doesn't make logical definitional sense as you are in effect arguing that imperfection and perfection can occur in the same item at the same time. Definitionally, that doesn't work. Remember, a sum is indeed made of its parts. And if a perfect sum is made of imperfect parts, it is by association, imperfect.

That's what I was saying. It eliminates accidental creation of imperfection. The situation I'm describing is puroposeful creation of imperfection for the parts of a perfect system.
Click to expand...

But it cannot make imperfection at all even if the goal is perfection via imperfection. A perfect being would be free from all imperfection. How can a being free from all imperfection have an imperfect idea? That would render it no longer perfect as it would contain imperfection and fail the definition. Simply put, a perfect being is perfect in all aspects. It contains no imperfect in any shape or form. That includes ideas. Therefore, it cannot act its will upon such imperfect ideas as it cannot have them.

If th eperfect being is creating a perect system, and that perfect stystem requires imperfect parts in order to be perfect, the perfect action is to create imperfection in the parts
Click to expand...

But that still does not address the very capacity of a perfect being to have such ideas in the first place. To create imperfection in the quest to achieve perfection requires an imperfect idea for its will to create. But by the very definition of perfect, it cannot have that idea at all. Therefore, your system of imperfection to perfection is not possible by a perfect being as only an imperfect being could have the imperfect idea upon which to act upon.

An idea can can be unflawed even if it requires imperfect parts.
Click to expand...

That is a contradiction. Imperfection is by definition a flaw. How can such an idea be unflawed yet flawed? It's like saying it's wet and dry at the time. They are binary traits. You either have it or you don't. You can't have both.

Imperfection present in humans does not negate the idea that god can be perfect.
Click to expand...

It just negates the idea that God created man. That's not a problem to some religions.

I'm looking at the debate as a purely logcial deduction. I don't believe in any deity at all.
Click to expand...

Well, inherently most notions of Deities don't make logical sense. So in a sense, this entire discussion is rather futile from a logical perspective.

In this situation, the conclusion "Perfect beings cannot create imperfection" is a flawed conclusion because the perfect being can create imperfection in certain circumstances. It simply cannot do so accidentally. If it is setting out to create somethign perfect, that thing would be perfect.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't make sense. Essentially your argument requires a perfect and free from all flaws in all ways being having a flawed idea. It's like saying an entirely green turtle having no other colors but has a dot of orange. You just defined your turtle as being only green! How can it be only green but have a dot of orange? That's a contradiction. If it has a dot of orange, it is not entirely green. Basically your working definition of perfect is "free of most flaws" as your argument requires that perfect being to contain an imperfect idea. Perfect in all aspects but containing an imperfect idea. How is that "free of all flaws?"

But the problem is that people are viewing this from a homo-centric perspective, i.e. God is our creator and cares for us and all that jazz.
Click to expand...

Some people do. For all I care, life doesn't have to exist for there to be a problem with a perfect being creating imperfection. This logical problem exists independent of man.

I believe Orion pointed out that perfection is a fairly subjective term.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Others have as well. In my first post I cited this concern as it renders the entire discussion pointless. Without an agreed key defined term, there cannot be a meaningful discussion.

But to do that, the individual parts must have "flaws" in them. Things that prevent them from being, when viewed individually, perfect. But as a part of the whole, they would indeed be considered perfect because incividual perfection would itself become a flaw for the system as a whole.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but my argument is actually outside of the universe entirely. At its core, the problem is for a perfect in all aspects being to have an imperfect idea. By its own definition it is prevented from having that idea in the first place regardless if that idea is merely a part of a bigger goal.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I would have to disagree with the bolded part. An artisan can create a perfect piece of work. But if he/she wants to they can create something with an imperfection.
Click to expand...

But the artist is not constrained by the definition of perfect upon itself. The artist holds an imperfect thought in which the artists manifests its will as art. A perfect being would not have the option of even having that idea. Its idea is part of its whole and the whole is defined as entirely free of flaws. Therefore, it could not have that idea as it would render the perfect being imperfect as part of it was imperfect. I think you guys are not viewing perfect as a constraint.

I would have to say that yes, God did create a perfect universe. Every single thing that we know of has an opposite. Based on that then God would have also made imperfection. Which makes His creation perfect in that it is completely complete.
Click to expand...

Well, each person defines perfect as they see fit.

