Perfect being cannot create anything

[Bahman]

Because He is Love.

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

How is difficult? My question is why does God create? Your answer is that he is love. My question is what is his purpose?

Please also read post #38.

 

[Bahman]

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

Our purpose flows from His love.

Although this sounds attractive and appealing, it is not correct.

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
5. God is subjected to state of perfection
6. God cannot create anything

 

[Amandil]

Bahman:

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

Your definition of change is false.

Change is simply a movement from potentiality to actuality.

Bahman:

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

You can be called the Evil Knieval of logical leaps. There’s no way that you can make the jump from 5 to 8a to 9a and 7b without already assuming your conclusion and contriving some absurd backwards logic to justify it.

You clearly don’t even understand what the difference between your use of “circular” and restorative.

That was funny.
…Whatever you say, man.

Bahman:

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

1. again is a false definition. Change is simply a movement.
2. Sorely begs the question.
3. Is another non-sequitur.
4. is at best ambiguous in regards to “existence”. If you mean material existence your begging the question, which is exactly what you’re doing by following with 5.
   Thus 6 doesn’t follow.

Bahman:

Now I add more.

I can’t wait. I need some good laughs.

 

[USMC_Convert]

DEFINE PERFECT…

ADJECTIVES:
having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.
“she strove to be the perfect wife”

“a perfect circle”

“Gary was perfect for her—ten years older and with his own career”

absolute; complete (used for emphasis).
“a perfect stranger”

VERB:
make (something) completely free from faults or defects, or as close to such a condition as possible.

“he’s busy perfecting his bowling technique”

More archaic bring to completion; finish.

Okay so let’s go over English once more. Your using big words again, mistake, second, words mean things so let’s have our next lesson. YOUR NOT GOD!!! To God, maybe I don’t wanna speak for the big guy, he did create us in perfection. You can’t define perfection in Godly terms.

Thirdly, I, we, God loves you and to us, your perfect, even in your doubt…

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

 

[Bahman]

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.

There are two issues to your picture: 1) God didn’t promise that we become God, 2) This picture at most is circular/restorative.

 

[Bahman]

Your definition of change is false.

Change is simply a movement from potentiality to actuality.

It is not false. Call tendency as potentiality and end as actuality and you get your definition.

So here is the first argument again:

A) First argument:

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
5. God is subjected to state of perfection
6. God cannot create or change anything

Tell me what is wrong with it!?

You can be called the Evil Knieval of logical leaps. There’s no way that you can make the jump from 5 to 8a to 9a and 7b without already assuming your conclusion and contriving some absurd backwards logic to justify it.

You clearly don’t even understand what the difference between your use of “circular” and restorative.

That was funny.
…Whatever you say, man.

That was not funny at all. English is not my mother tongue and philosophy is not the filed of my expertise so I am not familiar with technical words.

Here is the second argument:

B) Second argument:

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 restorative hence purposeless
   9a) God is malevolence
   6b) Creation stays in state of misery forever
   7b) God is malevolence

Please tell me what is wrong with it. Backward or forward, you have to find the fallacy.

1. again is a false definition. Change is simply a movement.

I already justified that my definition is equivalent to yours.

1. Sorely begs the question.

It is not. You can in fact deduce it from (A) if you were a little careful.

1. Is another non-sequitur.

It is not. It can be deduce from (A).

1. is at best ambiguous in regards to “existence”. If you mean material existence your begging the question, which is exactly what you’re doing by following with 5.
   Thus 6 doesn’t follow.

What is matter? I meant existence in general. You can simply deduce it from (3) meaning that if there is no creator then existence must be primary hence eternal.

Here is the third argument again with little change in references to help reader:

1. Change is the result of tendency toward an end
2. From (A) we can deduce that the 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. From (3) we can deduce that existence is primary hence eternal
5. Existence is subject to change
6. Perfection is not approachable

I can’t wait. I need some good laughs.

How you could laugh when the other side is serious!? Are you really a Christian!? Let me know if you could laugh anymore!

 

[davidv]

How is difficult? My question is why does God create? Your answer is that he is love. My question is what is his purpose?

From the Baltimore Catechism:
3. Why did God make us?

God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven

Please also read post #38.

I have.

 

[Della]

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

Love.

 

[jochoa]

There are two issues to your picture: 1) God didn’t promise that we become God, 2) This picture at most is circular/restorative.

Regarding the first issue: Catholicism knows “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” (CCC#460)
And God definitely calls us to be as perfect as Him from the declaration, “Be you therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 4:48)

Regarding the second issue: I can agree that it is circular, however, it is definitely evident to be the case. Simply consider your actions and mine.

