Did God Create Perfection?

Tucker Case said:

I have addressed this, though. You calling the thought imperfect doesn't mean it is imperfect.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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".

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

Not perfect.

I'm treating this as an entirely binary decision. Something is either perfect or it's not.

I believe God created perfection, but also gave the perfect creation free will. With that will, perfection chose to become imperfect through sin.

digsbe said:

I believe God created perfection, but also gave the perfect creation free will. With that will, perfection chose to become imperfect through sin.

Click to expand...

Don't blame us, it's the snakes fault.

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

Kali said:

Since nobody can prove that God exist?

Click to expand...

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.

Kali said:

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

Click to expand...

I would suggest that you spend sometime reading the accounts of people who like myself that have had a near death expeiriences, and people who have been visited byafimily members who have past on to learn why people have faith in something we can't explain see or touch.

I have interviewed a lot of people who have experienced the paranormal in my years as a reporter and Talk Show Host and I assure you there is something out there. What form it ultimately takes I have no clue.

I look at it like this. I have a saying about being prepared for what may come and it's this. "It's better have more than you need than to need more than you have."

God and faith should be treated the same way. It costs us nothing to be respectful of others and be a good person and we can benefit from it in generally.

Just a thought.

Oh I do think there are others "out there". I am on thinking there are many godheads, goddess, etc.

BTW, some of my realitives have had near death expeiriences, saw white light and was told by dead realitives to come back. They think it really happened and I take em at their word on that issue.

Near Death experiences are interesting. However, using it as proof for your religious beliefs is foolish. Sure some Christians have died and went to "Heaven" only to come back to life but the same thing can be said for every major religion. You'll find Muslims who have passed and gone to heaven only to return alive. When you die a large amount of DMT is released in your brain, DMT is also used in the process of dreaming. I think Near Death experiences are simply just extremely detailed dreams.