Giving birth is worst then rape

trokolisz

New Member
2. Which is the perfect car, the 290 mph one with little space or the 276 mph one with a bit more space? in this chase (imagining there is no other car) neither is perfect, the perfect car would be one with 290 mph and a bit more space. If a car like that is impossible then a perfect car also impossible.


“There was no race. You are letting your human constraints and thoughts and limits and imagination get the better of you in defining perfection.

Have you heard of Guanillo’s (perfect) island analogy? One flaw in this is (as I mentioned to you), ‘what defines perfect?’. So, why is a 290mph car better or more perfect than a 276mph one? Are you assuming that top or high speed is beneficial or a part of perfection? If so, the speed of light or more should be the marker. If there is no reason or a negative reason to go over 70mph, then more is less (perfect). If more space is better, a bus or ship might be better, but if it takes too much road or fuel or space to be of use or gets stuck in traffic, it is less than perfect. But we might now be getting limited by our own human backwardness and focus on efficiency of fuel or environmental issues. That is why, ‘perfect needs defining. Can a speed of light spaceship with space for everyone make your perfect ice cream? No? Well it isn’t perfect. That’s another way of looking at it. Does everything need to be in one?

My Autistic mind tends to like factual things. I recall wondering why Jesus is described as very ordinary looking in the Bible, yet this seeming to contradict with my understanding of perfection (if Jesus was God).”




3. God is a warmongerer, seeking blood and combat and out to destroy the weak. it would be hard to find anyone who would acknowledge a God like that as perfect. The Polytheist gods are human-like and imperfect, with human emotions and faults (greed, pride, wrath etc.).
Also if it were true, then it would be foolish to go along with his request if its not an order. As they could easily lead to bad outcomes for us.





“Again, the fact that few people agree, or you or others consider a warmonger God to be unethical or imperfect, suggests that they are not familiar with the Judeo/Christian/Islamic literature/followers that fill the earth now and that we are merely convinced of the commonly recognised views of cherry picked morality. Remember, even today, homosexuality is a punishment by death in some countries based on religious understanding. As is killing albino people for medicine or sacrificing children or murdering or raping women for being raped or having an affair or not taking a religion seriously or a child being disobedient or obesity etc. That is worse than warmongering and it exists today. I recommend this video from the twilight zone, not dissimilar to one of the greatest films in my view (both original and modern versions of, ‘The day the earth stood still’. This is only about 7 minutes long. Enjoy:



I also note another quality in you. You own up to an error or saying something my mistake or you want to correct it. That is awesome. It demonstrates open mindedness and modesty and wanting to learn. In many discussions/debates, a focus is on tripping the opponent up or quoting something said in the past and whether taking it out of context or not allowing them to change their mind (and claiming some sort of victory), instead of just allowing for mistakes etc. and more focussing on what that person actually believes or claims, now, irrespective of the past, unless of course they are constantly changing out of deception or to get round something they have trouble with.

Your last sentence seems to have been cut off.
I don't simply think a perfect entity should be perfect by my standards. I think a perfect entity should be perfect by all standards. And as you too pointed out, people have different standards. Some think it should be merciless some think it should be merciful. I argue that this is why i don't believe a perfect God could exist. It could have different morals then me, but then i would not recognize it as a perfect entity.

Btw the video was indeed interesting, but our disagreement is on a different point: what do we recognize as perfect.
My standards for perfect are so high that i don't believe it could be met, and to be honest i still don't understand your standards.
You had argued that perfect is subjective and situational, so how could a car be perfect, but then again i ask how could a God be perfect if not even a car could be.

“Again, the fact that few people agree, or you or others consider a warmonger God to be unethical or imperfect, suggests that they are not familiar with the Judeo/Christian/Islamic literature/followers that fill the earth now
I had heard about them, i just simply don't see their God as perfect.
I speak about a God who is perfect at everything. While they speak about a God with unlimited power. In the aspect of power it might be perfect, even in the aspect of knowledge. But i think there are more aspects we should talk about.
On the other hand if you only argue for a God who is perfect in these two area, then fine, but if you God can be the perfect entity then i disagree. (As the fasted car is not a perfect car)
 

BrachioPEP

Moderator
If you can’t recognise God or God’s perfection/morality/instructions compared to your perception of what YOU think is right or wrong, then you need to consider where morality comes from, or someone has to change their understanding and align it correctly. That will either be you or the perfect God. You can’t judge God on your standards/experience based on your limited time and place and knowledge. You are again looking through your own limited understanding. IF morality COMES from God, HE is the authority (like it or not). It makes no difference what you think. See Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma.

The Twilight Zone video reflected perfectly, what I am trying to say here. If a being communicates/proves Himself and He is different to what we thought or imagined or hoped, tough. How you think it is not relevant is confusing to me, but I won’t spend any more time on it unless you can steel man what I have already said or really clarify what you mean.

Again, perfection only applies to certain things. Are speed, capacity, colour or aerodynamics important, need to be unlimited or do they have a perfect… anything? Is free will therefore pointless or illusory because everyone would seem to be the same and therefore make the same choices in your (flawed) model (of what perfection is or applies to). A car is a modern term, coined by inventing something. In another country or time or world, 3+ round wheeled powered vehicles may not exist or be invented (because they have no worth compared to something better or different). We can’t invent something that may not have even been invented by a perfect person or god and so why apply a perfect attribute to something imperfect? Regarding a God, perfection is an attribute of more fundamental things, like power and knowledge etc. Forget cars. I only mentioned them to show that they cannot have such attributes without a perfect/solitary purpose, and then why not just make one thing that can cook breakfast, do maths, take you to the cinema, exercise you and be a couch, perfectly and all in one. Guanilo’s (sic) island again.

IF a perfect God exists, It/He/She/They reign supreme and I for one (if I knew that) would not stand and argue, but re-align and contemplate my flaws. But such a being is to be demonstrated in order to even be considered. And that requires good evidence or novel predictable experiments.

‘Perfect at everything’??? What does that mean? Many theists reject the idea that their God is all-powerful. As I said, he can’t create a stone too heavy to lift or lie. All powerful is a self-contradictory. Perfectly powerful or similar is better.

My standards for perfect are so high that i don't believe it could be met, and to be honest i still don't understand your standards.

Why would I or others or a God be interested in your standards (unless it affects others)? Most of us have our own and the law provides a more universal standard to protect the population. If someone is not a theist, it doesn’t matter what their standards are, but if a perfect God exists who is the source of morality, and has ordered us to follow, then we should all try to share it, even if we can’t meet it. It is the rule creator/setter who decides and sets the agenda. If you want to be part of the club, accept them or don’t join/pay the penalty of rejecting them.


‘I’ve heard of those people’??? What do you mean. For the most part, I refer to most theists. Misunderstanding here.

I am struggling to understand again. If you have specific points, questions, arguments or responses, I’d prefer it if you could stick to those or show you fully understand what I have said or make a new/specific post topic to discuss. That way, others can follow or join in if desired. We can all learn better that way and sort, file and find stuff.

Possible topics to start:

  • Does perfection (e.g. in/of a God/being/deity/ultimate creator/God of the Bible) have limits (e.g. in logic, non-contradiction etc.) and what problems does that cause?
  • Is there good evidence for God and how specific (e.g. any particular religion or book) is that God?
  • The Euthyphro dilemma, ‘ Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?’
  • Salman Rushdie’s latest book, ‘Buddha’s a fat bastard’.
  • My suggestion for a good book to read/discuss on interpreting the Bible and choosing versions is, “How to read the Bible for all it’s worth’ by, ‘Fee and Stewart’.
 

trokolisz

New Member
2. Which is the perfect car, the 290 mph one with little space or the 276 mph one with a bit more space? in this chase (imagining there is no other car) neither is perfect, the perfect car would be one with 290 mph and a bit more space. If a car like that is impossible then a perfect car also impossible.


“There was no race. You are letting your human constraints and thoughts and limits and imagination get the better of you in defining perfection.

Have you heard of Guanillo’s (perfect) island analogy? One flaw in this is (as I mentioned to you), ‘what defines perfect?’. So, why is a 290mph car better or more perfect than a 276mph one? Are you assuming that top or high speed is beneficial or a part of perfection? If so, the speed of light or more should be the marker. If there is no reason or a negative reason to go over 70mph, then more is less (perfect). If more space is better, a bus or ship might be better, but if it takes too much road or fuel or space to be of use or gets stuck in traffic, it is less than perfect. But we might now be getting limited by our own human backwardness and focus on efficiency of fuel or environmental issues. That is why, ‘perfect needs defining. Can a speed of light spaceship with space for everyone make your perfect ice cream? No? Well it isn’t perfect. That’s another way of looking at it. Does everything need to be in one?

My Autistic mind tends to like factual things. I recall wondering why Jesus is described as very ordinary looking in the Bible, yet this seeming to contradict with my understanding of perfection (if Jesus was God).”




3. God is a warmongerer, seeking blood and combat and out to destroy the weak. it would be hard to find anyone who would acknowledge a God like that as perfect. The Polytheist gods are human-like and imperfect, with human emotions and faults (greed, pride, wrath etc.).
Also if it were true, then it would be foolish to go along with his request if its not an order. As they could easily lead to bad outcomes for us.





“Again, the fact that few people agree, or you or others consider a warmonger God to be unethical or imperfect, suggests that they are not familiar with the Judeo/Christian/Islamic literature/followers that fill the earth now and that we are merely convinced of the commonly recognised views of cherry picked morality. Remember, even today, homosexuality is a punishment by death in some countries based on religious understanding. As is killing albino people for medicine or sacrificing children or murdering or raping women for being raped or having an affair or not taking a religion seriously or a child being disobedient or obesity etc. That is worse than warmongering and it exists today. I recommend this video from the twilight zone, not dissimilar to one of the greatest films in my view (both original and modern versions of, ‘The day the earth stood still’. This is only about 7 minutes long. Enjoy:



I also note another quality in you. You own up to an error or saying something my mistake or you want to correct it. That is awesome. It demonstrates open mindedness and modesty and wanting to learn. In many discussions/debates, a focus is on tripping the opponent up or quoting something said in the past and whether taking it out of context or not allowing them to change their mind (and claiming some sort of victory), instead of just allowing for mistakes etc. and more focussing on what that person actually believes or claims, now, irrespective of the past, unless of course they are constantly changing out of deception or to get round something they have trouble with.

Your last sentence seems to have been cut off.
I have been thinking for a lot about my answers, but i came to a simple conclusion. You have still not given your definition of perfect, and our differences are all based on the different definition we use.
Based on your arguments it sounds like you argue that whatever attributes and characteristics God has are perfect as he is perfect, but it sounds awfully circular. I tried to go by what characteristics i would find perfect for a God and gave those characteristics to God to see if that could be inline with reality (disregarding the existence of God), but i feel like you went the other way around, took an already existing God description and labeled it perfect.

I thought about opening a new tread, but until you give me a definition to work with i think it is pointless.

(it might sound as an attack, but I just simply want to have an exciting discussion like in the first some comments, and not talking over each other, with no common ground)
 

BrachioPEP

Moderator
What is perfect or perfection, particularly in a God?

‘Perfection is a state, variously, of completeness, flawlessness, or supreme excellence.’

I personally have no idea, for several reasons. Unless there is a purpose for life that we know for certain, then how can we measure (or track) perfection or define morality? If the purpose of life is to serve and enjoy the Biblical God forever, then we have a lot of scripture to help us learn/decide. If there is no God, then perhaps there is no measure of anything. So, whilst I can attempt to make attributes for perfection, I need a goal or purpose from which to know this. The being (who for our discussion represents a God in the Twilight zone film), perfection is in many ways very different to the Biblical God. Do you understand/agree?

Our, ‘human’ definition would likely be subjective, based on our experience, influence, limited knowledge, moral compass, when and where we live, even our politics and philosophy etc. Do you agree?

I do not see how we can label such an attribute to things we create, like cars or education. There could even be different perfections and it depends on what your measure is. A perfect gorilla might have very different attributes or legs to a perfect chimpanzee or lizard, as each has different functionality. Does perfection even exist or could it even or are there multiple versions? Do you get this?

How do you envision perfection or why are you unable to imagine or accept a perfect deity? Can you clarify.

So, if love (for example) does not actually exist or is a bad thing or unimportant (objectively), then benevolence may be something unnecessary (objectively or in a God) or be very different in terms of how you might perceive it, e.g. if you envision the Christian God and you are wrong. If there is a God and a heaven or afterlife, then many people are going to be surprised or even shocked (following death), compared to how they did or did not imagine or believe it.

If there is a God, is it better/more perfect to be more socialist, communist, democratic, conservative, free market, selfish, selfless. You can follow all models and each have strengths and weaknesses and if the right combination is perfect, why don’t we have or pursue it? For the same reason we have different flavours, models and preferences; we are human/diverse. This is incompatible with perfection, most likely, because of the imperfect humans involved. Any views here?

Maybe this will explain the problem with perfection in man made things and some other things. What is the, ‘best’ car in the world? Is it a Rolls Royce, an F1 car, a super caravanette or the latest electric or solar twin seat? It depends on what your measure of perfection is, (speed, comfort, space, energy saving) do you see? Maybe it is not possible to roll all things into one. Is there a perfect height for a human? If so, what is it? When you decide, are there any disadvantages to being that size? If so, is it therefore imperfect? There was actually (only) one human ever to have been legally/technically both an adult dwarf and a giant. He developed a pituitary gland problem which shot his height up. And (to contradict a popular example of a philosophical/logical impossibility) I was once a married bachelor.

Power and knowledge may be something that can be imagined as having perfect attributes or scales and we may need to clarify this in terms of frameworks that are not self-contradictory or impossible.

Perhaps, ‘universals’ is a better term (that objective), so you limit things to this earth or universe, i.e. for all people everywhere at all times.

I can imagine perfection in several ways. Nothingness is one. A single spec of the smallest particle that can do everything, perfectly is another. I tend to think in extremes, as philosophy often requires us to do in order to ensure no base/stone goes untouched/unturned by way of exception.

Do I think there is an objective morality (i.e. with or without God and with or without/before humanity existed)? No, but I am open to persuasion and listening and weighing up Tom Jump’s position for example, which is also worth pursuing on this site.

It may help to set out your position and explain why you hold it or why you reject a particular position, with reasons or evidences or facts that can be imagined or tangibly accessed in response.

Are you considering just our world, just you, just now, just where you are, all the universe or all possible worlds? You are right to say that definitions are important. This is often the cause of debater/discussion breakdown or confusion.

Are you aware of (or looking up) any references I mention? This will ensure you are following and enable you to learn and grow in discussions (and know that I am not wasting time).

As/if this thread is not clear/specific to a topic, it may be better to go private and/or start a specific topic. My title/first line is one such suggestion.
 

trokolisz

New Member
I have been writing another lengthy response, but then i have been convinced about your right.
I, as most religion thought that God exist in order to serve humanity, and not the other way around. (God: An all powerful being who grants your wishes, and forgives you even if you go against his order), but if there were a real God who created everything for his satisfaction, then God has no task, or mission, and he can't be flawed, so in that sense he is flawless. So i now agree that is something without a purpose is perfect by the definition either of us used.
 

trokolisz

New Member
I forgot to point out that my statement above is only true if we speak from an absolutely Monotheistic standpoint.
If we think in a way that GOD: good Devil: evil then that is an entirely different situation, as God could have a goal, and failing to achieve it would render him imperfect.
 

BrachioPEP

Moderator
I have been writing another lengthy response, but then i have been convinced about your right.


O.K. Not sure if you do, as I don't really understand what you are saying or think I am saying. See later.



I, as most religion thought that God exist in order to serve humanity, and not the other way around.



You think most religions think that God exists to serve us? I have not heard of anyone who believes this.



(God: An all powerful being who grants your wishes, and forgives you even if you go against his order),



This seems to be a very vague, skewed and wrong view of the Christian God. The fact that He answers prayers and forgives sin. God does not always answer prayer, there is a hell and it is a Christian’s duty to do as God wills and for many, one must accept one’s sinfulness, repent and accept Christ’s sacrifice and Him as saviour to be forgiven. I don’t think I can relate to anything you are saying.

God created us for His pleasure and glory:

Revelation Chapter 4 verse 11: “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power; for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are, and were created.”




then God has no task, or mission, and he can't be flawed, so in that sense he is flawless.



How so?



So i now agree that is something without a purpose is perfect by the definition either of us used.

I think I know what you are referring to in what I said (i.e. that without a goal/aim, something cannot be defined as perfect as there is no measure by which to use) but you may be reading too much into it. I don’t really follow. I think it needs simplifying.

You seem to paint everyone’s understanding of God as a servant, who’s purpose in creating was to please us (and not Him). This is a very odd and wrong interpretation and I don’t know where you get it from. Jesus came as a servant in many ways, and God wants us to be happy and answer our prayers, but He is God and to be worshiped, enjoyed and obeyed, in order for a full relationship.

You may write English as a second language which may be getting in the way a little, but your English is clearly very good and I am grateful that you write it, or I would be stuck.
 

trokolisz

New Member
I have been writing another lengthy response, but then i have been convinced about your right.


O.K. Not sure if you do, as I don't really understand what you are saying or think I am saying. See later.



I, as most religion thought that God exist in order to serve humanity, and not the other way around.



You think most religions think that God exists to serve us? I have not heard of anyone who believes this.



(God: An all powerful being who grants your wishes, and forgives you even if you go against his order),



This seems to be a very vague, skewed and wrong view of the Christian God. The fact that He answers prayers and forgives sin. God does not always answer prayer, there is a hell and it is a Christian’s duty to do as God wills and for many, one must accept one’s sinfulness, repent and accept Christ’s sacrifice and Him as saviour to be forgiven. I don’t think I can relate to anything you are saying.

God created us for His pleasure and glory:

Revelation Chapter 4 verse 11: “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power; for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are, and were created.”




then God has no task, or mission, and he can't be flawed, so in that sense he is flawless.



How so?



So i now agree that is something without a purpose is perfect by the definition either of us used.

I think I know what you are referring to in what I said (i.e. that without a goal/aim, something cannot be defined as perfect as there is no measure by which to use) but you may be reading too much into it. I don’t really follow. I think it needs simplifying.

You seem to paint everyone’s understanding of God as a servant, who’s purpose in creating was to please us (and not Him). This is a very odd and wrong interpretation and I don’t know where you get it from. Jesus came as a servant in many ways, and God wants us to be happy and answer our prayers, but He is God and to be worshiped, enjoyed and obeyed, in order for a full relationship.

You may write English as a second language which may be getting in the way a little, but your English is clearly very good and I am grateful that you write it, or I would be stuck.
By saying he was created to serve us, i mean it from an outsiders point of view.
By the Christian God i do not refer to the God of the bible, but to the one Christians i know believe in. The God of love, family, and everything cute, the one who forgives you whatever you did, all you need to do is confess and see that you were wrong. The God who will heal the sick, find your keys and helps you pass the exams, and all you need to do is pray hard enough and it will happen.
Also i have heard many times, that "noone goes to hell, as God loves us all and he will forgive everybody", or apologetics trying to justify that hell isn't a fiery lake, but just a metaphor for the absence of God.
For clarification: i don't know of any religion that claim God to be subservient to humans, but from an outsiders point of view God gives way more then receives.(in my opinion this is extremely true for religions that don't require any sacrifice, only worship)
And my simple point is that something without goals/aim, can't fail, so it is flawless, which both of us used as definition of perfect.

If your position is different and i misunderstood, then i might not agree with you, but i left behind my original position: that nothing can be perfect
 

BrachioPEP

Moderator
By saying he was created to serve us, i mean it from an outsiders point of view.


I think the word, ‘serve’ might be the problem. From an outsider’s perspective, it might appear that God is a bit like a genie, which is like a servant, granting wishes, as in answering prayers.



By the Christian God i do not refer to the God of the bible, but to the one Christians i know believe in. The God of love, family, and everything cute, the one who forgives you whatever you did, all you need to do is confess and see that you were wrong. The God who will heal the sick, find your keys and helps you pass the exams, and all you need to do is pray hard enough and it will happen.



I suppose there are a lot of Christians who takes God out of context or see Him in a very different light to how the Bible reveals Him and who (if the Biblical God exists) will be very surprised as they have interpreted Him through cultural and denominational eyes.


Also i have heard many times, that "noone goes to hell, as God loves us all and he will forgive everybody", or apologetics trying to justify that hell isn't a fiery lake, but just a metaphor for the absence of God.



Yes, even some Evangelicals are rejecting hell and others believe it is temporary or consider purgatory or play it down. Even the ones who really believe in hell, would likely behave very differently and more concerningly if they truly believed it. There is nothing in all fiction that even compares to such a horrific place, and people teach it to kids.


For clarification: i don't know of any religion that claim God to be subservient to humans,



OK



but from an outsiders point of view God gives way more then receives.(in my opinion this is extremely true for religions that don't require any sacrifice, only worship)



Yes, if by sacrifice you mean like animal sacrifices as opposed to time in prayer or church or the sacraments or initiations or fasting or tithing etc?

tAnd my simple point is that something without goals/aim, can't fail, so it is flawless, which both of us used as definition of perfect.



I have two perfect/flawless children then (by this definition! I think this again gets lost in translation. I don’t consider that something is flawless or perfect because it has no goal or aim. Like evolution or a sports car. I am just saying that something non-teleological) without a definable purpose or goal, cannot be assessed on a scale of how good or fast or perfect it is, as there is no measure of comparison. But arguments for God or certain ones tend to argue that He is perfect in certain aspects.

If your position is different and i misunderstood, then i might not agree with you, but i left behind my original position: that nothing can be perfect



Sure. So, if you want to make or design a car to go as fast as possible or hold as many people as possible, then you have a goal, so you can now measure your design/creation against a scale to see if it is perfect or maximal, i.e. without impossibilities or self contradictions. If your car reaches the speed of light, or holds all people, it is maximally good or perfect.
 

trokolisz

New Member
Yes, if by sacrifice you mean like animal sacrifices as opposed to time in prayer or church or the sacraments or initiations or fasting or tithing etc?

Yes in my opinion a material sacrifice is way bigger task for the followers then going to church every Sunday, for example if they sacrificed a cow, but a cows were really expensive, and it all gone done the drain (i have header that Greek priests ate the sacrifices but that doesn't matter now) .

But then religions came out that they don't need more animal, or human sacrifice. And it seems to me that the only reason for this is to improve their PR.

I have two perfect/flawless children then (by this definition! I think this again gets lost in translation. I don’t consider that something is flawless or perfect because it has no goal or aim. Like evolution or a sports car. I am just saying that something non-teleological) without a definable purpose or goal, cannot be assessed on a scale of how good or fast or perfect it is, as there is no measure of comparison. But arguments for God or certain ones tend to argue that He is perfect in certain aspects.

I think if you don't test something than it can't fail the test, and i would not see it as passing the test, but rather like Schrodinger's cat.
For humans there are many test to fail, for example when we born we enter into a contact with the state, you follow the rules, and they will try to keep you safe. If you enter school you will be tested monthly. And I would consider a human perfect as long as they don't break any rules, and pass every reasonable test. (100% percent is not required, and I know that my opinion just did a 180, and i'm sorry if it might cause confusion)
But it only applies if you can test them, and there is a reason to make that test. No one cares how god a car is at solving calculus. But i can't find a reasonable test for God.
Btw if we were speaking about the God of bible, it is a contradiction for an all-knowing being who knows the future to change his mind, so if your standard for God is to be omniscience then changing their mind is a flaw.

Exodus 32:14
So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
(while some other verse claim that he will never change is mind)

In the end i still agree that perfect is awfully subjective and something i find perfect others may not find it perfect. (like my t-shirt would not fit my sister the same way as it does me, but in this case we can assume that fitting my sister is an unreasonable test for a t-shirt made in my size, so the whole point change for what is perfect, and could it be perfect, to what is and what isn't a reasonable test)
 

BrachioPEP

Moderator
You are wise to be free to change your mind at any time. It is a sign of maturity, humbleness, growth and seeking truth.

Perfection:

‘having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be; absolute, complete.’

In this reasonable definition, if school attendance for the week were the goal and you attended all classes on time, then you can have a perfect record with relative ease. But to be a perfect student (in your example), you DO need to be perfect in every way, e.g. grades, attendance, behaviour, following all rules to a t, perfectly dressed, all homework done and so on.

If something has no measure or if you can’t measure it, it is not automatically perfect (as I think you believe it is). Perfect only applies to something that has the capacity to scalably measure against.

In the examples I made on the image, perfection cannot apply.

You don’t know how big the letter was I took a photo of and even if you did, what is the scale and limit of best or perfect size for a letter? If you don’t know this, you cannot even use the term, ‘perfect’.

Is there a perfect human being? Really big can reach tall things but not lower things so well. Really muscular means less cardio stamina. But who declares what is good or bad. Humans are still evolving all the time, each generation, and we m ay evolve extra senses or arms. So you can define averages or statistical norms, but without teleology, perfection is meaningless/unknown.

It is like asking if a colour sounds or smells nice or offering a question that might not have a yes or no answer, e.g. if you were not beating your mother in the first place, both answers are wrong.

Only when you can define what the optimum is, can you measure it and determine if/what perfection is.

Cherry picking scriptures that seem contradictory is wrong without full context and listening to responses. There are seemingly contradictory proverbs, even in the same chapter of the book of Proverbs in the Bible, but it is clear that the context makes them both valid. Here’s an example: Too many cooks spoil the broth vs Many hands make light work.

Can God know all of the future and still change his mind? I can see how He could, yes. A good understanding of the Bible is recommended from which to determine for oneself, rather than one others, if it is feasible or not, and don’t forget, God may not be the God of the Bible.

Does God need to be all powerful or perfect, to be God? I suppose it is down to how you define God (or perfection). Most theologians tend to use the term, ‘perfect’ in a logically non-contradictory way - as I said before. So if giving free will allows people to actively resist God, this does not mean his power is limited. Likewise, if truth is determined to be an attribute of perfection or God, then you cannot lie, but this is not considered a flaw or limit or if you can’t create a square circle etc.

We should challenge people who make claims that God does or does not exist, but we must do so fairly and not score cheap shots. If we sincerely seek truth, we will have no fear from any argument or claim. One way to see if someone is really interested in truth, when they ask a question, is to ask them what responses they have found to their claim or question or challenge. In debates on theology or creation/evolution, I have found that they regularly ask the same question and/or do not listen to responses or check beforehand to see how opposition has responded. If someone is really convinced or stumped by something, then you would expect them to have exhausted their search, or at least had a look to see what responses have been given. If not, it is a good sign that they are biased, do not seek truth and are not interested or willing to reason or be convinced. The way questions are asked or even phrased is also often a good indicator of intention.

1603293820308.png
 

BrachioPEP

Moderator
N.B. Perfect is NOT subjective. Your definition of a perfect partner then has objective value. Only when a different measure or value is attributed (e.g. by someone else) does it then change the parameters and then conform to them. So, if God, to me is perfect if He lies and stays in bed all day, then yopur perception of God, by my definition, is wrong. The thing is, to determine an objective measure of perfection.
 

BrachioPEP

Moderator
In polytheistic religions with more than one God, attributes can be spread amongst them, so none are all encompassing. Hinduism is, btw, a monotheistic set of religions.
 

trokolisz

New Member
I do think that perfect is subjective.
having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be; absolute, complete.
The desirable elements, qualities ... Different persons have different desires, so i don't see how could it be not subjective
If you want a car you are looking for a car in specific color, with a max price, with a min speed, with max consumption, with a good look (im not a car person, so i don't know what else matters, but there are many other). And we buy the car that matches the most with our desires.
But different people look for different things in a car.
We don't say a car is perfect as there are just so many thing that we are looking for in a car that not all demand could be met.
But if a car collector is looking for a Rolls-Royce Wraith (not necessarily working) then any Rolls-Royce Wraith is perfect at being Rolls-Royce Wraith.

letter: for what? for having 100 character of this size in this size in a raw, it is too big, if you want to put it on a poster next to the highway then it is too small. If you want a headline then it might just be perfect.

Colour: colours only exist in our brain, this is how we interpret the light reflected from objects. So it is unreasonable to ask then to smell like something. But a green object could smell like something.

have you stopped beating your mother yet? yes or now. What is 2+2? answer with 5 or 6. by prohibiting the right answer you make it impossible to answer.
But you view that God not being able to square a circle does not make him imperfect, and i don't see how it is different.

height: again depends on situation. If you want someone to not be able to bump their had in the door and the door is 2m tall, then anyone smaller than 2m is perfect for it.

the only reason we say that humans can't be perfect because there are too much expectation to met. So if you look at good as a perfect entity, then you need to tell what is required from an entity. And if he meets of all those then he is perfect, and if he does't then he is not a perfect entity.
For example as far as i know, noone cares if God is green, so him not being green would not render him imperfect
 

trokolisz

New Member
Also you say that a car can't be perfect, a human can't be perfect, a letter can't be perfect, a height of a human can't be perfect, a color can't be perfect.
Then how can in your view any entity be perfect?
 

trokolisz

New Member
In polytheistic religions with more than one God, attributes can be spread amongst them, so none are all encompassing. Hinduism is, btw, a monotheistic set of religions.
sorry if i missed something but i don't see how it is relevant, could you tell me to what point was it a reply?
 

BrachioPEP

Moderator
I do think that perfect is subjective.
having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be; absolute, complete.
The desirable elements, qualities ... Different persons have different desires, so i don't see how could it be not subjective
If you want a car you are looking for a car in specific color, with a max price, with a min speed, with max consumption, with a good look (im not a car person, so i don't know what else matters, but there are many other). And we buy the car that matches the most with our desires.
But different people look for different things in a car.
We don't say a car is perfect as there are just so many thing that we are looking for in a car that not all demand could be met.
But if a car collector is looking for a Rolls-Royce Wraith (not necessarily working) then any Rolls-Royce Wraith is perfect at being Rolls-Royce Wraith.



Well maybe, in that sense, if you can come up with an infinite number of different attributes for something, then there will be a different perfection for each one of them. Perfect in different eyes because their definition of perfect is different. But I disagree. Let’s take the, ‘perfect’ boyfriend. Could he be slightly taller, blonder, intelligent, funny, muscular? I suspect he could. So what the person is actually saying, (when he/she says he is perfect) is that the boyfriend is great or everything she hoped for. If any argument ever occurred after, then it could be better. I can only (again) refer you to Guanillo’s island, which does a far better job of explaining it than me.

But the key philosophical point was perfect attributes of a God or creator. If the guy found a Rolls Royce Wraith and was about to buy it, then saw a newer one, or better colour, faster, less miles or dents, better condition or owned by his favourite film star or a brand new one for half the price or free or two for the price of one, then would he pick that/those instead? Why? A car can always be better in terms of attributes or how you like it.

letter: for what? for having 100 character of this size in this size in a raw, it is too big, if you want to put it on a poster next to the highway then it is too small. If you want a headline then it might just be perfect.

This is exactly my point as clearly shown in the text in the centre of the image! The fact that you do not know any of this makes it impossible to answer or determine. Do you see this?

Colour: colours only exist in our brain, this is how we interpret the light reflected from objects. So it is unreasonable to ask then to smell like something. But a green object could smell like something.

Again, you totally miss my point. No further comment or discussion on this.

have you stopped beating your mother yet? yes or now. What is 2+2? answer with 5 or 6. by prohibiting the right answer you make it impossible to answer.
But you view that God not being able to square a circle does not make him imperfect, and i don't see how it is different.

You won’t find your perfect partner, so perfection is technically a waste of time discussing in regard to one. A perfect partner is at least only hypothetically possible. There are two or more ways of looking at perfect attributes of God (as I just clearly explained). If you include all logical contradictions and impossibilities, it makes it more difficult to grasp. If you make it that perfect attributes mean within the realm of such limits, this is a more widely accepted view (whether you accept it or not). In other words, most people are not arguing for a God who can create a rock to heavy for Him to carry . Do you get this? Have mentioned this several times.

height: again depends on situation. If you want someone to not be able to bump their had in the door and the door is 2m tall, then anyone smaller than 2m is perfect for it.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got it!!!! IT DEPENDS. How long is a piece of string!!!!!! But a perfect human height must be purposely defined and people do all sorts of things. Get low, go high. So if YOU define what THE PERFECT PERSON needs to do or be like, I’ll tell you what a perfect person is. And my answer is likely still going to be that there isn’t and couldn’t be one, as she or he (?) would have to do some things that lesser people can do better (a shorter person getting low) and have powers not yet evolved, in order to stretch high an d low etc.

the only reason we say that humans can't be perfect because there are too much expectation to met.



? Maybe, but I may have misunderstood.



So if you look at good as a perfect entity,

A nice motto for Oxford university or the job recruitment magazine. ‘Good’ is good enough. Why bother with outstanding or stretching yourself, when you can settle for good.

then you need to tell what is required from an entity. And if he meets of all those then he is perfect, and if he does't then he is not a perfect entity.
For example as far as i know, noone cares if God is green, so him not being green would not render him imperfect

So a God can be perfect if He is good, perhaps at everything? So in at least one universe, a God can skip a few lessons at school and still run the universe?

Look at Anslem’s Ontological argument.

No-one I know of considers colour to be a relevant attribute of God or important, so such a think (if He were greeny yellow that looked a bit like sick or snot) then it would not render Him any less a perfect God, I don’t think.


Also you say that a car can't be perfect, a human can't be perfect, a letter can't be perfect, a height of a human can't be perfect, a color can't be perfect.


Again? So describe the perfect car to me. If it fits the attributes it must attain and I can’t possibly imagine an improvement, I’ll grant you it.

Then how can in your view any entity be perfect?

Examples:

By reaching the limit of the attributes it must possess. All loving means that it cannot love more and/or loving more is not possible. Not a single greater aspect of loving could be added. Infinite love.

A perfect sphere would be the thing which cannot be smoother or more spherical, irrespective of weight, size, colour, location, material.


In polytheistic religions, attributes can be spread amongst them, so none are all encompassing. Hinduism is, btw, a monotheistic set of religions.

I’m not sure of the relevance other than a triad or multiple Gods seem to be bettered by a single one (making polytheism lesser) and the monotheistic point was of interest to anyone, as it is often wrongly defined or thought of as polytheistic, as is Christianity sometimes.
 

BrachioPEP

Moderator
Well maybe, in that sense, if you can come up with an infinite number of different attributes for something, then there will be a different perfection for each one of them. Perfect in different eyes because their definition of perfect is different. But I disagree. Let’s take the, ‘perfect’ boyfriend. Could he be slightly taller, blonder, intelligent, funny, muscular? I suspect he could. So what the person is actually saying, (when he/she says he is perfect) is that the boyfriend is great or everything she hoped for. If any argument ever occurred after, then it could be better. I can only (again) refer you to Guanillo’s island, which does a far better job of explaining it than me.

Just to clarify this bit, as the term argument may be misunderstood in this context. I mean an argument in the person's relationship. This suggests an imnperfection in understanding, shared interests or convictions or a lack of patience. Anything that ever goes humanly wrong or is even infinitely less than perfect, demonstrates that it is not perfect and could be bettered. Many people think they found their perfect partner, only to divorce later. The words, 'miraculous' and, 'perfect' are often used in a very non literal way. But we are talking in terems of philosophy, so need to be exact and get definitions right etc.
 
Top