I use to think that the word perfect was defined by something that was complete. Meaning nothing else could be added to it.

When you use logic to define perfect you get something different.

What I would like to know is, through this can we define if a imperfect thing can come from a perfect creator?

The form of debate from myself will be more along the lines of questions.
I would like to work a few things out.

One question I have is, what is the definition of perfect for each of us?

Second thought.
If it doesnt mean something that is finished or defined by logic can we find a new word for what is?

I cannot even begin to imagine what 'perfect' could mean. I am not a theologist. Usually the idea is split up into a number of differing perfections: omnipresent, omnipotent, immanent and the like.

Your second thought holds more promise. Creating a new word is a difficult prospect. What is usually done nowadays is creating memes: short, easily stated phrases that convey an idea. An example would be the phrase, "Be happy." The meme easily ties into a large number of cultural phenomena and has an easily accessible, cultural meaning. The wikipedia entry on Meme should prove more helpful.

only if "god" the creator is actually a practical joker. could human creation just be a big fucking joke?

I think perfect is only meaningful when used in the everyday sense, usually to make a judgement. For example "perfect weather for a game of cricket" or "yes that's perfect" when someone asks if the cup of tea they gave you is to your liking.

It has some use in maths, for example "I can draw a perfect circle free-hand". Although even in mathematics "perfect" is, strictly speaking, a redundant term. Any circle that is not perfect is not, strictly speaking, a circle.

As to what theologians mean by perfect I have no idea. I suspected quite frankly neither do they.

I think this might clear the air a bit, of course it has a lot of flaws, but maybe you get something out of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy

To me "perfect" means "cannot be improved any further". For the word to be logically meaningful it has to be describing a very specific, preferrably qualifiable attribute. A score of 10 out of 10 would be perfect. A perfect fighter would always win. It is not so clear how to qualify a creator (how to distinguish a better creator from a worse creator, etc.), so "perfect" is not very meaningful here.

However, while we don't know whether a "perfect" creator can create imperfect beings (again, here we run into the problem of defining/qualifying what a "perfect" creation is), we do know that a "perfectly powerful" creator can do whatever it wants to.

we do know that a "perfectly powerful" creator can do whatever it wants to.

Even omnipotence bogs down in logical quandries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Indeed. I always liked omni- paradoxes.

You have made the assumptions that the creator you speak of is perfect. If you are speaking of the god of the holy bible, then, I would have to say that he/she is not perfect. God admits to creating evil and using evil & in one passage even repents for the evil he has done. So, logic dictates that your assumption is incorrect. The creator is not perfect.




I use to think that the word perfect was defined by something that was complete. Meaning nothing else could be added to it.

When you use logic to define perfect you get something different.

What I would like to know is, through this can we define if a imperfect thing can come from a perfect creator?

The form of debate from myself will be more along the lines of questions.
I would like to work a few things out.

One question I have is, what is the definition of perfect for each of us?

Second thought.
If it doesnt mean something that is finished or defined by logic can we find a new word for what is?

You have made the assumptions that the creator you speak of is perfect. If you are speaking of the god of the holy bible, then, I would have to say that he/she is not perfect. God admits to creating evil and using evil & in one passage even repents for the evil he has done. So, logic dictates that your assumption is incorrect. The creator is not perfect.


At the moment it is impossible to debate what you have said here.

I could or could not say God is perfect. I have no idea of what the word perfect means. So I think first we should try and narrow down the meaning of perfect.

What would you say the word perfect means?

From that meaning we can debate if God is or is not what you see as perfect.

To me "perfect" means "cannot be improved any further". For the word to be logically meaningful it has to be describing a very specific, preferrably qualifiable attribute. A score of 10 out of 10 would be perfect. A perfect fighter would always win. It is not so clear how to qualify a creator (how to distinguish a better creator from a worse creator, etc.), so "perfect" is not very meaningful here.

However, while we don't know whether a "perfect" creator can create imperfect beings (again, here we run into the problem of defining/qualifying what a "perfect" creation is), we do know that a "perfectly powerful" creator can do whatever it wants to.

That is also the meaning I used to think of, but the word itself "perfect" is seen in so many different forms that you can not truely use the word in debate, with out first forging comin ground on the meaning of.

I could argue that God is complete and he knows everything. He is complete in this way. It wouldnt be a logical arguement. I myself don't know everything and can not point out where God does and does not know the things I myself dont know.

I could say he created the earth and everything on it but then again I cant prove he has done so. However that would mean that God is perfect when comparing the word perfect to, something that is complete. If he created the world and everything on it then he must know all there is to know.

I think perfect is only meaningful when used in the everyday sense, usually to make a judgement. For example "perfect weather for a game of cricket" or "yes that's perfect" when someone asks if the cup of tea they gave you is to your liking.

It has some use in maths, for example "I can draw a perfect circle free-hand". Although even in mathematics "perfect" is, strictly speaking, a redundant term. Any circle that is not perfect is not, strictly speaking, a circle.

As to what theologians mean by perfect I have no idea. I suspected quite frankly neither do they.


Exactly, that was what I was thinking.

You can argue about God in both ways you have described.

I am assuming that God can and can not be proven mathmatically.

He can also be argued from the point of view that he is needed. :hahanot:

Good God, just what I needed to start my church. lol

Not so comically so but I know you understand.