Perfect being cannot create anything

[Bahman]

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

My claim is very simple and I can present it in one line. Change is the result of tendency toward an end, perfection is the end hence nothing comes out of perfection since this requires a change.

You say God is being, God is perfection, etc. That is all right and I can accept them yet nothing can come out of perfection.

 

[Bahman]

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.

You don’t back up your claim with an argument so how I could say why your rebuttals are in error!?

 

[Amandil]

You don’t back up your claim with an argument so how I could say why your rebuttals are in error!?

Whatever you say.

 

[Oreoracle]

I’m not sure that I agree with the way in which some terms are defined. However, I agree with the “spirit” of the argument.

As I understand it, you’re basically saying that a perfect being–that is, a self-sufficient one who needs nothing else–would have no impulse to create something else. It’s similar to how I can’t call myself self-sufficient if I feel the need to have a partner.

 

[Bahman]

I’m not sure that I agree with the way in which some terms are defined. However, I agree with the “spirit” of the argument.

As I understand it, you’re basically saying that a perfect being–that is, a self-sufficient one who needs nothing else–would have no impulse to create something else. It’s similar to how I can’t call myself self-sufficient if I feel the need to have a partner.

That is correct. It in fact becomes common sense when we look at ourselves clearly as you demonstrate.

 

[Amandil]

I’m not sure that I agree with the way in which some terms are defined. However, I agree with the “spirit” of the argument.

As I understand it, you’re basically saying that a perfect being–that is, a self-sufficient one who needs nothing else–would have no impulse to create something else. It’s similar to how I can’t call myself self-sufficient if I feel the need to have a partner.

It automatically assumes that “perfection” is defined from a merely materialistic perspective as materially self-sufficient autonomy without actually proving that materialism is true.

I would even argue that the term “perfection” cannot even be an attribute of God because God must transcend any human terms which bind him within our temporary existence. IOW God’s “perfect” Being must be something beyond what it means for creatures such as we are to be or attain to be “perfect”.

If God is love, and love properly speaking is in fact creative, then there is nothing contrary to God creating anything.

You could argue that love is not creative, yet your claim would fly in the face of the myriad of human experience.

 

[Neildown]

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

Here I think you’re misunderstanding the essence of my statement. A businessman’s goal within the context of his professional life is to run a good business and to run it at maximum efficiency, among other multiple factors. We might say that when he accomplishes these criteria he is maintaining a state of perfection within the context of that goal. Similarly there are criteria that God must meet, that must be expected of an eternal, infinite source of what we know as reality. This particular set of criteria, whilst very all-encompassing to us, does not by any necessity look the same way to the being who is actually capable of fulfilling those criteria; meaning that there isn’t any inherent clause upon which to support the idea that perfection requires a completely static position within reality. Whilst this businessman runs his business perfectly there are other interests he is involved in that do not inherently effect his professional life significantly. Lets say he belongs to a running club and plays golf.

Herein I’ve just given an example through which a being can achieve perfection and continue to be active and even changing in some things - just without voiding the criteria of perfection within its proper context. When I say God is unchanging I’m simply referring to Him within the context of His role as God. Obviously God has a larger definition of perfection to live up to, however I don’t think its much of a problem for someone who exists outside the confines of our natural world.

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

That’s honestly one of the funniest things I’ve heard on CAF, not to prod you. Such a claim sounds counterproductive coming from someone who apparently loves life enough to bother convincing other people to live it in a similar manner. Here again you’re misunderstanding the actual beauty of perfection - namely that it is not an inherently static thing. We are all capable of complete contentedness despite the fact that we may not ourselves be as perfect as God Himself because we were made to be content with less than that - or perhaps rather to witness that perfection from a different perspective. I would bet good money that you haven’t lived a perfect life just as myself, but you’re certainly still here and willing to help people live better lives through what you have to offer - and you couldn’t have anything less than a contentedness with life, at least theoretically, in order to do such a thing for any great length of time. Certainly your attempt to better other people’s lives can only be based on the idea that life is actually worth living in some way - otherwise what exactly would your purpose on the forums be?

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

That would be an entirely subjective outlook as opposed to a legitimate objection. One person may choose to call the world a cruel place just as another may choose to accept its challenges and appreciate its fruits, and those answers vary drastically regardless of the circumstances people find themselves in, so its not just a case of goody-goody middle-class citizens loving life and poor people hating it. The fact that a thing might require effort to maintain is something most sensible people take for granted here and now, so why, I wonder, is it considered inconceivable when put into the context of personal development? The answer to that is a largely psychological one with a few different heads I won’t bother to elaborate on unless necessary. In any case it all basically comes down to us and what we do with what we have. There is no inherent circumstantial arbiter of human behavior though.

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.

I can’t say I disagree there - except maybe changing “tendency” to “ability” - but you seem to think that that conflicts with the model I’ve presented. The problem with that is when you seek to justify your stance you can only speak within the context of the “perfection” - ie. what, where, how, why the thing is perfect. You seem to be suggesting God is perfect in “all things” wherein you would be suggesting a singularity, which isn’t possible within Christian theism and is therefore not relevant within the context of the original question - namely that a perfect being cannot create anything. Considering this is a Catholic forum, obviously we would expect it is a question being pointed at the Catholic model of God - I truly don’t care what there is to be criticized of a singularity “of itself” because 1) that’s not the item in question according to the thread’s original question, and 2) it’s entirely irrelevant to the audience it is being applied to.

Now you may not actually believe in a singularity - I have no idea and don’t intend to judge off-hand - but that would be my first guess based on what I’ve read thus far.