You forget another part of God. His "knowing all". (another part of His pefection) He can't very well "know all" if he knows nothing of imperfection. Also being something, and knowing something can be two completely different things. A person can know something but never have experianced it him/herself. For example, I know what the Eiffel Tower looks like yet I have never experianced it myself.
Click to expand...

How is omniscience part of perfection? You make a good point. God cannot be all knowing if it does not know of imperfect. Granted, I really did not want to bring in other traits as they make the discussion more complicated. But omniscience and perfection seem to be highly contradictory. On the hand, such a being would be restricted from the ideas and knowledge it could have but at the same time must know everything. That makes no sense.

In my experience, every discussion like this ends in logical collapse.
 
obvious Child said:
But the artist is not constrained by the definition of perfect upon itself. The artist holds an imperfect thought in which the artists manifests its will as art. A perfect being would not have the option of even having that idea. Its idea is part of its whole and the whole is defined as entirely free of flaws. Therefore, it could not have that idea as it would render the perfect being imperfect as part of it was imperfect. I think you guys are not viewing perfect as a constraint.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because it's not a constraint? As you say the defination of "perfect" varies from person to person. But human defination of perfect may not be what God percieves as "perfect". Man says that God is perfect because the Bible says He is. Which is suppose to be "inspired" by God. So if the Bible was basically written by God perhaps mans understanding of "perfect" is what is flawed? Maybe we put too many constraints on what is "perfect".

obvious Child said:
How is omniscience part of perfection? You make a good point. God cannot be all knowing if it does not know of imperfect. Granted, I really did not want to bring in other traits as they make the discussion more complicated. But omniscience and perfection seem to be highly contradictory. On the hand, such a being would be restricted from the ideas and knowledge it could have but at the same time must know everything. That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

It really depends on what God considers "perfect".

Let's try this. God wanted children so he made us and the angels. We are made in God's image. Since we have free will, it is easy to figure out that God has free will. God made the "perfect" choices. Man didn't therefore we became flawed of our own free will. That could be what is referred to when people say "God is perfect". That God makes the perfect choices. When we were made by God we were perfect. It was our free will that allowed us to become flawed. God did not create us flawed. We made ourselves flawed.

Here's a question for you. Can you name anything in the entire known universe that is not perfect other than man?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Perhaps because it's not a constraint?
Click to expand...

If we are not treating it as a constraint, then it has no stated definition.

As you say the defination of "perfect" varies from person to person.
Click to expand...

In an egocentric sense. But that does not change my argument. I'm not characterizing anything as imperfect other then not being perfect. I am merely arguing that the state of being perfect eliminates any possibility of having imperfect thoughts which a will could act upon in creation. Therefore, a perfect being is restricted by the state of perfection from creating imperfection as it cannot have an imperfect idea. Thus, I treat perfection as a constraint.

It really depends on what God considers "perfect".
Click to expand...

Then you are on the path of no meaningful discussion as the term no longer has a definition.

All knowing is something either different from free of flaws. I don't see how all knowing is a sub-definition of perfection.

It was our free will that allowed us to become flawed. God did not create us flawed. We made ourselves flawed.
Click to expand...

I already addressed this point. Free will carries the potential for imperfection thereby rendering the notion of free will imperfect. The state of perfection requires that such a being be entirely free of flaws. Therefore a perfect being cannot hold the notion of free will as it is an flawed idea. Therefore free will cannot be a creation of a perfect being.

Here's a question for you. Can you name anything in the entire known universe that is not perfect other than man?
Click to expand...

Not relevant. Man's existence is irrelevant to the logical problem of perfect beings creating imperfection.
 
obvious Child said:
But perfection is defined as without flaws. A perfect creation made from imperfect parts would contain flaws at an individual level.
Click to expand...

This premise is the falacy of division, the presence of said fallacy within your logical deduction invalidates said logic.

From Wiki: "A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts."

Fallacy of division - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The creation itself can be perfect while the parts are imperfect themselves. This could be a condition necessary to achieve the perfection of the whole creation.

As I said, I'm arguing this from a purely logical framework. Your logic is based on a fallacious premise.

Also, the statement that the parts being flawed is indicative of the creation being flawed is the fallacy of composition, which is when someone claims that something that is true of the parts must also be true of the whole. Just because the parts have flaws individually, does not mean the system itself has flaws.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
This premise is the falacy of division, the presence of said fallacy within your logical deduction invalidates said logic.