1. You and I present ourselves as though we are more complete in analysis than one another.
2. You and I share our analysis freely and without others requesting our understandings.
3. (1) and (2) serve as evidence that a more complete being shares with others how to be more complete.

 

[Neildown]

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.

Who’s to say that perfection cannot be a constant effort or process though? According to Church doctrine God has several infinitesimal properties inherent to His essence - one of those being that He has no beginning and no end. Given perfection is an attained state of the greatest lack of flaws possible (which includes total lack of flaws) there’s no actual conflict there - whether you’re in a temporal world like ours or an infinite force in an infinite void, you can still “continue” being perfect, ultimately depending on the context. It may be thought of in the same context of our every day lives as individuals - when we do or make something without flaw, that perfection is not held in some sort of stasis. An ice-skater can perform the same maneuvers multiple times with total lack of flaw, and there is still opportunity to continue doing so, even to continue doing so in different contexts, as each maneuver can still differ from the other without losing its state of perfection, so long as it meets the criteria it is being judged in.

Now of course that is all being applied to us as fallible and temporal creatures - not an infinite and perfect being. The basic principle can still apply however, within the context of an objectively perfect being. The fact that we are capable of defining an objectively perfect state does not inherently mean there is no room for activity or diversion within the boundaries of that definition, nonetheless for a being that exists outside the laws of a limited, temporal world. Hence, it is still possible for God to be perfect, to be mobile, and/or active, and to be so without the possibility of someone or something else being or becoming His equal.

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.

Yes and no - He creates us in His image, remember, but we are not God Himself. Not copies, but built with the ability and the desire to strive and attain higher and higher goals - unmatched by the rest of creation around us. We aren’t capable of reaching perfection in the same manner as God Himself, but we are born to a perfect state according to His plan, and capable of reaching the perfection He created us to attain, through our own will and effort, through the means we have been presented with in our individual lives.

Could you please elaborate the bold part?

Because inherent and complete perfection are objective qualities of God’s essence - unobtainable to anything but God Himself, as that is part of what makes God God, in addition to the other infinitesimal qualities. Humanity was created in His image but as both temporal and spiritual creatures we have temporal means at our disposal to reach a temporally adapted perfection in addition to spiritual perfection, which is the “higher capacity, higher quality” state of perfection we are capable of reaching. This is also part of what defines our relationship with Christ, as although He was human He was also God - He stood out entirely from the rest of humanity by living a sinless life in addition to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. By those signs we invest faith in the belief that He truly was and is the prophetical Son of God.

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.

That could be an example of static perfection, pending on the context of the statement, but it’s not representative of every form of what we may consider “perfection” here. Your definition I find hard to understand for lack of example I’m afraid - I may need some elaboration.

 

[Amandil]

Bahman:

It is not false. Call tendency as potentiality and end as actuality and you get your definition.

So here is the first argument again:

A) First argument:

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
5. God is subjected to state of perfection
6. God cannot create or change anything

Tell me what is wrong with it!?

Well, 5 is false because God isn’t subject to anything. God is not “subject to perfection”, God Is perfection.

6 puts an external limit on God, which is refuted by God’s omnipotence.

There’s no way 5 & 6 follows from 1-4.

Bahman:

That was not funny at all. English is not my mother tongue and philosophy is not the filed of my expertise so I am not familiar with technical words.

Some people simply are not cut-out for the science of philosophy.

If you’re set on the study of philosophy, perhaps you should start with Plato and Aristotle to familiarize yourself with classical philosophical terminology.

Bahman:

Here is the second argument:

B) Second argument:

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 restorative hence purposeless
   9a) God is malevolence
   6b) Creation stays in state of misery forever
   7b) God is malevolence

Please tell me what is wrong with it. Backward or forward, you have to find the fallacy.

I already told you above.

You altered 1 and now it stands as a self-contradictory statement. You were better off the first time.
6a still doesn’t follow. What do you mean by “creation”? Are you talking about all creation? Animals? Plants? Man? What do you mean “the price of suffering”?

7a begs the question. How does “it”, whatever “it” is, become “perfect”. And perfect in relation to what? To God? Or to its own kind of being?

8a doesn’t follow. If God restores His creation because it was corrupted then obviously this purpose has an end-to restore the purpose of His creation. So 8a is false.

Therefore 9a is also false.

6b we know is false, therefore so is your conclusion (7b).

Bahman:

It is not. It can be deduce from (A).

How, without committing circular reasoning?

Bahman:

What is matter? I meant existence in general. You can simply deduce it from (3) meaning that if there is no creator then existence must be primary hence eternal.

Again, what do you mean by “existence in general”? There can be several different types of “existence”, e.g. existence as a tree is not the same type of existence as being a dog or even a human. And are you insisting that the only type of existence is material? And if so how do you know?

