This is not the correct thread about the “first cause” argument. In a nutshell, the word “perfection” without a specific referent is nonsense. You can speak of a “perfect bullet”, which can penetrate any shield, or about a “perfect shield”, which can withstand any bullet, but there is no “generic perfection”. You cannot even describe a “perfect dinner”.
The referent in this case, when we use the term perfection is Being.
Nothing like a bullet, or a shield or a dinner or an island can be considered to possess perfection of Being - which is completeness or fullness of existence. All of the qualities of existence in their fullest dimension would be perfection, That is, Being without flaw or defect.
There cannot be a perfect bullet because bullets have a finite existence, finite power, finite purpose. To say “this is the perfect bullet” would mean that there could not be one greater. But there can be an infinite number greater because the qualities used to describe the perfections are limited and can be transcended. To say “this is the perfect bullet for penetrating that shield” is putting an arbitrary limit or purpose on the thing. The bullet can penetrate that shield but it will disintegrate after and go out of existence. Another bullet can penetrate that shield and another. But a more perfect bullet can exist. But this is an infinite regress of finite things - an impossibility and nothing explains the origin or existence of these infinite number of bullets.
The term perfection references an ultimate being. That’s how we know what the word means. If we see a flaw, a limit, a dependency, a composition, a finiteness … it is easy to see a lack of perfection. A being where there is no flaw or limit or composition is what we point to at the ultimate end of the measurement scale - whenever we judge the value of anything.
The phrase “greatest good” is just a meaningless mumbo-jumbo. There are zillions of good actions.
You judge an action good based on its purpose, intention, effect, outcome and other factors. If you are not able to determine the difference in quality between one good and another, then you wouldn’t know the difference in value between an heroic act of a person, sacrificing himself to save hundreds of lives, and the act of eating a sandwich. Both are good acts. But you can’t tell the difference in the quality of goodness of them?
As you look at good acts in that light, you can recognize a greater good from a lesser good. The act of saving many lives is a greater good. If to save a life is good – how would we rate the act of giving or creating life?
It’s only a small step further to rate the act of creating and giving all life.