From Wiki: "A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts."
Click to expand...

But it's not a fallacy in this context. By defining a being as being perfect we eliminate imperfection as one of its traits. If a being can hold an imperfect thought, it is not perfect. How can a perfect being have imperfection yet remain perfect? Can an entirely green turtle have spots of pink and retain its only green status?

If we run with your logic, a perfect being can do anything imperfect and have imperfect traits and parts and yet still be perfect. That does not make any logical sense. Can an entirely green turtle have flecks of orange and still remain entirely green?

Furthermore, it does not make sense to think of a perfection creation made from imperfect items as containing no imperfection. That's effectively saying that its individual imperfect parts are not perfect.

The creation itself can be perfect while the parts are imperfect themselves. This could be a condition necessary to achieve the perfection of the whole creation.
Click to expand...

But that does not deal with the problem of a perfect being having the imperfect idea in the first place.

As I said, I'm arguing this from a purely logical framework. Your logic is based on a fallacious premise.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I merely refuse to define perfect as "free of all flaws, but with flaws." The definition of perfect is essentially a contradiction as you are arguing that something can be perfect and imperfect at the same time. That does not logically make any sense.

My logic is based upon the notion that a perfect being cannot hold imperfect thoughts as that would render its perfect invalid. You haven't addressed this yet.

Also, the statement that the parts being flawed is indicative of the creation being flawed is the fallacy of composition, which is when someone claims that something that is true of the parts must also be true of the whole. Just because the parts have flaws individually, does not mean the system itself has flaws.
Click to expand...

Yes does it. The parts are pieces of a system. If the parts have flaws, then by definition any larger system containing flawed parts has flaws. That does not mean that the system operates in a flawed manner, only that its pieces contain flaws. The argument you made is that pieces of a whole aren't pieces of a whole.

The fallacy of composition does not apply to a perfect being as a perfect being would be free of flaws in all aspects. That being's thoughts are part of its whole. Like green is the turtle's color, perfection is the state of that being. You cannot compromise part of it and retain such a trait.

The key problem is that you are defining perfect as "free of flaws with flaws." It just doesn't make sense.
 
Human-gauged perfection doesn't exist.
But natural perfection does.

Two very different things.

According to our view of perfection - God himself is imperfect because jealousy, vengeance, greed, and the need for control are all attributed to God - and those are natures which we deem to be imperfect. Not just imperfect - but unethical, immoral, and overall wrong.

If any human acts out with these - they're often guilty of a crime.
 
obvious Child said:
But it's not a fallacy in this context. By defining a being as being perfect we eliminate imperfection as one of its traits. If a being can hold an imperfect thought, it is not perfect. How can a perfect being have imperfection yet remain perfect? Can an entirely green turtle have spots of pink and retain its only green status?
Click to expand...

The being is still perfect in the situation I described regarding creating somehting that is, individualy, imperfect if the thought that caused that imperfeection to exist contributes to the perfection of the larger creation.

You are labeling the thought as imperfect based on the fallacy because you are looking at something that is itself imperfect individually and saying that the thought is imperfect because of the presence of that individual imperfection, but you are failing to recognize that the individual part can be a part of the larger, complete creation, which may only achieve perfection if said part is itself individually imperfect.

Because of the latter possibility, your arguments are founded on fallacy.

In other words, perceived flaws in the parts may not mean that there are flaws in the creation as a whole because these "flaws", when viewed from the big picture perspective, may indeed be perfection. If the perfect thing requires parts that appear to be imperfect, small view perceptions of imperfection are not indicative of the big picture view containing imperfections.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
The being is still perfect in the situation I described regarding creating somehting that is, individualy, imperfect if the thought that caused that imperfeection to exist contributes to the perfection of the larger creation.
Click to expand...

If you define perfect as containing imperfection yes. Otherwise, no, it cannot be perfect in your situtation. The fact that imperfection working together may produce perfection is irrelevant here. The being still requires a flawed idea upon which to create the imperfect individual items. By having that idea, the perfect being renders its perfection invalid as it now contains a flawed aspect. I'm not arguing that perfection may be achieved via imperfect tools. I'm arguing that to get there such a being renders its perfection invalid. It's the process not the outcome that colors the turtle something other than green.

You are labeling the thought as imperfect based on the fallacy because you are looking at something that is itself imperfect individually and saying that the thought is imperfect because of the presence of that individual imperfection, but you are failing to recognize that the individual part can be a part of the larger, complete creation, which may only achieve perfection if said part is itself individually imperfect.
Click to expand...