And if you’re drawing that conclusion from the prior assumption that “there is no creator” you’re again arguing in a circle.

Bahman:

Here is the third argument again with little change in references to help reader:

1. Change is the result of tendency toward an end
2. From (A) we can deduce that the 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. From (3) we can deduce that existence is primary hence eternal
5. Existence is subject to change
6. Perfection is not approachable

Well, since this syllogism is wholly dependent upon the previous fallacious arguments above there’s really no reason to address it.

In short, 2) doesn’t follow, neither does 3).

1. is to say the least ambiguous. While you inserted 5 out of the blue to somehow bolster something that is clearly falling apart you throw in an alternate 6) which again doesn’t follow.

Bahman:

How you could laugh when the other side is serious!? Are you really a Christian!? Let me know if you could laugh anymore!

Because I thought you were being satirical.

The bottom line is, when you actually read Aquinas’ First Way which deals with change (motion-motus), that we observe motion of creation from potentiality to actuality we see that nothing in Creation moves itself but is moved by something else(leaves changing color from green to yellow by the changing of the seasons).

Going backwards from that observation it is absurd to think of creation as an infinite regress of movers moving other movers. There must be at some point something which does not require something outside of itself but rather begins the motion by it’s action. A Being which is necessary for all motion to take place, but which is outside the chain of motion and not dependent upon it. That is the Necessary Prime Mover.

That Necessary Prime Mover is what we call God.

 

[sw85]

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

There is a hidden premise you’re smuggling in between 2 and 3: that the only thing a perfect being would will to create is another perfect being.

 

[Bahman]

Regarding the first issue: Catholicism knows “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” (CCC#460)
And God definitely calls us to be as perfect as Him from the declaration, “Be you therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 4:48)

Regarding the second issue: I can agree that it is circular, however, it is definitely evident to be the case. Simply consider your actions and mine.

1. You and I present ourselves as though we are more complete in analysis than one another.
2. You and I share our analysis freely and without others requesting our understandings.
3. (1) and (2) serve as evidence that a more complete being shares with others how to be more complete.

Cycle is empty my friend.

 

[Bahman]

Who’s to say that perfection cannot be a constant effort or process though? According to Church doctrine God has several infinitesimal properties inherent to His essence - one of those being that He has no beginning and no end. Given perfection is an attained state of the greatest lack of flaws possible (which includes total lack of flaws) there’s no actual conflict there - whether you’re in a temporal world like ours or an infinite force in an infinite void, you can still “continue” being perfect, ultimately depending on the context. It may be thought of in the same context of our every day lives as individuals - when we do or make something without flaw, that perfection is not held in some sort of stasis. An ice-skater can perform the same maneuvers multiple times with total lack of flaw, and there is still opportunity to continue doing so, even to continue doing so in different contexts, as each maneuver can still differ from the other without losing its state of perfection, so long as it meets the criteria it is being judged in.

Now of course that is all being applied to us as fallible and temporal creatures - not an infinite and perfect being. The basic principle can still apply however, within the context of an objectively perfect being. The fact that we are capable of defining an objectively perfect state does not inherently mean there is no room for activity or diversion within the boundaries of that definition, nonetheless for a being that exists outside the laws of a limited, temporal world. Hence, it is still possible for God to be perfect, to be mobile, and/or active, and to be so without the possibility of someone or something else being or becoming His equal.

I have an argument for the bold part.

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
5. God is subjected to state of perfection
6. God cannot create or change anything

Yes and no - He creates us in His image, remember, but we are not God Himself. Not copies, but built with the ability and the desire to strive and attain higher and higher goals - unmatched by the rest of creation around us. We aren’t capable of reaching perfection in the same manner as God Himself, but we are born to a perfect state according to His plan, and capable of reaching the perfection He created us to attain, through our own will and effort, through the means we have been presented with in our individual lives.

Eternal limited life is a hell even if you are in heaven.

Because inherent and complete perfection are objective qualities of God’s essence - unobtainable to anything but God Himself, as that is part of what makes God God, in addition to the other infinitesimal qualities. Humanity was created in His image but as both temporal and spiritual creatures we have temporal means at our disposal to reach a temporally adapted perfection in addition to spiritual perfection, which is the “higher capacity, higher quality” state of perfection we are capable of reaching. This is also part of what defines our relationship with Christ, as although He was human He was also God - He stood out entirely from the rest of humanity by living a sinless life in addition to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. By those signs we invest faith in the belief that He truly was and is the prophetical Son of God.

This is response to bold part: Creation is then cruel.

