View Poll Results: Did God create perfection?

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES!

    8 19.51%
  • NO!

    17 41.46%
  • It is OUR perception that something is not perfect!

    10 24.39%
  • OTHER / I Dont Know

    6 14.63%
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 83

Thread: Did God Create Perfection?

  1. #71
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Did God Create Perfection?

    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.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  2. #72
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Did God Create Perfection?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Absolutely.
    Last edited by obvious Child; 10-10-10 at 12:09 AM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #73
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Did God Create Perfection?

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12 View Post
    Odd that this comes from a moral relativist point of view.
    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.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #74
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Did God Create Perfection?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    To get there, such a being requires an imperfect thought. You have never addressed this problem.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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 by Tucker Case; 10-10-10 at 12:55 AM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #75
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Did God Create Perfection?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    But I have found that unless one sticks to a definition in these types of debates, there cannot be any meaning.
    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?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #76
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Did God Create Perfection?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I have addressed this, though. You calling the thought imperfect doesn't mean it is imperfect.
    If the thought that the being acted upon was perfect, could it have made individually perfect parts when the plan was to make imperfect parts that would in sum create perfection? Your argument explicitly requires imperfect parts to sum to a perfect creation. To make the imperfect parts, one needs a imperfect thought.

    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.
    Thus rendering that perfect being not perfect as it held such a thought. I'm not disagreeing with your end result. I'm disagreeing with your process in how it redefines perfect.

    That's not my argument, though.
    Explicitly, no. Logically yes.

    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.
    But once again, you are focusing on the end. Not the origin. To produce the imperfect parts as you have explicitly stated, one requires an imperfect thought. The fact that the end result may be perfect is rather irrelevant here. One still needs that imperfect thought. Therefore, as you maintain that via your argument such a being could retain its perfection while having a flaw, your argument has redefined perfection to mean "without flaws with flaws." I just cannot logically see how this makes sense.

    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.
    But once again, you are focusing on the end result. You still need that original imperfect thought to create the imperfect item which creates the perfect creation. That original imperfect thought is what renders perfect beings imperfect.

    The whole is not defined by the characteristics of the parts.
    Why not? Furthermore, you do realize you just argued that a perfect being defined as perfect ignores other traits it may have? Again, how can an binary decision be not binary and retain its binary characteristics? Your argument makes no logical sense in preserving the perfect trait of the being as it explicitly requires that perfect being to have an imperfect aspect. Can a perfect being be perfect if it has a flaw? The obvious answer is no. But you keep arguing otherwise.

    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".
    Which again does not address my argument here. As you again explicitly stated, the act of creating perfection via imperfection requires imperfection. How can a perfect being stay perfect when it has an imperfect thought? Just because the end result may be perfect does not suddenly make that imperfect thought no longer imperfect. And your argument is now redefining flaws. If we redefine words as we see fit, there's no use in talking.

    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.
    Then you're just redefining terms. Essentially your argument now is that the imperfect parts were never imperfect in the first place as their end goal was perfect. Which basically supports my argument that a perfect being cannot create imperfection.

    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 that is our perspective as to what a flaw is. I'm deliberately taking that out as it renders the definition moot. By defining imperfect as anything other then perfect, we do not bring in our own perspectives and thereby keep the terms objective.

    I'm not defining flaws by anything more then that as it renders this discussion pointless.

    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.
    Yeah. For a reason. If we bring in our perspectives as to what constitutes a flaw, then we are effectively redefining words as we see fit. I'm trying to keep this as absolutely bare as possible as it removes the capacity to define flaws as something other then perfect. The problem with your argument is that it effectively redefines perfect based on the situation rather then some objective standpoint.

    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?
    Not perfect.

    I'm treating this as an entirely binary decision. Something is either perfect or it's not.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #77
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,951

    Re: Did God Create Perfection?

    I believe God created perfection, but also gave the perfect creation free will. With that will, perfection chose to become imperfect through sin.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  8. #78
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,868
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Did God Create Perfection?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I believe God created perfection, but also gave the perfect creation free will. With that will, perfection chose to become imperfect through sin.
    Don't blame us, it's the snakes fault.
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  9. #79
    Stigmatized! End R Word! Kali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Seen
    08-19-12 @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    13,334
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Did God Create Perfection?

    Since nobody can prove that God exsist? I would have to say no.

    I would also like to say that Real Perfection does not exist either
    ~Following My Own Flow~

  10. #80
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Did God Create Perfection?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kali View Post
    Since nobody can prove that God exist?
    1) No one can prove it doesn't exist either.
    2) Logical discussions in the context of a being not bound by logic are inherently flawed. When your subject in question can freely ignore the boundries of your thinking, it's just an exercise in logic.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •