Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
I think the OP should have defined ‘perfection’ first.
I define ‘perfect’ as entirely without any flaws, defects or shortcomings.
If so, I voted NO.
'The whole universe is going to die!'
I use a lot of satire and sarcasm so keep that in mind when reading my posts.
God created mankind with free will. The ability to choose good or evil. The freedom to choose God or not. Otherwise, how could love be genuine if there was never a choice?
Mankind sins, i.e. disobeys God, and is therefore imperfect. God is perfect, heaven is perfect. If you aren't perfect, you don't get in. Seemingly, this creates a dilemma. God is just and God is merciful. I'm sure he'll forgive the joke, but God is the first lawyer because he presented a loophole, allowing him to remain true to justice and mercy.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
If man was made in god's image, then god is far from perfect. The notion that humans are perfect, biologically speaking, is farcical. Anyone who has studied medicine, whether holistic or western, knows this. Our bodies do things that make no sense for survival, like going into shock from injury, or going into anaphylaxis from an allergy attack. People who think humans are done developing and that we are all that we are ever going to be simply baffle me.
The human body is still evolving and it's plainly obvious. We are organisms that have had millions of years to gradually adapt to a variety of environments the best we can, but there is still a lot to be desired. It's the whole reason why we need medicine in the first place.
Perfection is a subjective notion, and I am not saying I don't endorse it. If you believe in determinism, then you know that everything happens for a reason, and believing that can bring a certain harmony to your life. But in terms of thinking of ourselves as perfect beings... I don't know... that somehow doesn't seem very humble or practical.
For example, using an admittedly weak analogy just to get the point that sometimes imperfections can be beneficial, Imagine a manufacturing company that could create a perfect product that would never break down through wear and tear. If this company wanted to create the best system for maximizing profits, creating a "perfect" product that never broke down would not be the best approach because the product would onley be purchased once and there would never be a need to re-purchase said product. There would be an initial influx of sales, but they would eventually decrease to a point approaching zero because the product would be passed on over and over agian to successive generations.
But if they chose to not make the product perfect, and instead choose to add imperfections ot the product, they can maximize the profitability of the product.
In truth, the logical debate here really does depend on the goals of the perfect being designing the system. If the gols are something where perfect parts are a detriment ot the system, then the system itself woulfd be imperfect if all of the parts were perfect. But if the perfect system requires imperfect parts, then the perfect action would be to design those parts with imperfections.
Your limitation of saying that a perfect being cannot create imperfection is a false one. The actual limitation that would exist is the following:
A perfect being cannot create imperfection unless it is done willfully by that being to achieve it's goals.
In essense, a perfect being could not accidentally create imperfection, but it could create imperfection on purpose.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.