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.)

[catnip]

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.)

I think this is more of a spiritual concept in that it means "whole" or "complete". This, I think, is also related in that Christ, like God, is the alpha and omega--the first and the last, the beginning and the end, relating to eternal.

[marco]

* Note my response above was bible based, my answers below are also based on the bibiblical definition of "perfect".

The word "perfect" comes from the Latin verb perficere, which means to find or complete. Perfectus means finished or completed - a meaning you arrived at circuitously. What "Biblical definition" can mean, God knows.

Demonstrations of his imperfection would be his need to have a rest after his primal labours; the imperfect job he made on the Earth, endangering lives; his change of mind and his succumbing to the rather imperfect state of anger. But we are talking about Yahweh, who was created far from perfect.

[JLB32168]

Perfection entails the apex of all created existence and immutability. A perfect being cannot become better, that is, s/he/it cannot improve in any form or fashion. Neither can it regress or devolve to a lower state of being. S/he/it must be uncreated since being created would entail dependence upon an outside variable for creation or to maintain existence; a perfect being is self-sustaining and has no needs. If a perfect being is omnibenevolent then it must create things because its natural state is to share goodness.

All its actions are the most beneficial/efficient and are morally superior to all other actions. In fact, such a perfect being is unable to deliberate between a perfect action or a lesser one since doing less than the perfect is imperfect and the two are mutually exclusive.

[Justin108]

If a perfect being is omnibenevolent then it must create things because its natural state is to share goodness.

Not quite. If the perfect being is the only being in existence (as God was prior to creation) then it cannot share as there is nothing to share with. Creating something for the sole purpose of having someone to share things with would make no sense. In fact the concept of benevolence makes no sense in a world where only one being exists. If I were the only person in existence, what could I possibly do that would be unbenevolent?

All its actions are the most beneficial/efficient and are morally superior to all other actions. In fact, such a perfect being is unable to deliberate between a perfect action or a lesser one since doing less than the perfect is imperfect and the two are mutually exclusive

Then why is it that creation is imperfect?

[JLB32168]

If the perfect being is the only being in existence (as God was prior to creation) then it cannot share as there is nothing to share with. Creating something for the sole purpose of having someone to share things with would make no sense.

If one is predisposed to love then creation makes perfect sense since love of oneself is usually considered vanity.

Then why is it that creation is imperfect?

It changes; it can either improve or deteriorate. It cannot exist by itself.

[Justin108]

If one is predisposed to love then creation makes perfect sense since love of oneself is usually considered vanity.

A perfect entity is not necessarily predisposed to love, especially if the perfect entity is the only entity in existence.

Then why is it that creation is imperfect?

It changes; it can either improve or deteriorate. It cannot exist by itself.

What changes? God or creation? And what cannot exist by itself?

[JLB32168]

A perfect entity is not necessarily predisposed to love, especially if the perfect entity is the only entity in existence.

Yes, but this debate addresses the theology of the Christian deity and how perfection would be described in that context.

What changes? God or creation?

Living things grow and die. Erosion occurs. Stars are created and then explode. Those are all changes and change indicates imperfection.

According to Christian theology, creation came into existence; therefore, it couldn’t create itself and that means that it is imperfect. God, however, always has existed and required nothing outside Himself to come into being.

[Blastcat]

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.)

I've been having a debate with a Muslim who claims that God exists because the Quran is perfect. Maybe he also thinks that Allah is the real god and not Yahweh.. not sure though, I'd have to ask him that.

One of the reasons he gave me to prove that the Quran could not have been written by humans is that there are no grammar mistakes. Really, he said that.

I guess he meant that his god is perfect because his book is perfect.
I think the Christians often think that way too.

Different god, different book, but same method.

Perfection personified.

[Blastcat]

[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. There is nothing missing lacking in him.

That doesn't make sense if you also believe the god is a creator or the universe with us in it. He seems to have had some MOTIVATION to create. Why bother creating something if there is absolutely no NEED for it? You make out your god to be the most capricious being imaginable.

#2 Why is God perfect? Why? Why is a reality a reality? That's like asking why is "up" up and not down. It just is, "up" has to be ... up or it isn't "up" at all.

Oh, I get it, God is perfect BECAUSE...

I suppose that kind of answer is good enough for JW?

That's like asking an atheist "Why doesn't God exist? for what reason is he not there?"

We can answer that. It's not just "BECAUSE". You seem to forget that some atheists in here are also CRITICAL THINKERS. "BECAUSE" is not an answer that any of THOSE would find satisfying.

You might not be aware of our reasons. You might ask us one day.

The question makes no sense, it is what it is.

CORRECTION:

It makes no sense to YOU, and it is what it is to YOU.
The question makes perfect sense to others ( yes, I intended the irony )

(I might just ask that question here and see what happens... for a laugh).

I love to laugh too.
I suggest you create a new thread about this.

There is no "why" about an absolute because there's nothing that precedes it to cause it to be.

WRONG.

Being "absolute" doesn't at all imply not being CAUSED.

[marco]

ll its actions are the most beneficial/efficient and are morally superior to all other actions. In fact, such a perfect being is unable to deliberate between a perfect action or a lesser one since doing less than the perfect is imperfect and the two are mutually exclusive.

I wonder why we make these guesses about what a perfect being might or might not be able to do, using constraints evident in our physical world. Already it is accepted, with the being's existence, that he can perform miracles that defy logic. Why then use logic to make deductions about the realm of the illogical? Are they remotely tenable?