How is that a fallacy? Can an entirely green turtle contain specks of orange and still entirely be green? No. It cannot. By declaring such a being perfect, that being contains no flaws at all. In any aspects whatsoever. How can you call a perfect being perfect when it contains imperfection? You haven't answered this. And your argument doesn't make sense. It appears that your argument is effectively arguing that the traits of the parts are not the traits of the whole. If I have a car where all of the parts are blue except for one, can I say the entire car is only blue? No, I cannot as the car contains a part that is not blue. You seem to be treating perfection as a non-binary outcome, where it can be imperfect and perfect at the same time. Effectively on and off simultaneous. Entirely green but with orange spots. This does not logically make sense.

I don't understand how you can logically think a being is perfect if it contains flaws if we are using the definition of perfect as "free from flaws." Basically you are calling the green turtle with orange specks only green but it has orange specks. Functionally, your argument is a contradiction as you are arguing that such a being can be free of flaws yet have flaws.

Because of the latter possibility, your arguments are founded on fallacy.
Click to expand...

Not at all. How can a being be perfect if it has a flaw? Does it not suggest that if it has a flaw, it cannot be perfect by the very definition of perfect? I keep coming back to the turtle color because it is an effective analogy. Perfect is an adjective as the color green. You keep saying it's a fallacy but not showing how it actually is and avoiding answering the questions of how a being free of flaws can have flaws yet remain perfect does not produce a good argument.

In other words, perceived flaws
Click to expand...

Your argument stated that perfection may be achieved by otherwise imperfect parts. Perception is irrelevant here when you have defined and constrained your own argument to perfection from imperfection. And if we go into perception, then perfect has no definition and this argument entirely fails as the key term is without an anchor. Without revolving around an anchored definition of perfection, this thread is entirely worthless. To argue if a perfect being can create imperfection, we absolutely must stay in the definition of perfection. Hence why I keep coming back to it.

in the parts may not mean that there are flaws in the creation as a whole because these "flaws", when viewed from the big picture perspective, may indeed be perfection. If the perfect thing requires parts that appear to be imperfect, small view perceptions of imperfection are not indicative of the big picture view containing imperfections.
Click to expand...

See above. Bringing in our views of perception renders the definition of perfection meaningless.

Note, I have never argued what imperfection is, other then not being perfect. As perfect is "without flaws" anything with flaws is imperfect. And a perfect being would be defined under the word as "without flaws." To create an imperfect creation, such a being needs an imperfect idea. That by definition renders the being imperfect as it now contains a flaw. If we do not stay within the definition, we have nothing to discuss.
 
obvious Child said:
How is that a fallacy? Can an entirely green turtle contain specks of orange and still entirely be green? No. It cannot.
Click to expand...

An entirely "green" turtle could be refelcting other wavelengths of light besides just green, though. Just because there are other wavelengths rpesent doens't mean that you won't subjectively be seeing the turtle as green.

But if I view the turtle, as a color-blind person, I might see it as entirely orange.

The point being that teh persoective of the viewer can alter the reality. If you refuse to place your perspective to a higher level than that of the indivdiual part of the whole, you won't understand why your arguments are based on fallacy.

The seeming imperfection of the part (when viewed individually) can actually be perfection in relation to the whole.
 
God created perfection, we failed to maintain it.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
It is said only a perfect being could create perfection. In what YOU see in people, in life on Earth, in Earth, in the Solar System... the Universe. Did God create perfection? :unsure13:
Click to expand...

It's not something easily judged, since you have nothing to compare it to. For all we know, mistakes are part of perfection for us.
 
Last edited:
BCR said:
Clearly if a God created the universe he isn't a perfect being or thing, and I wouldn't expect him/her or it to be. All the failed solar systems, collapsing stars, black holes and that's just one a universal level. Look on a Earth level and we have Weather phenomona, Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Diseases such as cancer and AIDS, mental disorders millons starving to death every year.

I really find it absolutely ridiculous to think a loving and caring God exists.
Click to expand...

Why is a collapsing star not perfect? How is any of that not perfect in its balance with everything else?
I seriously don't see any logic in your post... from a debate standpoint, no offense intended.
 
