Discussion of "perfect."

[Willum]

So we often come across the use of perfect and God in the same sentence.
I am finding this to be an Inigo Montoya moment for myself: I didn't seem to find an answer on
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=29019

Can anyone describe how God is perfect, without calling on perfection in the definition. Why and how is God perfect?
Cite an example if you would as well...

Just as a spoiler --
God is perfect because he created the Universe and the Universe is perfect.

Well, the universe isn't perfect, if you catch my drift...

In order to make this debate, I suppose I'll have to take a position -but I really wouldn't mind a roarin' discussion...

Position: God is imperfect because none of his actions can be described as such, and when "perfection," is used it is used definitionally, not descriptively.

(I know, it's weak, but can justify getting the ball rolling.)

[Willum]

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]

In view of the above, it would mean that God is complete in the absolute sense, he needs nothing and noone to be all he wants to be and achieve all he wants to achieve.

In saying this, I can't help but feeling there must be something a little wrong with this being from the human perspective.

Which opens a whole new can o worms.

If we don't understand God, how can we apply any standard of perfection that has any meaning?

Just because he isn't perfect to us, doesn't mean he isn't perfect. But either way, we can not be honest in describing him that way, for the same reason.

Let's assume God created the perfect universe.
Many people say that universe sucks.

Well, I can see the conflict without being able to describe it, any help?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 51 by Willum]

Just because he isn't perfect to us, doesn't mean he isn't perfect. But either way, we can not be honest in describing him that way, for the same reason.

In which case, anyone describing God as 'perfect' is telling a falsehood (not necessarily lying, but saying something that cannot be true) since 'perfect' in God terms would then be completely nonsensical to humans, unable to be understood or comprehended.
In which case...guess what? I still don't believe.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Discussion of "perfect."
Can anyone tell me what this means?

I'm proud of it. Real proud. Prouder'n a hunderd dollar hog in a fifty dollar contest. Prouder'n all get out. Proud. Prouder'n my jawline.

That's the beauty of subjective terminology.

You can't argue my subjective opinion's wrong, 'cause it is, it's my subjective opinion.

Unless you're the pretty thing. Then, well, biscuits are a powerful tool. And I'll sell that hog for a loss, if'n you'll make it up to me in biscuits.

[Elijah John]

“God created imperfect things nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah�

Moderator Comment

Don't do that,..... mischaracterizing your opponent's argument and suggesting it is a childish taunt.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JLB32168]

Your point there about creations not being perfect, in that they require an external source to actualise them, is a moot point. What I believe Z was getting at is that here we have God, God is (supposedly) perfect and then here he goes creating something, and that thing is imperfect.

Are you using “moot� in the sense of debatable or in the sense of “irrelevant�? If it is the latter then the statement “God created an imperfect creation� isn’t of the import that Zz (or anyone that agrees with him/her) seems to suggest it is since creation couldn’t be created perfectly since perfection entails immutability (creation is able to change/is mutable) and it also entails to be self-sustaining which isn’t the case with the material creation since it didn’t erupt into existence on its own or of its own volition but had to be created by someone else.

Since there is now something imperfect next to God, this means that the state of the totality of existence has now shifted from being perfect (where before there is just God, who is perfect) to now imperfect (God + a creation that is imperfect).

This isn’t a problem for the Christian who delineates between two states of being – Uncreated and created.

God's actions have resulted in a state of conditions that are worse than they were before.

Why is nonexistence worse than existence? That makes no sense.
Is it “God made things that do evil?� That’s a silly argument for the Christians because it would move him/her to conclude that we can eliminate child abuse by never having children in which case we have let the fear of evil frustrate good.

[Willum]

So I am getting that use of the word "perfect," is a kind of deception. An invocation of relativism used as/in an absolute context.

God, is perfect, so is a hammer, so is anything that does its job.

Except, that every Biblical reference you can find of God doing anything, God is messing up his job.

[JLB32168]

So I am getting that use of the word "perfect," is a kind of deception.

Is it because it doesn’t comport w/what you say “perfect� should be?

How do you define “perfect� in relation to God?

[rikuoamero]

So I am getting that use of the word "perfect," is a kind of deception.

Is it because it doesn’t comport w/what you say “perfect� should be?

How do you define “perfect� in relation to God?

We would need to define perfect before getting to examining God. If we examine God first and then define perfect in relation to him afterward, then this is a cheat. I could examine anybody then, and afterwards define what perfect is in relation to them, and they would come out with flying colours.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 58 by rikuoamero]

So I am getting that use of the word "perfect," is a kind of deception.

Is it because it doesn’t comport w/what you say “perfect� should be?

How do you define “perfect� in relation to God?

We would need to define perfect before getting to examining God. If we examine God first and then define perfect in relation to him afterward, then this is a cheat. I could examine anybody then, and afterwards define what perfect is in relation to them, and they would come out with flying colours.

Oh, come on, riku, this is easy enough!

1. We can define "perfect" as which most resembles God.
2. God is which most resembles God.
3. THEREFORE, God is perfect.

DUH, DUH, DUH and double DUH.....

[OnceConvinced]

I have long maintained that the worst disservice done to apologetics (obviously unintended thousands of years ago) was in giving this god omni-qualities and perfection.

If "god" was just insanely more powerful, smart, loving, and talented than anything we could conceive of, but without mandatory perfection and omni-qualities, the theist's job at defending these ludicrous ideas would be exponentially easier.

Agree with you completely.

When people say God is omniscient, they turn him into a fiend. A god who knowingly creates the devil and unleashes him on creation would be a truly malevolent being. Even more evil than the being they create. However if he had no clue what he was creating at the time, then he could perhaps be excused for creating such an abomination.

A god who is imperfect, who makes mistakes and then owns mistakes would be someone I could respect. One who is all knowing and creates abominations like Satan and refuses to acknowledge his own malevolence or incompetency, I just could not respect.

Likewise when it came to creating humans. Adam and Eve. An omniscient god knew full well when he created them that they would screw everything up but went ahead and did it anyway. Then he refused to take any responsibility when the inevitable happened. A god like that can't be respected. However if he unwittingly created Adam and Eve not knowing what would happen, then, although we could consider him incompetent, that is surely better than being considered malevolent! If he was willing to take responsibility for his screw up, we could then perhaps excuse that and say "Ok, God, well you didn't know that was going to happen. We honor you for being willing to stand up and admit your mistakes."