Perfect being cannot create anything

[Bahman]

1. Perfect being by definition is a being without defect
2. Creation of a being with defect is against perfection even if the end result is perfection (the problem of purpose)
3. From (2) we can deduce that a perfect being can only create a perfect being
4. There can be no purpose in creating a new thing which is perfect
5. From (2) and (4) we can deduce that a perfect being cannot create anything

 

[Della]

Cannot is a strong word. If the perfect being is also omnipotent, he can darned well do whatever he pleases.

Besides, if you are trying to dismiss Christian believes about God, you are starting out with a bad premise. God did not create imperfect beings. All that God created was good. Out of love he gave his sentient created beings free will because no one can be forced to love. Some of those sentient beings decided against love including some of the angels and humanity.

The onus falls on us, not on God, who was impelled by his own nature–that of love–to take the chance that we humans would reject his love. The story goes on from there ending in the sacrifice of Christ to return us to the divine love of God.

 

[polytropos]

1. Creation of a being with defect is against perfection even if the end result is perfection (the problem of purpose)

I don’t think this is true. Creation of a contingent good is a manifestation of divine goodness. On the privation view of evil, it is not the creation of a defect (or of a defective being). It is the creation of a good being, albeit not an absolutely good being. Showing that this is against perfection in the sense of a contradiction is a tall order.

 

[Bahman]

I don’t think this is true. Creation of a contingent good is a manifestation of divine goodness. On the privation view of evil, it is not the creation of a defect (or of a defective being). It is the creation of a good being, albeit not an absolutely good being. Showing that this is against perfection in the sense of a contradiction is a tall order.

Creation of a perfect beings is purposeless hence creation of an imperfect being even with the goal that beings become perfect at the end is malevolent since the perfection can only be gained through suffering.

 

[prometheus1]

I had to reply to this…as it confused me:

1. Perfect being by definition is a being without defect
   Yup, that sorta sums it up
2. Creation of a being with defect is against perfection even if the end result is perfection (the problem of purpose)
   I’m lost…what? what if the perfect being (let’s call him…I dunno…GOD?)
   wants an imperfect creation…His Kingdom would surely be perfect, but
   His creation? Maybe not.
3. From (2) we can deduce that a perfect being can only create a perfect being
   No, we really can’t.
4. There can be no purpose in creating a new thing which is perfect
   I must be missing a point…why?
5. From (2) and (4) we can deduce that a perfect being cannot create anything
   No, we really can’t.

I may be reading this wrong, but you seem to be using a very flawed logic (and even more flawed when you think that you are trying to read the mind of God).

we may as well say

1. I have an animal that barks, it is a dog
   2)I have two dogs
   3)My two dogs have eight legs between them
   4)My two dogs is an octopus.

Apologies if I am reading your post wrong…but I think your logic needs a little more explanation.

 

[Bahman]

I had to reply to this…as it confused me:

1. Perfect being by definition is a being without defect
   Yup, that sorta sums it up

Good.

1. Creation of a being with defect is against perfection even if the end result is perfection (the problem of purpose)
   I’m lost…what? what if the perfect being (let’s call him…I dunno…GOD?)
   wants an imperfect creation…His Kingdom would surely be perfect, but
   His creation? Maybe not.

This is definition of malevolence God which worst case scenario since even a God who allows perfection within creation is malevolence since he could create a perfect creation and he did not hence creation has to become perfect by itself through the process of suffering.

1. From (2) we can deduce that a perfect being can only create a perfect being
   No, we really can’t.

Lets see if we could agree on (4).

1. There can be no purpose in creating a new thing which is perfect
   I must be missing a point…why?

I can argue this:

The state of perfection is state of neutral since perfection itself is subject of purpose once it is achieved, the purpose is fulfilled hence there is no need for any further change.

1. From (2) and (4) we can deduce that a perfect being cannot create anything
   No, we really can’t.

I may be reading this wrong, but you seem to be using a very flawed logic (and even more flawed when you think that you are trying to read the mind of God).

We can agree that (4) is correct as it was explained by now. (2) is worst than (4) since a perfect being cannot create an imperfect being unless the state of perfection is malevolent.

Apologies if I am reading your post wrong…but I think your logic needs a little more explanation.

I hope things are clear by now.

 

[TheSurvivor]

God loved us into being, in a way. God desires us to return His love. In order that we have the ability to love God gave us free will. Free will is prerequisite of love. These arguments basically boil down to the problem of evil, our free will, and love.

