If you were God...

[R_Daneel]

The Bolded section is blatantly wrong as can be easily demonstrated.

Suppose that the best chef in the world wants to cook a perfectly scruptuous gourmet meal. To do this he needs to do everything right (perfectly)
SO -
He goes to the best (perfect) market, choose the best(perfect) ingredients.
He comes home and get out my best (perfect) pans and utensils.
NOW - He begins to prepare the meal.
He processes each ingredient adding at the precisely perfect time.
He allows the ingredients to cook for precisely the right (perfect) time.
He doesn’t get in a hurry, but remains vigilent so that each stage of the process is perfectly executed.

The result is a perfect meal, perfectly prepared. By a perfect chef.

Perfection in Action.

As another example, in industries that mass produce items, processes are carefully designed and built for the purpose of creating a “Perfect” product. The process is then put in motion and “perfect”, salable products come out of the process. So long as the process performs within the parameters set and producing good product, it is said to be “running perfectly”. Note however, that the items in process are not “perfect” for they are not yet completed, yet they remain “perfect” for where tehy are in the process.

Again, Perfection in action.

Therefore, as can easily be shown, perfection and action are NOT exclusive.

Well, apart from the fact that there is no “perfect” meal and no “perfect” products on any production line, if there were, then they could not be improved upon. And action to improve perfection will lead to the destruction of the “perfection”.

 

[R_Daneel]

If that works for you, more power to you. It seems to me to leave a lot of questions unanswered. The most obvious is if the universe wasn’t created, how did it get here? The existance of the universe seems to me to be a pretty good sign that it likely came into being. Or else it wouldn’t be… Would it?

This does not really belong here, so only a short answer. If I asked you how did God get there, if God was not created, you would answer: “Well, God simply exists”, God needs no creator to exist. I say the same thing, while substituting the universe for God: “the Universe simply exists”. But this line does not belong to this discussion.

 

[JDaniel]

Well said! For a being, which is perfect, self-sufficient, who needs nothing, it would be completely illogical to do anything. After all, the road can only lead downhill from the top. Perfection can only be lessened by creating anything. (God+world < God)

RD:
Unless, you were like God and had infinite fecundity, along with all your other attributes.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

John:

I am with you. I would do nothing different. But, I’m not somebody afflicted - at least I hope and pray I’m not.

God bless,
jd

Oh, when I say “afflicted,” I mean with <> blindness. I think atheism is a sort of blindness, often coupled with an unwarranted arrogance. (I’m sorry )

God bless,
jd

 

[Pieman333272]

Hmmm, so God may be able to create “married bachelors”, and “squre circles”? I am simply presenting a simple argument here:

1. Perfection cannot be improved upon (pretty obvious).
2. Any action implies a change (a changeless action is an oxymoron).
3. Any change to perfection will destroy perfection.
4. Therefore any action on God’s part destroys God’s perfection, or, if it does not, then God was perfect to begin with.

I have a problem with this. Not “any action destroys his perfection” No, no no! It destroies our view of his perfection - he’s still perfect, but our finite minds, with free will and evil and “reasonable” doubt, he seems to have blundered. But its all part of his plan. Can it destroy his Creation’s perfection? Yes, but he never promised to make the Universe perfect, and probably didn’t want to. Can it destroy our ** belief** of his perfection? Of course, but that doesn’t make him imperfect. If anything it makes us even MORE imperfect.

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t necessarily see it this way. We can also acknowledge that the finite mind can’t possible comprehend the entirety that is God. As a result, if we were somehow given that awesome power, without a change in intellect and knowledge, we would almost certainly do things different. That doesn’t mean we think we can do it “better”, or that we want the power to challenge God, it just means that most of our minds lack the full understanding of God, nor the universal knowledge of both time and space.

I fully admit I don’t like the suffering that is often necessary to edify us. I also admit that I wish so many pleasurable things didn’t also have destructive qualities.

Ab:

God understands suffering. No one has ever suffered more than Christ. We are told to follow Him, suffering and all. This life is not the alpha & omega of our beings’ existence. Heaven is. We undergo mere moments of suffering for an Eternal happiness. We must not get wrapped around an axle about such things. I have suffered (not important how or what) but just know it has been intense.

There are proselytes that willing undergo pain and suffering. It’s their religious ferver. Yet, they do it gladly. And we moan. I am not downplaying the real pain of suffering, I know it can be enormous. But, it could always be worse. It could be unbearable. It could be unthinkable. Fortunately, were here for a limited time. You’ve got to make the most of it. But, that’s just my opinion.

God bless,
jd

 

[ab75]

Ab:

God understands suffering. No one has ever suffered more than Christ. We are told to follow Him, suffering and all. This life is not the alpha & omega of our beings’ existence. Heaven is. We undergo mere moments of suffering for an Eternal happiness. We must not get wrapped around an axle about such things. I have suffered (not important how or what) but just know it has been intense.

There are proselytes that willing undergo pain and suffering. It’s their religious ferver. Yet, they do it gladly. And we moan. I am not downplaying the real pain of suffering, I know it can be enormous. But, it could always be worse. It could be unbearable. It could be unthinkable. Fortunately, were here for a limited time. You’ve got to make the most of it. But, that’s just my opinion.

God bless,
jd

I don’t believe anything you say is contrary to what I said. Jesus himself asked the Father to take the cup of suffering if it be according with his will. I too have suffered to various degrees, some has made me stronger and wiser, some has allowed me to trust more, and some I don’t yet understand. That doesn’t mean I want to suffer.

I understand that in this world, when you continually are the best you can be and follow Christ, there will be persecution at times, and suffering at times. I also know there is a ton of pain in the world, Children are killed and abused by people, and by natural causes. I’m just acknowledging that I don’t always understand his ways. I don’t question his ways, I just know my finite mind and body would at times prefer for things to be easier.

To discuss the hypothetical, or acknowledge that we would at times act differently, due to OUR IGNORANCE, is not questioning God or his will. If we wouldn’t ever act differently with the power than he does, we would never act differently without it and there would never be non-deliberate venial sin.

 

[WHOWHIE]

Evidently you don’t see what I mean, as evident by your example below.

Equating this example to the original question though - I would not be “me” looking at My Boss’ and evaluating what he was doing. I would BE my boss, and in so being, I would not be ME.
As such, being that person and not who I am, I would think and act as that person.

Now, it appears that what you asked is not really what you wanted to ask. Rather, it appears you want us to “take over as God”, evaluate what He has doen and how he did it and make observation, recommendation, evaluation on what and how He did things so far. That is considerably different than what was asked.

Peace
James

Brilliant!!
As Smart would say : Good thinking 99

 

[JRKH]

Well, apart from the fact that there is no “perfect” meal and no “perfect” products on any production line, if there were, then they could not be improved upon. And action to improve perfection will lead to the destruction of the “perfection”.

The statement that I was responding to was NOT about Action taken to “improve perfection”. This is yet another change in the prarmeters of the question. My response was to this statement of yours.
*Originally Posted by R Daneel
Ok, let it be that way. Then your problem can be stated as: “why did God not create the final product right off the bat?”. And the other problem also persists: **“perfection and action are mutually exclusive”. ***
While I will grant that the food illustration is somewhat subjective, and based on the tastes of individuals, parts off of an assembly line are not.
I spent many years in industry. Nearly half of that time was spent in quality.
A process is set up to a given set of design parameters. If those parameters are met then the process is running (An action) perfectly. Parts produced by said process are “perfect” since they too match the design paramters set by the engineers.
Now granted there comes a point where a process cannot be improved upon any further and so has reached it’s highest “perfection”. But even then the process can continue in action and continue to be perfect.
Therefore your statement that “perfection and action are mutually exlusive”, is false.
There is no way around this.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Hmmm, so God may be able to create “married bachelors”, and “squre circles”? I am simply presenting a simple argument here:

1. Perfection cannot be improved upon (pretty obvious).
2. Any action implies a change (a changeless action is an oxymoron).
3. Any change to perfection will destroy perfection.
4. Therefore any action on God’s part destroys God’s perfection, or, if it does not, then God was perfect to begin with.

