Can "God" be perfect?

[Beto]

This sprouts from an exchange with Greatest I Am.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=280

GIA advocates his god is both perfect and evolving. I naturally assumed he lacked the understanding of what "perfection" means, at least from my perspective. He came up with what I thought was a great argument against himself and to the "God" construct. GIA stated that if God does not evolve, than life and all this information would be of no benefit to it. Makes sense doesn't it? The problem is, GIA wants both. A god that is both perfect (so humans can be perfect since they come from perfection) and yet evolving, thus benefiting from human existence and attributing a purpose to it. Logically, if "God" is imperfect, its creations will be also.

From where I stand, a perfect god has no logical reason to create a universe, and I'm sure this has been pointed out before many times in this forum. A god that wants to be loved, for instance, is in need of something, thus imperfect.

"Perfection is, broadly, a state of completeness and flawlessness."

Who wishes to challenge this simple definition, and/or maintain that "God" can be perfect and still "gain" something from human existence?

[McCulloch]

Perfect is a word we call an absolute adjective. These are adjectives that name qualities that are either present or absent. Other examples include unique, complete and parallel. Unique means one of a kind. Something cannot be very unique or more unique; either there is only one of its kind or there are more than one. Complete means there is no more that is required. Something cannot be very complete or more complete; it can, however, be almost complete or complete with additional entries.

Perfect can mean without flaws. Either there are no flaws or there are flaws. Something cannot be more perfect¹. Either God has flaws or God has no flaws. Perfect can also mean that which cannot be better. This also cannot be a matter of degree. Either God is that which cannot be better or God can improve.


----------------------------------------------------
¹ Notwithstanding the grammatical error in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[FinalEnigma]

No, I don't disagree. What gave you that idea, may I ask?

why does perfection exclude change? why would completeness exclude change?

It doesnt.

Sorry, it does. You can't change perfection unless to render it imperfect. But even that is impossible, the possibility of rendering "perfection" imperfect would make it imperfect in the first place. The logic is very obvious.

There are multiple ways that something can be perfect. The very idea that there isnt is ridiculous!

5+5=10
10=10

this equation is perfect by your definition. it is complete and flawless, therefore it is the perfect equation.

now ill change it...

5+5=10
10=10
-1 -1
9=9

It is still perfect. it is still complete and flawless.

something that is perfect can change in ways that are irrelevent to it's perfection. Surely that makes sense?

for those of you more abstract-minded say that one were to perform a dance, that is absolutely perfect. then perform another dance, that is also perfect. Both are perfect, and both are different.

My chess game I once played: it was perfect. You could go back to the transcript of the game and make several changes and(if they were correct changes) the game would still be perfect.

[Beto]

There are multiple ways that something can be perfect. The very idea that there isnt is ridiculous!

5+5=10
10=10

this equation is perfect by your definition. it is complete and flawless, therefore it is the perfect equation.

now ill change it...

It's because another number can be inserted to turn the equation false (among other things) that it is imperfect.

something that is perfect can change in ways that are irrelevent to it's perfection. Surely that makes sense?

Only under your personal definition of the word.

My chess game I once played: it was perfect.

Would it be perfect to Kasparov?

[McCulloch]

There are multiple ways that something can be perfect. The very idea that there isn't is ridiculous!

5+5=10
10=10

this equation is perfect by your definition. it is complete and flawless, therefore it is the perfect equation.

That equation is not perfect. It is perhaps flawless but it is by no means a complete expression of anything.

now ill change it...

5+5=10
10=10
-1 -1
9=9

It is still perfect. it is still complete and flawless.

something that is perfect can change in ways that are irrelevent to it's perfection. Surely that makes sense?

for those of you more abstract-minded say that one were to perform a dance, that is absolutely perfect. then perform another dance, that is also perfect. Both are perfect, and both are different.

This is why I kept on hammering you at the beginning of this for a definition of perfect. If by perfect you mean flawless, then it can be extended perhaps but not improved. If by perfect you mean complete, lacking nothing, then it cannot be made more perfect.

My chess game I once played: it was perfect. You could go back to the transcript of the game and make several changes and(if they were correct changes) the game would still be perfect.

You have played a chess game that was perfect? Where each one of the moves was the absolute best choice? I find that hard to believe.

[Confused]

There are multiple ways that something can be perfect. The very idea that there isn't is ridiculous!

5+5=10
10=10

this equation is perfect by your definition. it is complete and flawless, therefore it is the perfect equation.

That equation is not perfect. It is perhaps flawless but it is by no means a complete expression of anything.

now ill change it...

5+5=10
10=10
-1 -1
9=9

It is still perfect. it is still complete and flawless.

something that is perfect can change in ways that are irrelevent to it's perfection. Surely that makes sense?

for those of you more abstract-minded say that one were to perform a dance, that is absolutely perfect. then perform another dance, that is also perfect. Both are perfect, and both are different.

This is why I kept on hammering you at the beginning of this for a definition of perfect. If by perfect you mean flawless, then it can be extended perhaps but not improved. If by perfect you mean complete, lacking nothing, then it cannot be made more perfect.

My chess game I once played: it was perfect. You could go back to the transcript of the game and make several changes and(if they were correct changes) the game would still be perfect.

You have played a chess game that was perfect? Where each one of the moves was the absolute best choice? I find that hard to believe.

Slow down now. Before we all play jump the poster, give them a chance to respond. Dang. One after another after another and the scent of blood brings out the hounds.