Tucker Case said:
An entirely "green" turtle could be refelcting other wavelengths of light besides just green, though. Just because there are other wavelengths rpesent doens't mean that you won't subjectively be seeing the turtle as green.

But if I view the turtle, as a color-blind person, I might see it as entirely orange.

The point being that teh persoective of the viewer can alter the reality. If you refuse to place your perspective to a higher level than that of the indivdiual part of the whole, you won't understand why your arguments are based on fallacy.

The seeming imperfection of the part (when viewed individually) can actually be perfection in relation to the whole.
Click to expand...

You are just redefining perfect as you see fit. As I pointed out in my first post, unless we stick to "without flaws" there is no discussion. My perspective does not matter. Nor does the end result. Your argument explicitly requires a perfect being to have an imperfect thought. Even if that thought leads to perfection down the road, the thought in itself is imperfect thereby rendering your definition of perfect as "without flaws but with flaws." That does not make logical sense. You are pretending that the greater whole wipes away the individual traits of the parts as if they did not exist at any time. Hence why your blue car with a black part is entirely blue. It does not logically make sense.
 
obvious Child said:
You are just redefining perfect as you see fit. As I pointed out in my first post, unless we stick to "without flaws" there is no discussion. My perspective does not matter. Nor does the end result. Your argument explicitly requires a perfect being to have an imperfect thought. Even if that thought leads to perfection down the road, the thought in itself is imperfect thereby rendering your definition of perfect as "without flaws but with flaws." That does not make logical sense. You are pretending that the greater whole wipes away the individual traits of the parts as if they did not exist at any time. Hence why your blue car with a black part is entirely blue. It does not logically make sense.
Click to expand...

You seem to be having difficulty understanding that what may seem like a flaw from a small picture perspective may indeed be perfection form teh big picture perspective.

You, and all other humans, can only see things from the smallest of small picture perspectives. What we perceive of as a flaw doesn't need to be one. We aren't the people who make that determination.

That's why what we may call an imperfection (cancer, etc) may indeed be perfection.
 
obvious Child said:
You are just redefining perfect as you see fit. As I pointed out in my first post, unless we stick to "without flaws" there is no discussion. My perspective does not matter. Nor does the end result. Your argument explicitly requires a perfect being to have an imperfect thought. Even if that thought leads to perfection down the road, the thought in itself is imperfect thereby rendering your definition of perfect as "without flaws but with flaws." That does not make logical sense. You are pretending that the greater whole wipes away the individual traits of the parts as if they did not exist at any time. Hence why your blue car with a black part is entirely blue. It does not logically make sense.
Click to expand...
Odd that this comes from a moral relativist point of view.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Odd that this comes from a moral relativist point of view.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Obvious Child, but I'm a moral relativist atheist and I'm arguing the opposite position typically taken up by moral absolutist theists. Go figure. Perhaps it means moral relativism and moral absolutism has nothing to do with the topic.
 
god IS a greater invisible cosmic rule that has a hand in all our lives.

and every object which has been created within this universe is undeniably a part of a grander scale. Each object within itself carries imperfections, but perhaps that is what makes it so perfect after all?

everything happens for a reason, and somehow everything tends to work out perfect- things such as evolution and the laws of nature.
While every creation may not be perfect in the modern thought sense of the word, everything about earth and the universe works perfect. (That is w/ the exception of humanity)

And since it is undeniably true that a greater power than our own has set "reality" into motion, it is safe to say that god is indeed a perfect being, as is all that he creates.
&while we humans suffer from major imperfections, that is the in fact what makes us perfect.

We each have our own lives to lead, all intertwining with one another, and with each character perfectly selected for their own role in this story called life.
 
Its pretty obvious God didn't create perfection, in and of itself. Look at the state of the world. If nothing else, just look at yourself. No one here could honestly consider himself/herself perfect. But God created the ability to achieve perfection. How to achieve that is a personal question for us. And I suppose everything has its own version of "perfect" in some sense or another.
 
Tucker Case said:
You seem to be having difficulty understanding that what may seem like a flaw from a small picture perspective may indeed be perfection form teh big picture perspective.
Click to expand...

Not at all. In fact I do not disagree at all that perfection may come from imperfection. The problem is you are refusing entirely to address the origin problem of your argument. It frankly does not matter that using imperfection to get to perfection is a viable path. To get there, such a being requires an imperfect thought. You have never addressed this problem. And the level of perspective is completely irrelevant. Merely because the end result may be perfect does not invalidate that the process involved an imperfect thought. Effectively your argument is that something can be perfect even if it has flaws. Hence why I pointed out you are redefining perfect. And hence why this discussion is pointless.

You, and all other humans, can only see things from the smallest of small picture perspectives. What we perceive of as a flaw doesn't need to be one. We aren't the people who make that determination.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Note again I have not defined perfection as anything other then "free of flaws" or "without flaws." Thus, anything with a flaw is by definition imperfect. As your argument has stated that cooperation between imperfect items may produce perfection, you have objectively pegged imperfection. The problem is that your argument is entirely unwilling to address the origin of that imperfect item. Merely because the end result of a bunch of imperfect items produces perfection does not invalidate the process which involved the being having an imperfect idea in the first place. That is where my entire argument centers on. A perfect being, free of flaws cannot hold an imperfect idea as it is by definition not allowed. It does not matter that the end result of several imperfect ideas results in perfection. The singular act of holding an imperfect idea invalidates the perfection of such a being.

Your argument outright stated that the parts were flawed. You cannot go back and then say they weren't flawed.

That's why what we may call an imperfection (cancer, etc) may indeed be perfection.
Click to expand...

Except my argument is independent of our perspective as to what flaws are.

Perhaps it means moral relativism and moral absolutism has nothing to do with the topic.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
Odd that this comes from a moral relativist point of view.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But I have found that unless one sticks to a definition in these types of debates, there cannot be any meaning. Hence why I tend to avoid abortion debates because there are rarely any agreed upon definitions. Without initial common starting points, it's destined for only one point: Total Failure.

Tucker's argument does not make logical sense to me as it requires that a perfect being in an attempt to create perfection, starts with imperfection. Granted, the end result may indeed be perfection, but to get there, that being must invalidate its own perfection by having a flawed idea to act upon. That flawed idea may be part of a larger theme, but that does not change the trait of being flawed. How can a being free from flaws have a flaw and still remain free from flaws? This is an entirely binary decision. It is either free of flaws or has flaws.
 
obvious Child said:
To get there, such a being requires an imperfect thought. You have never addressed this problem.
Click to expand...

I have addressed this, though. You calling the thought imperfect doesn't mean it is imperfect. The goal was achieved, and the total creation that exists is perfect. In order for that total creation to exist as a perfect thing, it requires a part that is not, in and of itself, perfect. Fro an imperfec tthought to exist, the part that was intended to be imperfect would have to be, in and of itself, imperfect.



Effectively your argument is that something can be perfect even if it has flaws.
Click to expand...

That's not my argument, though. The thing itself cannot be flawed in order to be perfect. But as I pointed out earlier, what is true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole. what is true fo the whole is not necessarily true of the parts.

Perspective matters because when you look at the part as a separate entity, it may indeed be flawed. But when that part is placed into teh whole, what appears to be flaws may indeed be perfection because those so-called "flaws" may be required for the whole to function correctly and perfectly.


Thus, anything with a flaw is by definition imperfect.
Click to expand...

The whole is not defined by the characersitics of the parts.

Your argument outright stated that the parts were flawed. You cannot go back and then say they weren't flawed.
Click to expand...

The parts, in and of themselves, are flawed when viewed as separate from the whole. When viewed from the perspective of the whole, those parts are perfect because of those apparent "flaws".



It does not matter that the end result of several imperfect ideas results in perfection.
Click to expand...

There were no imperfect ideas. Perspective is the key. The nature of a specific characteristic can change based on perspective and the role that the thing is playing that has a certain characteristic.

Let's take Jello as an example. A characteristic of jello is that it is very soft. That characteritic is a flaw if one is using jello to hold up a weight. But it is that same characteristic that makes jello a perfect snack food to eat when one has lost all of their teeth. Same charactersitic, different qualities attributed to the characteristic based on the perspective that one is viewin gthe characteristic.



Except my argument is independent of our perspective as to what flaws are.
Click to expand...

Your argument ignores the fact that something can be flawed fro one purpose, but perfect for another. Teh individual may be flawed for rthe purpose of being an individual, but it can be perfect as a part of a greater whole.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
But I have found that unless one sticks to a definition in these types of debates, there cannot be any meaning.
Click to expand...

We're both using the same definition of perfect. I think we're using different defintions of "flaw" though. I'm using "defect" as the defintiion of "flaw". Which one are you using?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom