Absolute perfection is not possible

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
Bigger than infinity exists.
Click to expand...
In the physical world this is not possible. Infinity is a theoretical concept (not a value) which by its very nature cannot exist. You cannot take a value that doesn’t actually exist and add something to it.

As for God, He is not bound by the rules of physics and mathematics. The creator of all things is not bound by the conditions He has created for his creations.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that perfect perfection is not possible? What is the difference in your mind between “perfect” and “absolutely perfect”?

When Jesus says, “You therefore must be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect,” the word used is τέλειος - teleios - meaning [in regard to creatures] complete, mature, of the full measure of its purpose. Thus a perfect apple tree is a mature one, reaching its purpose as created by God, bearing many apples in due season.

In this context, of Mt 5, the value addressed is the all-important one, love - divine charity (ἀγαπάω - agapaō), the love with which God loves. We are created to love with the love with which God loves. We reach perfection when we do this, when we possess and live according to that love. It is possible to do so only by His grace - His gift to us of that very love infused into our souls, lived by our “yes” to Him, and to that love.

We attain the perfection of love, therefore [if we do], as we live in human participation of and with His divine love. This is possible by His grace, and if we do what we can do: die to ourselves and to our selfish “love” - to that called “love” which means that the object loved is pleasing and satisfying to ME.
 
fide said:
to that called “love” which means that the object loved is pleasing and satisfying to ME.
Click to expand...
Oh fide, now you’ve done it. 😦 You’ve stated that we must not love that which is pleasing or satisfying to us, and you’ve called that un-love of all that pleases and satisfies us “the perfection of love”. Nahi, nahi, nahi. This just won’t do! (And you were doing so well for two whole paragaffes.)

P.S. There are no typos in this post. Really, I double-checked. 😉

P.P.S. But on a less critical note, it’s quite right that you pointed out the meaning of the word teleios. Indeed perfection as concerns creatures involves them fulfilling their purpose as God intended it. So, @STT, this too demonstrates that the perfection religion speaks of isn’t too be found (even by analogy) in mathematics. Numbers, circles, functions, root loci, Fourier transforms – they have no intrinsic purpose, and therefore cannot attain “perfection” in the religious sense.
 
Last edited:
A number can be perfect as a number. A tree can be perfect as a tree in that it fulfills it’s purpose.

I don’t think we can ascribe qualities to God with any certainty, He is unknowable in the sense that we cannot know Him in His entirety. We are not capable of knowing any more than that which God allows us to know and I’ve no doubt that an accurate description of even a tiny fraction of what God is would be beyond description for us.

Saying that God is perfect is as near a description we can ever get, and it suffices in this mortal condition I think.
 
You’re correlating “bound” and “absolute” in an illogical way. Also, who defined the inbound upper limit you refer to? Mathematics is all well and good when it follows the human-defined rules we’ve put in place, but if we just stopped there, Einstein would have had serious issues, as would many other great scientific philosophers (many of whom we’re frequently told were “atheist” or indifferent to the notion of God).
 
Lee1 said:
A number can be perfect as a number.
Click to expand...
I think you’re adding fuel to the fire. OP is trying to disprove the possibility of perfection in the religious sense. But a number (nor any mathematical concept) cannot be perfect in the religious sense of perfection, because it cannot be imperfect either. A number has no goal to attain. As @fide put it, it cannot “mature”. Numbers aren’t born tiny and powerless so that they may naturally (and in the case of humans also spiritually) grow until they attain their purpose (teleios). Note also that in the more obvious Latin cognate (perfectus) the core “fect” connotes something (especially some work) having been done, and the prefix “per” connotes completion of a process, a going beyond.

The term “perfection” really doesn’t belong in mathematics, and neither does the term “value”. But indeed they are used. This hi-jacking of human terms laden with affective quality into a sterile domain is not as harmless as it seems.
 
Last edited:
What fire?

I’m saying that a number is itself nothing and fulfills its role, a tree too, but to compare these to God is like comparing the proverbial Apple to pear or orange etc.

You know roguish I posted a perfectly good response to this thread a long time ago.

I may not have an encyclopaedic knowledge but I do have enough intelligence to know that whether God is perfect or not is unknowable by any human being. If people,want to argue some point it might be efficacious to ensure that the subject matter is ambiguous, that there can be some doubt. With God there is no doubt as to his perfection since to doubt that is a product of our flawed intelligence imo.

God is unknowable. What is there that could be said about His quality or quantity or state of perfection. Beats me.
 
Lee1 said:
What fire?
Click to expand...
OP is trying to establish the impossibility of perfection in the religious sphere from the impossibility of a maximum quantity. A debate is ensuing which I’m figuratively referring to as a fire. My point (and to some extent others’) has been that the whole notion of perfection doesn’t apply to concepts from the mathematical domain.
Lee1 said:
I’m saying that a number is itself nothing and fulfills its role, a tree too
Click to expand...
No, that’s what I’m objecting to. A tree has a purpose, a number does not. Numbers may be used by humans to achieve their (i.e. humans’) ends, but that doesn’t mean a number itself has an intrinsic purpose (teleios). I’m making a small big-deal out of this because I believe it really is an important distinction; without it we will walk (even deeper) into the trap that abstract thought (of which mathematics is the purest form) is harmless. Maybe you personally won’t; you sound like more of an intuitive guy. But plenty of hyperrationalists (such as I suspect the OP is) will.

EDIT: It also doesn’t hold for a tree that it is “in itself nothing”, while for a number indeed this does hold. A tree is a creature of God, a number isn’t a creature at all.
Lee1 said:
God is unknowable. What is there that could be said about His quality or quantity or state of perfection. Beats me.
Click to expand...
God is unknowable as He is in Himself. But He’s not unknowable as He reveals Himself to us, and in us. As for His state of Perfection, you’re right in saying we can’t elaborate on it. We can however intuit (and thus know) that it is so.
 
Last edited:
Good, I’m glad you agree.

When Stt first posted I guessed that he was going to say that since there are no bounds on numbers the. Perfection cannot exist and therefore God cannot be perfect. He replied oh, I hadn’t thought of that good point or words to that effect. So we can only guess where the thread would’ve gone if I hadn’t pointed that out to him.

As far as God is concerned, and I’m not using His name lightly I can assure you, He seems to fulfill His function as God perfectly, no disrespect intended, thats why we call Him God, that’s the end of the debate since we don’t know anything more about God other than what we are told in the scriptures and by the Catholic Church etc.

If you want to construct an argument about how we can’t compare seaweed to bandicoots then fine, I think it’s plainly obvious that actual numbers or more accurately perhaps quantifiable qualities cannot be compared to Spirit, that which is God. It’s elementary surely.

Shall we say that space is bigger than God? Or some other base quality is lacking in God? Nonsense no?
 
Last edited:
Well, Mr. Roguish, I’ve not exactly “stated that we must not love that which is pleasing or satisfying to us” - our vocation calls us to outgrow it, and to become “mature.”
 
I’d like to see evidence of it. Because I’ve noticed that you make an accusation without saying why. I also know that you seem to be a little familiar with the Bible, you’re absolutely right, Perfection is impossible. That is, without God it is. But all things are possible, with God.
 
Human reason isn’t complete nor perfect itself. An imperfect system, defined and constructed by those who are imperfect, also isn’t necessarily perfect. 100 years ago quantum mechanics would have been considered foolish and irrational… but, well, it works…
So guess I’m not following the assertion here…?
 
A thing is perfect in so far as it approaches more or less the perfection of its nature. For example, a drawn circle is more or less perfect in so far as it approaches the perfection of the nature of a circle. Now we can consider the nature of being as being which is simply being itself. All things either participate in being or is being itself. So, in regards to being or existence which is said to be the most perfect of all things for nothing can be unless it is or exists, that thing is more or less perfect which is more or less being or which approaches the perfection of the nature of being as being or being itself. That thing is most perfect which is Being or existence itself for it lacks nothing of being but possesses the plenitude and perfection of the nature of Being. Now being itself cannot be limited or bounded for if it was it would be bounded by nothing. But if being itself is bounded by nothing than being itself must be infinite and unlimited for nothing cannot be. Accordingly, God who is the first being and Being itself is infinitely perfect and possesses in himself the fullness of the nature and perfection/s of Being and of all created perfections.
Any proof for existence of God which uses the existence of absolute good as a premise is false.
Click to expand...
The absolute good is nothing other than the first good or goodness itself. Good is convertible with being for whatever is or exists is good in so far as it is. Now God is infinite or absolute Being itself. Consequently, it follows that God is infinite or absolute Goodness itself.
 
Last edited:
I would ask if you’re familiar with the concept of Plato’s theory of forms. Ancient Greek philosophy greatly influenced the early Church fathers (Plato being one of the foremost Greek philosophers). The theory holds that all things in the world are imperfect and that eternal, unchanging, perfect “Forms” are the things the world merely imitates. So that means the number two, cats, the concept of justice… all these things are merely imitations of the perfect Form of that thing, which is out there, somewhere. Would not God, then, be the very Form for “perfection” that all other things striving towards perfection are imitating?

Rolling your eyes at this astute question the OP posted (second post in response) about the possibility of God’s existence is disrespectful, as we are all searching and it’s so wonderful. The search itself is wonderful.

I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool atheist btw. Thought I should say that. But I think I merely misunderstood faith.

“1 + 1 = 2” is easy to believe. But faith means you believe “1 + 1 = 3.” Neither the Nicene Creed nor the Apostles’ Creed contain the word “know” in them. I do not proclaim that I “know” Christ rose from the dead. I proclaim I believe it! And I do.

All I will say is that it is not “unintelligent” to believe in the Trinity. It is not “stupid” to believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is not misguided or weak to surrender to a higher power and trust in God’s mercy.

In fact, there is great strength in it.

Faith begins where reason ends. Rationalism has its limits, while mysticism is unbounded (to use mathematical terminology). There are many highly intelligent people who are searching and who have an unshakable faith in Christ. Are they wrong? I believe they are not.
 
Last edited:
By perfection we mean, all powerful, all wise, etc. It is not about whether a thing is mixed with something else.
 
Beryllos said:
That is your erroneous assumption, that there are different degrees of perfection on some sort of quantitative scale. Do not be misled by the way people use language. Almost perfect makes about as much sense as almost unique or almost pregnant.
Click to expand...
Do goodness or power are different on some sort of quantitative scale? If yes, then there is no bound in goodness and power.Therefore you cannot define God as absolute power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top