This is not “my” logic. Just like “married bachelors” are not possible due to “my” logic. God has no special logic.

Actually I believe God DOES have a special logic and it is highly counterintuitive to what the world thinks is logical.

Now as to your statements in points 1 thru 3 above, If an action is part and parcel to something then that thing’s perfection requires that action. Therefore Action and perfection are not mutually exclusive or oxymoronic.
In order for you to function “perfectly” as a human for any length of time over about 5 minutes, you must breathe. Breathing is an action that is part of the perfect functioning of your body.
So once again we see that Perfection and Action are not mutually exlusive, and in point of fact, action can sometimes be necessary to the perfection of something.

Actually Quantum Physics is all mathematics, predictions, experiments and verifications. There are many different “interpretations” of it, but those are not the relevant factors. We may try to visualize QP, but the existing concepts are simply not applicable. The micro world is qualitiatively different.

But you expect that God is NOT qualitatively different to what you are able to fathom here and today. You expect that anything related to God and His plan for the universe to be applicable.

Peace
James

 

[R_Daneel]

While I will grant that the food illustration is somewhat subjective, and based on the tastes of individuals, parts off of an assembly line are not.
I spent many years in industry. Nearly half of that time was spent in quality.
A process is set up to a given set of design parameters. If those parameters are met then the process is running (An action) perfectly. Parts produced by said process are “perfect” since they too match the design paramters set by the engineers. Now granted there comes a point where a process cannot be improved upon any further and so has reached it’s highest “perfection”. But even then the process can continue in action and continue to be perfect.

But, this is “relative” perfection, isn’t it? Relative to the design parameters. I am talking about the “absolute perfection” of God. Who is self-sufficient in every respect, who needs nothing outside himself. Who cannot be improved upon. There is a qualitiative difference between the two concepts.

Theoretically any action of God’s part can have 3 results:

1. improves God’s perfection,
2. maintains God’s perfection or
3. lessens God’s perfection.

Option #1 is clearly a contradiction. Perfection cannot be improved upon.
Option #2 leads to a logical contradiction, by making the concept of perfection undefined. It would imply that there is more than one perfection - while each variant is still “perfect”, which is an oxymoron. And besides, God is perfect in every respect.
Option #3 would make God less than perfect, and that is also logically contradictory. God’s perfection cannot be destroyed.

Therefore your statement that “perfection and action are mutually exlusive”, is false.
There is no way around this.

Not according to the analysis above. And there is no need for imperfect analogies here, we all know what we are talking about, the “absolute, unsurpassable perfection”, which is one, which cannot be improved or destroyed, which cannot have variations, since God’s perfection is perfect in every respect. This, combined with the concept that a “resultless action” is contradiction in terms proves that “absolute, all-inclusive perfection” cannot be reconciled with any action. Q.E.D.

 

[JRKH]

But, this is “relative” perfection, isn’t it? Relative to the design parameters. I am talking about the “absolute perfection” of God. Who is self-sufficient in every respect, who needs nothing outside himself. Who cannot be improved upon. There is a qualitiative difference between the two concepts.

Theoretically any action of God’s part can have 3 results:

1. improves God’s perfection,
2. maintains God’s perfection or
3. lessens God’s perfection.

Option #1 is clearly a contradiction. Perfection cannot be improved upon.
Option #2 leads to a logical contradiction, by making the concept of perfection undefined. It would imply that there is more than one perfection - while each variant is still “perfect”, which is an oxymoron. And besides, God is perfect in every respect.
Option #3 would make God less than perfect, and that is also logically contradictory. God’s perfection cannot be destroyed.

