Unfortunately circumstances require that I keep my excursions on the train of thought woefully brief, perhaps the future will allow for more extended trips. But for now I must confine myself simply to lurking trackside, with an occasional wave to the passing trains now and again.lelinator:
Indeed, I must agree
Perfection is another undefined “feature”.
We can say perfection is pure actuality, no potentiality is contained within. Things we observe in the world have the ability to change, or go from potentially existing to actually existing.quaestio45:
Perfection is another undefined “feature”.
So you’ve arbitrarily decided to define perfection as being pure actuality. Some might consider such immutability to be an imperfection. Why should we accept that your definition is the correct one?
On one hand, we might say that ‘potentiality’ implies a movement either from a less perfect state to a more perfect one, or vice versa. In other words, it means that the actor is (at some point) “less perfect.” We wouldn’t make that claim about God.
The alleged “prince of the lies” is also “pure evil” without a possibility to change. So is the “devil” perfect? Of course I am asking your opponents.
Why is one state considered to be more perfect than another state?
Simple math? Taking two values, you have either
)But this still doesn’t explain how you categorize one state as being more perfect than another state. What’s the criteria by which you’re assigning perfection?Simple math? Taking two values, you have either
If the third – equal “perfection” – we can still posit that there exists state c such that c > a. That is, since a and b aren’t “maximally perfect”, there must be another state that exceeds them qualitatively. Another way of thinking about it is that if a and b have potential, there must be a state which could be described as having actualized (some of) that potential.
- a < b
- a > b
- a = b
(Alternatively, it seems to my intuition that, if we wanted to claim that there exists a ‘perfect state’, there can be only one that holds that designation. Getting a little late in the evening for me to work that thought out right now, though…
I’m not discussing a particular ranking strategy, just abstracting out in order to answer your abstract question.
Of course you are. Here’s the answer: evil is a privation, not an essence unto itself. Therefore, on a number line, he wouldn’t sit at “infinity” (or even “negative infinity”), but rather, at zero. So… not perfect; just zero.
Why not? You clearly seem to have one, I’m just wondering why that system represents the definitive standard for ranking perfection.
Because that’s not the question you asked or the answer to that question.
I would hold that “ranking” is immaterial in this context, since God is the only example of “pure actuality” that exists. The only “ranking schema” would be one that has two points: “God”, and “not God”.
But why do you consider something’s level of actuality to be the presumptive measure of its perfection. I would think that perfection is highly dependent upon context. What constitutes perfection for one thing, may not constitute perfection for something else. So why should we accept “pure actuality” as the universal measure of perfection?
Again: if there’s potentiality, then a thing can become more perfect, regardless how we “rank” the notion of ‘perfection’, right?
I suspect you’re thinking about various created beings, here. Sure – it would be more perfect for a bird to have strong wings than a fish to have them. However, you’re making an argument about an entity’s nature, aren’t you? More to the point, it’s an argument about how well an entity meets its particular nature, no?
What if you are an atheist and say that there was no creation, but everything just exists and was always there. What is time anyway? Is it a property of matter by way of the 2nd law or is it a property of space by way of GR ?
How do you know that there was a beginning of time?
Does time exist at all? Matter exists and I can get my hands on it. But I can’t get my hands on time. Perhaps time does not exist but it is matter which exists and has certain properties, such as obeying the 2nd law. Obeying the 2nd law gives the illusion that something like time exists, but I don’t see how to put time under the microscope.
If the universe is finite, it would be bounded. Where is the regress?
The surface of the unit sphere is bounded by itself. It doesn’t need anything else to bound it. rho = 1 is the equation.
So Harris thinks he is a biochemical puppet? I suppose it is possible that he is a puppet.
Did she survive? I hope she is OK. How serious was the bite?
Does a necessary being depend on logic? If everything were illogical and chaotic, how could it make sense to have something that was necessary?
Is it impossible for God to tell STT what STT would do in the future? Wouldn’t the fact that STT has the good intention of proving the existence of free will - be a sufficient reason for God to answer his request?
Ah, pardon me. I always forget the defining of terms
. When I say somethinh is more or less perfect, I mean to say something along the lines of “it is more or less close to absolute completion of being”.Well he’s not really attempting to equivocate on the term, so I don’t understand why there would be a problem with having the term ‘perfection’ defined in this way. Furthermore, you don’t have to associate the term with the definition we’re using; instead I would ask that you understand what we’re saying rather than make a fuss over vocabulary unless it is a serious area of contention and/or confusion (or if there is equivocation being done there as well).
Is this the question of “is time a real entity or an illusion”? Because if it were, I must admit, I don’t have much of an argument against the idea of it being merely an illusion other than the fact that there is undoubtedly space by which the objects reign so surely a dimension dedicated to change must also exist; and once you posit both of these things existence, you can also see that there can be both no time and no space where all is immaterial and eternal. Further, having no motion but objects seems closer to this realm then motion and objects; could we, as a result, ask why that be the case? Could it be because of a dimesion of time put in place which allows for such? I sincerely haven’t a great idea, but I might say yes to this. For it could be the case that one need not such dimension because change is inherent to objects… but, again, I’m uncertain.
No realli! She was Karving her initials on the moose with the sharpened end of an interspace toothbrush given her by Svenge—her brother-in-law— an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian movies… Mynd you, moose bites Kan be pretti nasti…Gorgias:
Did she survive? I hope she is OK. How serious was the bite?
