Perfect being cannot create anything

[Bahman]

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.

I am using logic which is a system of reasoning based on a set of prepositions which we human are cognitively open to it. Let assume that there exist another higher system which we are not cognitively open to it, lets call it logic’ which is complete. Logic however either is sub-class of logic’ or it is not. In first case, what is correct in logic is correct in logic’ too. In second case logic is not sub-class of anything hence it is complete by itself so what is correct in logic must be true by itself.

 

[Bahman]

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 me practicality is one of the main element of truth since it directly deals with purpose. The question of “What is God purpose?” is one of the very basic questions.

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

On top of this I can also argue that perfection is the state of neutral and peace hence nothing can come out of it since it is complete.

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.

Truth does essentially depend on practicality.

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.

Not when there is a beginning at each end hence pragmatism does work.

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

By using merely, you are accepting the fact that pragmatism is important. Now assume that there is no practical use for creation yet loving God would love to create. Do the picture that we have in our hand represents a malevolence God?

 

[Bahman]

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.

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. So the whole including God is either perfect or it is not. In first case we can have no movement or change toward perfection and in second case we can have hence the state of the whole is not perfect. You can argue that God is perfect and creation is not. I can argue that the state of perfection is neutral hence if there was a state that only God did exist then this state is complete and does not need creation. This means that accepting the concepts of God and creation knowing the fact that changes do exist, implement that the whole is not perfect.

 

[Bahman]

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.

You don’t need a concept like God to realize imperfection. Your daily life experience can tell you that you are more perfect than the day before.

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.

The state of perfection is state of static/neutral since it is complete. Hence it cannot cause anything, otherwise what is caused is perfect, without error, but this state cannot lead to anything new since it is against perfection which take us to the place we were, namely perfection cannot cause anything.

 

[Hail_Linus]

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

#1 I can agree with. However, #2-5 are all Non sequitur statements. #2 is simply an opinion. #3 fails because it depends on the fallacious #2 statement. #4 is also just an opinion. #5 is a false deduction because it is base on the fallacious #2-4.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To me practicality is one of the main element of truth since it directly deals with purpose. The question of “What is God purpose?” is one of the very basic questions.

God has no purpose. To have a purpose is to be directed toward an end. Nothing can direct God toward an end. God **is **the end. God is also the beginning. God is the Alpha and the Omega. God is.

 

[Amandil]

To me practicality is one of the main element of truth since it directly deals with purpose. The question of “What is God purpose?” is one of the very basic questions.

Not all things which are true have a purpose.

Bahman:

On top of this I can also argue that perfection is the state of neutral and peace hence nothing can come out of it since it is complete.

Surely you can argue it, but you’d be arguing in a circle. Assuming your own conclusion in your premise.

Bahman:

Truth does essentially depend on practicality.

Again, see above.

Bahman:

Not when there is a beginning at each end hence pragmatism does work.

Again, see above.

Bahman:

By using merely, you are accepting the fact that pragmatism is important. Now assume that there is no practical use for creation yet loving God would love to create.

You can’t assume "that there is no “practical use for creation” without proving it.

Bahman:

Do the picture that we have in our hand represents a malevolence God?

I’m sure you’ll contrive some convoluted logic to say so.

The whole problem with your premise is that you are trying to derive something more (truth, creation) from something less (pragmatism).

Not only can it not be done, its impractical to even suggest it. It doesn’t work.

 

[Bahman]

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

I can argue that nothing comes out of perfection as well considering the fact the perfection is the end result hence it is the purpose: Consider the state of P which is perfect. Suppose P causes C. C is either perfect and new or it is imperfect. The former case is impossible since P is complete. The latter case is also impossible since the end result P+C is imperfect which is contrary to the basic axiom that perfection is the end result hence it is the purpose. In simple word, perfection is the end result and it is static if exist or achievable.

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.)

Please read previous comment. Also what is God purpose? To leave creatures in state of misery!

 

[Della]

Please read previous comment. Also what is God purpose? To leave creatures in state of misery!

Ah, here it is. Your real issue with God. All the rest is mere sophistry. So why not simply ask: “Why does God allow human beings to suffer for eternity in hell?”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Also what is God purpose? To leave creatures in state of misery!

Or to leave them in a state of blissful eternity?

According as they desire and deserve.

 

[Bahman]

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.

God cannot have any intention since he is perfect since intention by definition is a plan to reach an end. State of perfection is the end by definition so nothing can come out of it.

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.

So God, assuming that he could create something considering that he is perfect (please read previous comment), creates some imperfect creatures knowing the fact that they could not reach perfection/infinity leaving them in state of misery forever.

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.

Could you please elaborate the bold part?

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.

This is response to bold part. The state of perfection is when objective reality is a perfect reflection of subjective reality hence it can only reproduce itself and nothing else.

 

[Bahman]

#1 I can agree with.

Good.

#2 is simply an opinion.