[FinalEnigma]

There are multiple ways that something can be perfect. The very idea that there isnt is ridiculous!

5+5=10
10=10

this equation is perfect by your definition. it is complete and flawless, therefore it is the perfect equation.

now ill change it...

It's because another number can be inserted to turn the equation false (among other things) that it is imperfect.

I guess then that i must argue your definition, becaseu your statement here is not in accordance with your own definition. you are adding unspken requirements to make something perfect. namely "cannot be theoretically changed to become imperfect." which is an impossible rule to begin with.

it appears to me that you are now saying, that if you take something that was complete and flawless, and act in an impossible way to change it and cause it to become flawed, then it was never perfect.

And actually, you defeated your own definition. you postulated that an object/idea/ or concept that is both complete, and without flaw, is perfect.
then I showed you a simple equation that is both complete, and without flaw.(any mathematician in the world will tell you that it is so.) then you told me that is was not perfect. therefore, you deny your own

something that is perfect can change in ways that are irrelevent to it's perfection. Surely that makes sense?

Only under your personal definition of the word.

No, under the definition that you gave me.

My chess game I once played: it was perfect.

Would it be perfect to Kasparov?[/quote]

It was perfect to the chess program that beat Kasparov.

[Beto]

Slow down now. Before we all play jump the poster, give them a chance to respond. Dang. One after another after another and the scent of blood brings out the hounds.

I'd just be saying the same things all over again, so I'm out.

[FinalEnigma]

There are multiple ways that something can be perfect. The very idea that there isn't is ridiculous!

5+5=10
10=10

this equation is perfect by your definition. it is complete and flawless, therefore it is the perfect equation.

That equation is not perfect. It is perhaps flawless but it is by no means a complete expression of anything.

now ill change it...

5+5=10
10=10
-1 -1
9=9

It is still perfect. it is still complete and flawless.

something that is perfect can change in ways that are irrelevent to it's perfection. Surely that makes sense?

for those of you more abstract-minded say that one were to perform a dance, that is absolutely perfect. then perform another dance, that is also perfect. Both are perfect, and both are different.

This is why I kept on hammering you at the beginning of this for a definition of perfect. If by perfect you mean flawless, then it can be extended perhaps but not improved. If by perfect you mean complete, lacking nothing, then it cannot be made more perfect.

Now wait a minute. why are you hammering on me for a definition of perfect to being with? im taking beto's definition and running with it. im just trying to prove that his initial post was incorrect. He already gave a definition, im just using it.

My chess game I once played: it was perfect. You could go back to the transcript of the game and make several changes and(if they were correct changes) the game would still be perfect.

You have played a chess game that was perfect? Where each one of the moves was the absolute best choice? I find that hard to believe.[/quote]

It does seem hard to believe. I'll freely admit im not that good. I just got lucky. I think it was a mixture of luck, intuition, and subconcious playing. I've only ever done it once. I just checked and i still have the transcript. you can take a look at it if you want.(i think this is the correct one, im not sure, and I dont have time to check everything right now. early appointment tommorow. I played as white)

e4
b6
d3
e5
Nf3
a5
Nxe5
d6
Ng4
h5
Ne3
g6
c4
Nc6
Qa4
Bd7
Nd5
Nf6
Bg5
Bh6
Bxf6
Ne7
Bxe7
Bxa4
Bxd8
Rxd8
Nxc7+
Kd7
Nc3
Kxc7
Nxa4
Rhe8
g3
Rdb8
Bh3
b5
cxb5
Rxb5
Rc1+
Kb7
a3
Bxc1
O-O
Bd2
Bd7
Re7
Bxb5
d5
Nc5+
Kb6
Nb3
Bg5
Nd4
dxe4
Re1
f5
h4
Bd2
Re2
e3
Kg2
exf2
Rxe7
Be3
Rxe3
f1Q+
Kxf1

[Greatest I Am]

Perfect is a word we call an absolute adjective. These are adjectives that name qualities that are either present or absent. Other examples include unique, complete and parallel. Unique means one of a kind. Something cannot be very unique or more unique; either there is only one of its kind or there are more than one. Complete means there is no more that is required. Something cannot be very complete or more complete; it can, however, be almost complete or complete with additional entries.

Perfect can mean without flaws. Either there are no flaws or there are flaws. Something cannot be more perfect¹. Either God has flaws or God has no flaws. Perfect can also mean that which cannot be better. This also cannot be a matter of degree. Either God is that which cannot be better or God can improve.


----------------------------------------------------
¹ Notwithstanding the grammatical error in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

See. See. The writers of the constitution see my view.
Just kidding.

Consider though that God added to perfection the moment He created the earth.
Did that fact ruin the existing perfection or did it add to it.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

If God cannot change or absorb further information, like our names, then all that we see around us has no meaning because it has no effect on God.

If Heaven initially started as perfect then it as well could not accept any new souls. It is part of God. It would not be allowed to change and why should it if God cannot absorb the knowledge of the new souls.

If He is stagnant and unchanging then why create things that He is not allowed to know about and absorb?

To have Him stagnant is to take away any reason for both us and Him to continue life. logically this is why He cannot be stagnant.

As entities if we apply non changing to us, we would likely suicide out of unchanging boredom. There would be no point to life.

An evolving perfection is hard to visualize I agree. A better word may exist to show this concept better but then I am using the words I find in the Bible.

I would be pleased if any other word would fit to show how the best can still improve.

Regards
DL