Now we begin to get to it. You refer to my examples as “relative perfection” because they are perfect to a set of “design parameters” and this is quite true.
Yet what have you done other than to create a set of design parameters by which God is to be judged?
In order for God to be judged perfect by your design parameters he must, not only have certain attributes (pre-existing, self sufficient, needing nothing) but He must also not violate any parameters you have set up for his actions.
The thing you overlook is that God, like the proceses in my analogies, may Act WITHIN his perfection and remain perfect.

Not according to the analysis above. And there is no need for imperfect analogies here, we all know what we are talking about, the “absolute, unsurpassable perfection”, which is one, which cannot be improved or destroyed, which cannot have variations, since God’s perfection is perfect in every respect. This, combined with the concept that a “resultless action” is contradiction in terms proves that “absolute, all-inclusive perfection” cannot be reconciled with any action. Q.E.D.

Again, these are the parameters that you have set, or some field of philosophy has set. And by setting said parameters, you have created a situation where either the perfection of God does not exist, or if this perfection does exist it is in a frozen God unable to act.
So - it is you who have painted yourself into a corner it seems by the “design parameters” you have selected.
We on the other hand, do not have this problem because we do not hold to this set of parameters. We accept that there are things we do not fully understand and are content with that. It does not lessen us, nor does it lessen God.

Peace
James

 

[guardian1]

if i were God, i would have done two things differently. first, i would have established a “free pizza and beer fridays” where i would miracle pizza and beer for everyone, kinda like He did with the manna and quail.
i would also make more butterflies, just because my wife loves them.

 

[guardian1]

i’d also bring down some fire and brimstone on anyone who even thought about hurting a kid. sorry, but no forgiveness for that one.

 

[Tamsulosin]

Jesus,by the mere fact that was living among us,he was in action.If you believe as a catholic that Jesus is part of the Trinity,so He is God and perfect,so action and perfection are possible.
Tam

 

[JDaniel]

Well said! For a being, which is perfect, self-sufficient, who needs nothing, it would be completely illogical to do anything. After all, the road can only lead downhill from the top. Perfection can only be lessened by creating anything. (God+world < God)

The only problem you might be having with this is that Creation is God’s creative activity which “has neither beginning nor end, and involves no change.” - The Teachings of the Catholic Church, Vol I, Ch 3, pg. 94, The Macmillan Company, 1962. Aquinas concurs.

Thus, Creation is to be understood as a continual outpouring of existence. Change will occur on the creatural level, but, not on the level of God. Think about the relation between an infinite Creator and a finite creation. It surely cannot be defined as we think!.

God bless,
jd

 

[R_Daneel]

Now we begin to get to it. You refer to my examples as “relative perfection” because they are perfect to a set of “design parameters” and this is quite true.
Yet what have you done other than to create a set of design parameters by which God is to be judged?
In order for God to be judged perfect by your design parameters he must, not only have certain attributes (pre-existing, self sufficient, needing nothing) but He must also not violate any parameters you have set up for his actions.
The thing you overlook is that God, like the proceses in my analogies, may Act WITHIN his perfection and remain perfect.

Well, these parameters (and they are not “design” parameters) are not set up by me. They are declared by the Catholic Church to be the parameters of God. If you say that the 3 theoretical possibilites are incorrect then tell me where the error might be.

Again, these are the parameters that you have set, or some field of philosophy has set. And by setting said parameters, you have created a situation where either the perfection of God does not exist, or if this perfection does exist it is in a frozen God unable to act.
So - it is you who have painted yourself into a corner it seems by the “design parameters” you have selected.

Logic did that, not “I”. I merely apply logic to the question. Not even Catholics deny that God is unable to create married bachelors, since logical impossibilities are impossible. I merely presented a scenario, where all the possible outcomes lead to a logical contradiction.

We on the other hand, do not have this problem because we do not hold to this set of parameters. We accept that there are things we do not fully understand and are content with that.