May God Bless you and Lead you to Truth

 

[808Catholic]

1. Perfect being by definition is a being without defect
2. Creation of a being with defect is against perfection even if the end result is perfection (the problem of purpose)
3. From (2) we can deduce that a perfect being can only create a perfect being
4. There can be no purpose in creating a new thing which is perfect
5. From (2) and (4) we can deduce that a perfect being cannot create anything

You presume to be able to define a perfect being and equate your definition to God. God cannot be explained in our imperfect language or even by our limited thinking. So let me ask this: can an imperfect being (humans) define a perfect being (God)? God Bless you.

 

[Amandil]

The argument is purely an appeal to pragmatic theory of truth(which is self-contradictory) and is basically his own form of subjectivism and relativism.

To restate his idea: “To me a it cannot be true that a ‘Perfect’ being would create anything because it’s not practical.”

Obviously Truth cannot mean merely “what works” or “what is practical” or in his terms “a set of statements that come from axioms/premises” because what works in a syllogistic format (i.e. a valid syllogism) is not always true, and what is true (death) is not always practical.

Chesterton once said, “Man’s most pragmatic need is to be something more than a pragmatist.” For without an end, no one will work for any practical means. “Means” means “means-to-an-end”. Without a more-than-pragmatic end, no one can be pragmatic.

Pragmatism then doesn’t work, it’s not practical.

The truth is that we “imperfect” beings exist. Therefore (Thank God) God is something more than merely a “pragmatist”, but a loving Father.

 

[tonyrey]

You presume to be able to define a perfect being and equate your definition to God. God cannot be explained in our imperfect language or even by our limited thinking. So let me ask this: can an imperfect being (humans) define a perfect being (God)? God Bless you.

It is highly presumptuous for a being with limited knowledge and intelligence to impose limits on the power of the Supreme Being.

 

[captainrick]

This might make the basis for a fair freshman paper, but too many flawed presumptions to be a real working theory.

 

[Richca]

1. Perfect being by definition is a being without defect
2. Creation of a being with defect is against perfection even if the end result is perfection (the problem of purpose)
3. From (2) we can deduce that a perfect being can only create a perfect being
4. There can be no purpose in creating a new thing which is perfect
5. From (2) and (4) we can deduce that a perfect being cannot create anything

It is undeniable that the world exists and that there are many imperfect beings in it. The imperfect implies that there is something perfect. The world also needs a first cause and a first being who is the cause of the being and beings of the universe. This First Cause and First Being we call God and that by which He caused the universe of creatures we call creation.

 

[lakotak]

Just a question.

In order to know that something is imperfect, wouldn’t we have to know what the perfection of that something is in order to compare it to? How do we know that we are imperfect unless we have a being (God) that is perfect in the area of our imperfections in order for us to know the ways that we are imperfect? I don’t know how we could comprehend imperfection without awareness of perfection.

It was perfection that created us, but it is free will that has made us imperfect. We chose not to be perfect before perfection itself. Perfection could not create imperfection, but perfection allowed us to choose, through free will, to remain in that state or to become less. Adam and Eve chose to become less.

 

[polytropos]

Creation of a perfect beings is purposeless hence creation of an imperfect being even with the goal that beings become perfect at the end is malevolent since the perfection can only be gained through suffering.

A perfect being does not create in order to improve itself, but its creation is not therefore purposeless.

Nor do I see any reason to suppose that imperfect beings should be created in order to become perfect. (They shouldn’t be able to attain to absolute perfection of God, but as long as they exist they will eo ipso be perfect to some degree, flawed in others.)

 

[Neildown]

1. Perfect being by definition is a being without defect
2. Creation of a being with defect is against perfection even if the end result is perfection (the problem of purpose)
3. From (2) we can deduce that a perfect being can only create a perfect being
4. There can be no purpose in creating a new thing which is perfect
5. From (2) and (4) we can deduce that a perfect being cannot create anything

This is all entirely dependent upon what you consider perfect or imperfect and in what context. Your assertion is entirely dependent upon the perception of perfection and imperfection outside of God’s own intentions and abilities, and fails to take God’s own intentions and abilities into account. We are not necessarily perfect in the context we wish to acknowledge, however we must be perfect in God’s eyes if He created us. God does not create things with flaws per se, but obviously He does create things with vulnerabilities - which are not necessarily of themselves flaws, but openings to the possibility of flaw. These vulnerabilities, whilst presenting us with weaknesses, offer us individuality and uniqueness from each other and from God Himself, which is essentially the only way God could make human beings that are separate from Himself whilst still capable of sharing in His beneficence as individuals. It would be impossible to make ordinary human beings inherently perfect without simultaneously making them an embodiment of God Himself, as to do so would require complete and inherent subservience of the human will to God’s. With the capacity for deviation however, the act of accepting or rejecting God’s offer gains a significance that is separate and individual from God’s.