That could be an example of static perfection, pending on the context of the statement, but it’s not representative of every form of what we may consider “perfection” here. Your definition I find hard to understand for lack of example I’m afraid - I may need some elaboration.

What is subjective has tendency to become objectively actual and what is objective is has the potentiality to become subjectively actual. This is the basic elements that allows changes toward an end. The perfection however is the end meaning that changes is not possible hence subjective and objective reality are perfect reflection of each other.

 

[jochoa]

Cycle is empty my friend.

Unless it is filled with substance, such as the water cycle, such as evident in our discussion!

 

[Bahman]

Well, 5 is false because God isn’t subject to anything. God is not “subject to perfection”, God Is perfection.

God is a being and perfection is an attribute. An attribute whatever it is, brings some constraint as well. Hence (5) is correct.

6 puts an external limit on God, which is refuted by God’s omnipotence.

It is not external limit and it is related to attribute so called perfection and can be deduced from (5).

There’s no way 5 & 6 follows from 1-4.

So 5 & 6 follows from 1-4.

I already told you above.

You altered 1 and now it stands as a self-contradictory statement. You were better off the first time.
6a still doesn’t follow. What do you mean by “creation”? Are you talking about all creation? Animals? Plants? Man? What do you mean “the price of suffering”?

(6a) does follow from (5).

8a doesn’t follow. If God restores His creation because it was corrupted then obviously this purpose has an end-to restore the purpose of His creation. So 8a is false.

(8a) follows. The perfection is assumed to be the purpose. What else it could be?

Therefore 9a is also false.

Therefore (9a) is correct.

6b we know is false, therefore so is your conclusion (7b).

By saying this you accept that perfection is the purpose (see comment regarded (8a)) and the fact that we become perfect at the end (God).

How, without committing circular reasoning?

(A) is correct.

Again, what do you mean by “existence in general”? There can be several different types of “existence”, e.g. existence as a tree is not the same type of existence as being a dog or even a human. And are you insisting that the only type of existence is material? And if so how do you know?

I meant all sort of existence. And I didn’t insist that the only type of existence it material.

And if you’re drawing that conclusion from the prior assumption that “there is no creator” you’re again arguing in a circle.

It is not circular. (A) is already correct so I can use it. One of the conclusion of (A) was that the state of perfection is static and nothing can come out of it hence God if we accept that God is perfect.

Well, since this syllogism is wholly dependent upon the previous fallacious arguments above there’s really no reason to address it.

In short, 2) doesn’t follow, neither does 3).

(2) and (3) are direct result of (A).

1. is to say the least ambiguous. While you inserted 5 out of the blue to somehow bolster something that is clearly falling apart you throw in an alternate 6) which again doesn’t follow.

No, if we accept that there is no creator then we can easily deduce that existence is primary.

 

[davidv]

God is a being and perfection is an attribute.

False. God is Being, not a being. His perfection is His being. The rest of your post is based on this false premise and even if valid is unsound and false.

{snip}

 

[Bahman]

False. God is Being, not a being. His perfection is His being. The rest of your post is based on this false premise and even if valid is unsound and false.
{snip}

That doesn’t change anything.

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
5. Creation is subject to change hence it is not perfect
6. The act creation is a change in state of existence
7. Change is the result of imperfection
8. The state of existence before creation is perfect
9. From (7) and (8) we can deduce that it is impossible that perfection causes imperfection

 

[davidv]

That doesn’t change anything.

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
5. Creation is subject to change hence it is not perfect
6. The act creation is a change in state of existence
7. Change is the result of imperfection
8. The state of existence before creation is perfect
9. From (7) and (8) we can deduce that it is impossible that perfection causes imperfection

Repeating your claim does not make it true. Please address the objections presented.

 

[Amandil]

God is a being and perfection is an attribute. An attribute whatever it is, brings some constraint as well. Hence (5) is correct.

It is not external limit and it is related to attribute so called perfection and can be deduced from (5).

So 5 & 6 follows from 1-4.

(6a) does follow from (5).

(8a) follows. The perfection is assumed to be the purpose. What else it could be?

Therefore (9a) is correct.

By saying this you accept that perfection is the purpose (see comment regarded (8a)) and the fact that we become perfect at the end (God).

(A) is correct.

I meant all sort of existence. And I didn’t insist that the only type of existence it material.

It is not circular. (A) is already correct so I can use it. One of the conclusion of (A) was that the state of perfection is static and nothing can come out of it hence God if we accept that God is perfect.

(2) and (3) are direct result of (A).

No, if we accept that there is no creator then we can easily deduce that existence is primary.

All you’re doing is re-asserting your opinion without any sound reasoning or demonstration as to how my rebuttals are in error.

Therefore they stand.