Well that pretty much renders our definition of perfection shot. And therefore the rest of the discussion. I do believe I stated this in the my original post. Still, your argument runs into the problem of a perfect being as the creator. If the perfection being was in fact the creator, then its will would be perfect as well. A perfect will is without flaws. Creating flawed creations is in itself as a flaw as such a will would need the ideas of imperfection to start with, thereby rendering itself imperfect. Granted, this runs head first into a brick wall of omnipotence, but that's another thread.
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-pictuire to the big picture. While flaws may exist on individual parts, this might be a neccessary 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.
But the analogy doesn't address the fundamental nature of that perfect will. A perfect will by definition would be free of all flaws. How can something which is free of flaws have ideas of flaws and actively create flaws when itself is completely free of such flaws in any way, shape or form? True, the cooperation of otherwise imperfect devices may produce a perfect outcome, but that does not address the very origin of their creation. It merely addresses their functional nature. The company is capable of producing both imperfect and perfect devices. A perfect being as a creator would not.
The perfect will would be free from cflaws. Creating imperfect parts by design is not a flaw if the imperfection leads to a perfect creation.
Not if we are using the definition of perfect. A perfect being would be free of flaws. That includes its will. It's will is little more then enacting the ideas and desires of such a being. If that being was indeed perfect, it could not have flawed desires or ideas as it would be perfect in all aspects. Therefore, it could not create an imperfect creation as it would not possess the flawed idea in the first place. Again, this is diametrically opposed to an all powerful God. A perfect being would not be able to possess the flawed ideas that would if created, act to create perfection.
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.
Possessing only perfect ideas would eliminate the accidental creation of imperfection.
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.
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.
Furthermore, as a perfect being would possess no flawed ideas in which to act upon, it could not create imperfection on purpose either.
An idea can can be unflawed even if it requires imperfect parts. If the perfect idea requires imperfect parts, then creating imprerfection woud, itself, become a perfect act.
Imperfection present in humans does not negate the idea that god can be perfect.
While it is possible another being not perfect and out of the jurisdiction of the perfect being could act upon such creations and thereby strip them of their perfection, that has at the moment, not been added to the discussion.
But this whole notion relies upon God being logical and sensical. And that is a mighty large assumption.
I'm looking at the debate as a purely logcial deduction. I don't believe in any deity at all.
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.
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.
I'm taking it up to the uiniversal perspective, where humanity is utterly inconsequential. If we start from the assumption that God exists, and God is a creator, we must look at what was created as a whole: the universe. Now, I can't tell you much about what is required to go into making a universe. Not could I even guess on what would make a perect universe. I can say that homo-centric concerns are completely irrelvent in a universal persepctive, though. Our imperfection does not have a discernable impact on the potential perfection of th eUniverse. But I am also assuming that we are an integral part of the universe because we exist.
I believe Orion pointed out that perfection is a fairly subjective term. What makes something "perfect" will differ from person to person. My perfect weather will be different from your perfect weather, for example.
So when we apply human perceptions of our own imperfection into the equation, we might see cancer and hurricanes and whatnot as being signs of imperfection, but these things may indeed be vastly important aspects of a perfect universe. So, while our perspective would say these are flaws, they have the potential of being part of a perfectly designed system necessary to create a perfect universe.
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.