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 perfect will would be free from flaws. Creating imperfect parts by design is not a flaw if the imperfection leads to a perfect creation.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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
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.An idea can can be unflawed even if it requires imperfect parts.
It just negates the idea that God created man. That's not a problem to some religions.Imperfection present in humans does not negate the idea that god can be perfect.
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.I'm looking at the debate as a purely logcial deduction. I don't believe in any deity at all.
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?"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.
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.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.
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.I believe Orion pointed out that perfection is a fairly subjective term.
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.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.