Case in point, perfection is both an objective and a subjective word. There is no reason an objectively perfect being cannot have subjective work or goals, especially considering God’s perfection is within the context of goodness. Evil is an outside force that is only indirectly manageable to God in that He may exploit it, where it shows itself, towards greater good; not to mention the fact that goodness, as a positive concept, is constructive and self-sufficient. Evil is simply a negative force that makes itself apparent to us through the negation of good. That said, God may be perfect but that does not mean there is nothing for Him to occupy Himself with.

 

[sousley]

1. Perfect being by definition is a being without defect

No. Perfect by definition means complete (in English); from the Latin: per meaning ‘through, or complete’ and facere meaning ‘to do’. If something is without defect, it is Immaculate.

A man can be a perfect gentleman, or a perfect jerk.

 

[polytropos]

A man can be a perfect gentleman, or a perfect jerk.

I find the definition of “perfect” as “without defect” unobjectionable. I think it is consistent with your examples, as well. You use “perfect” attributively, which is to say not as a predicate in itself (as in “x is perfect”) but as a modifier of another predicate (“x is a perfect P”). If a man is a perfect gentleman, then he lacks nothing that a gentleman ought to have; he is without defect with respect to being a gentleman. If a man is a perfect jerk, then he lacks nothing that a jerk “ought” to have; he is “without defect” with respect to being a jerk. The latter usage is more attenuated, but that is because when we say that someone is a “perfect jerk” we are being ironic. Being a jerk itself is regarded as a defect, so it’s odd that we suggest that someone is a “perfect” jerk; he does everything he needs to be a jerk (but that end is undesirable in itself).

What about when we say unqualifiedly that a man is perfect? Well, the issue would be clearer if we give the man a name: Tom. So here to say “Tom is perfect” is to attribute “perfect” to Tom under a sortal: “Tom is a perfect man.” (The sortal, “man” in this case, will be the concept under which Tom chiefly falls, unless something else is specified by context. So if the preceding discussion had to do with who would be a good doctor to perform a surgery, then it would be reasonable to read “Tom is perfect” as “Tom is a pefect doctor”–he doesn’t lack any of the qualities which you’d want your doctor to have, though he may lack some of the qualities a man in general ought to have.)

This is why perfection is one of the transcendentals. It is an analogous predicate that depends on the form of what it is predicated of. God does not have a form in the sense that created things do (or rather, God does not have an essence given by form distinct from existence), so to say “God is perfect” is to say that God unqualifiedly is without defect. (A man is perfect if he does not lack anything that a man is supposed to lack. But his essence, specifying his potentialities qua man, still limits the exercise of his activities, so he is not absolutely perfect as God is.)

 

[sousley]

I find the definition of “perfect” as “without defect” unobjectionable.

So you don’t agree?

My concern is with defining one term as being ‘not’ the opposite term. It’s like saying “round is defined as not lacking roundness.” If you happen to be unfamiliar with the shape, the definition fails to describe it by merely claiming that it is not its opposite.

The next statement seems contrary to me. Creation of a being with defect is against perfection. If a being is complete, then it lacks no faculties; it contains all faculties to both create perfect and imperfect creations. If it lacked faculties to create defect, it would not be perfect.

 

[polytropos]

So you don’t agree?

Right.

My concern is with defining one term as being ‘not’ the opposite term. It’s like saying “round is defined as not lacking roundness.” If you happen to be unfamiliar with the shape, the definition fails to describe it by merely claiming that it is not its opposite.

I agree that this is a concern, but this sort of circularity would only threaten if defects had to be specified in terms of lacking perfection, which is not the case.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

1. Perfect being by definition is a being without defect
2. Creation of a being with defect is against perfection even if the end result is perfection (the problem of purpose)
3. From (2) we can deduce that a perfect being can only create a perfect being
4. There can be no purpose in creating a new thing which is perfect
5. From (2) and (4) we can deduce that a perfect being cannot create anything

With respect to (1) a perfect being by definition is a being that is the creator of all other beings.

With respect to (2) creation of a being with defect is not against perfection. Rather, anything created by a perfect being is necessarily by definition imperfect.

With respect to (3) a perfect being can only create imperfect beings.

With respect to (4) there is not only no purpose, but also no possibility of creating a new thing which is perfect because its plenitude of being perfect would have been conferred on it by a more perfect being, which means it is imperfect…

With respect to (5) we can deduce that a perfect being can only create imperfect beings since nothing is as perfect as the creator of everything else.

Ergo: demonstratum est!