It is not for two reasons: 1) What would be the purpose of all knowing to create something imperfect that eventually reach the same state of perfection if possible, otherwise a state of misery? 2) State of perfection is the end result and it can not lead to state of imperfection hence God cannot create something imperfect.

#3 fails because it depends on the fallacious #2 statement.

(2) holds hence we can deduce (3).

#4 is also just an opinion.

It is not for two strong reasons: 1) The state of perfection is complete hence it cannot lead to anything else, 2) What would be the end result of creation of another being which is perfect? Same God. Two Gods either are closed to each other or they are open to each other. In former case we have two problems, a) How God could create another God who is closed to him, b) Two closed God equivalent to one God since what comes out of one can comes out of another one. In later case two God are open to each other meaning that they are one.

#5 is a false deduction because it is base on the fallacious #2-4.

Hence (5) holds.

 

[Bahman]

**God has no purpose. To have a purpose is to be directed toward an end. Nothing can direct God toward an end. God **is ****the end. God is also the beginning. God is the Alpha and the Omega. God is.

Great. The bold part is what I wanted to hear. How God can then create something when he has no purpose?

 

[davidv]

Great. The bold part is what I wanted to hear. How God can then create something when he has no purpose?

Because He is Love.

And before you ask. No one knows “how” He creates anything. This information is not available to anyone, yet.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Great. The bold part is what I wanted to hear. How God can then create something when he has no purpose?

He has no purpose for his Being. He has a purpose for our being.

Our purpose flows from His love.

 

[Hail_Linus]

It is not for two reasons: 1) What would be the purpose of all knowing to create something imperfect that eventually reach the same state of perfection if possible, otherwise a state of misery? 2) State of perfection is the end result and it can not lead to state of imperfection hence God cannot create something imperfect.

You are under the assumption that all imperfection is bad. Well this simply is not true. Take music for example. If music is played perfectly by a computer is horrible. It must be played imperfectly to a certain extent to be beautiful. Take guitarists Jimmy Page and Andres Segovia for example. Their imperfection made their playing beautiful/more human. So there is one purpose God created imperfect beings, he wants musicians people to play beautiful music.

There is also the problem that we are not God and therefore cannot understand why he creates imperfect things. We simply do not have sufficient data to understand why God would create imperfect things or creatures. So I still hold that your second statement is an opinion.

 

[jochoa]

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

Interesting analysis, however, I perceive the following:
1a) If a “perfect” being does not share the means to be perfect with other beings, the “perfect” being is defective, specifically limited due to selfishness.
2) From (1&1a) we can deduce that a perfect being makes others, even those imperfect, perfect.
3) From (2) we can deduce that the perfect Creator of everything creates others to share the means to be perfect.

 

[Bahman]

Not all things which are true have a purpose.

Everything, true or false has a meaning which can be used for a purpose.

Surely you can argue it, but you’d be arguing in a circle. Assuming your own conclusion in your premise.

My argument is not circular. It is in fact one step argument: State of perfection->State of static.

Again, see above.

Could you please make an argument? Again, truth does essentially depend on practicality.

You can’t assume "that there is no “practical use for creation” without proving it.

What would be the practical use of creation except perfection? Perfection is already in the place thought.

I’m sure you’ll contrive some convoluted logic to say so.

It is in fact very simple. It is multi-edges sword so it cuts differently

A) First edge:

1. State of perfection is the state without defect and it is complete
2. Change is the result of tendency to an end
3. State of perfection is the end
4. No changes is possible in state of perfection

B) Second edge:

1. State of perfection is the state without defect and it is complete (Assume that any change is possible in state of perfection, ignore A)
2. God caused creation and God is perfect
3. Creation is not perfect
4. Any change in creation is toward an end
5. Creation can either become perfect (a) or not (b)
   6a) Creation can reach to state of perfection with the price of suffering
   7a) God created something that at the end becomes perfect
   8a) This is circular hence purposeless
   9a) God is malevolence
   6b) Creation stays in state of misery forever
   7b) God is malevolence

C) Third edge:

1. Change is the result of tendency toward an end
2. State of perfection is the end so it could only reproduce itself hence there is no change
3. From (A) we can deduce that existence does not have any creator
4. Existence is primary hence eternal
5. Existence is subject to change
6. Perfection is not approachable

The whole problem with your premise is that you are trying to derive something more (truth, creation) from something less (pragmatism).

Not only can it not be done, its impractical to even suggest it. It doesn’t work.

Now I add more.

 

[Bahman]

Ah, here it is. Your real issue with God. All the rest is mere sophistry. So why not simply ask: “Why does God allow human beings to suffer for eternity in hell?”

My argument is not sophistry. Could you please tell me what is God’s purpose?

 

[Bahman]

Or to leave them in a state of blissful eternity?

According as they desire and deserve.

The act creation at most is circular accepting the existence of blissful eternity. Please also read post #38.