Which parameters do you deny as valid? Is this yet another example of being presented by an analysis which points out the self-contradictory nature of the belief system, and instead of realizing it, you just declare: “whoops, this is a mystery”, and ignore the contradiction?

It does not lessen us, nor does it lessen God.

Yes, it does lessen you (not personally) in my eyes. The reluctance of facing a contradiction and even attempting to deny its existence is a very serious “fault” of the religious people. The “this just another mystery” type of “defense” is wearing very thin by now.

 

[R_Daneel]

The only problem you might be having with this is that Creation is God’s creative activity which “has neither beginning nor end, and involves no change.” - The Teachings of the Catholic Church, Vol I, Ch 3, pg. 94, The Macmillan Company, 1962. Aquinas concurs.

Thus, Creation is to be understood as a continual outpouring of existence. Change will occur on the creatural level, but, not on the level of God. Think about the relation between an infinite Creator and a finite creation. It surely cannot be defined as we think!.

The nature of the activity does not matter. There are two possible “pictures” here:

1. God alone = ultimate perfection.
2. God + world = imperfection - since only God could be perfect.

Therefore the act of creation destroys the perfection which is represented by God - and by God only.

Of course the proposition of “God’s creative activity which has neither beginning nor end, and involves no change” is a sheer oxymoron. A “changeless” action cannot be called an “action”. It is just like a “stationary wind, which does not blow”.

 

[JDaniel]

The nature of the activity does not matter. There are two possible “pictures” here:

1. God alone = ultimate perfection.
2. God + world = imperfection - since only God could be perfect.

Not so, RD. You must qualify your #1 with, “a fecund God = ultimate perfection.” It is your notion that “perfection” must not include fecundity, not our notion. Indeed.

Therefore the act of creation destroys the perfection which is represented by God - and by God only.

No. Part of God’s perfection is His Unlimited Fecundity.

Of course the proposition of “God’s creative activity which has neither beginning nor end, and involves no change” is a sheer oxymoron. A “changeless” action cannot be called an “action”. It is just like a “stationary wind, which does not blow”.

Nice try, my friend! Then you define Creation. (And, it is not causal.)

God bless,
jd

 

[JRKH]

Well, these parameters (and they are not “design” parameters) are not set up by me. They are declared by the Catholic Church to be the parameters of God. If you say that the 3 theoretical possibilites are incorrect then tell me where the error might be.
Logic did that, not “I”. I merely apply logic to the question. Not even Catholics deny that God is unable to create married bachelors, since logical impossibilities are impossible. I merely presented a scenario, where all the possible outcomes lead to a logical contradiction.

Yet the fact that certain “logical impossiblities” exist does not lead me to the same conclusion that it has led you. I do not equate them to the blanket statement that action and perfection are mutually exclusive.

Which parameters do you deny as valid? Is this yet another example of being presented by an analysis which points out the self-contradictory nature of the belief system, and instead of realizing it, you just declare: “whoops, this is a mystery”, and ignore the contradiction?

The parameter that I deny is your assertion that action and perfection are mutually exclusive. I have demonstrated systems wherein “action”, is not only not contrary to perfection but a part of it. you gave three possible outcomes for an action by God as follows:
Theoretically any action of God’s part can have 3 results:

1. improves God’s perfection,
2. maintains God’s perfection or
3. lessens God’s perfection.
   Yet i have demonstrate that an action can be an ntegral part of something that is perfect and therefore the premise is false.

Yes, it does lessen you (not personally) in my eyes. The reluctance of facing a contradiction and even attempting to deny its existence is a very serious “fault” of the religious people. The “this just another mystery” type of “defense” is wearing very thin by now.

But you see I have not failed to face a contradiction. I simply do not agree with your premise and your conclusions. So the “contradition” is between you and I and our outlooks and conclusions. This I happily have faced and given you the best answers I can given my limited knowledge.

For now, I think that J Daniel is doing a better job of saying what I would like to say, so I am going to bow out and let you and he continue.

Peace
James