The act of creation is imperfect

[STT]

The perfection is a state without change. Creation is subject to change. Therefore creation is not perfect. This means that the act of creation is imperfect. This means that God is not perfect.

 

[Gorgias]

The perfection is a state without change

Disagree. Perfection may be attained, as a resultant state. The continuation of perfection, on the other hand, implies an unchanging state.

Creation is subject to change.

Material, physical entities are (in our present state) subject to change. However, that does not imply that, by their nature, they must always be subject to change.

Therefore creation is not perfect.

Improper inference. If ‘creation’ was intended to be physical, then creation was intended to be mutable. However, that doesn’t mean that creation isn’t a perfect instantiation of the creator’s intent. Your conclusion doesn’t hold up.

This means that the act of creation is imperfect.

If the act instantiated the creator’s intent, then the act is perfect. Your assertion doesn’t hold up.

This means that God is not perfect.

If your middle terms don’t hold up, your conclusion likewise fails. Nice try, though.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

In a conversation like this it would be pretty useful, nay, essential to define what “perfection” might be.

 

[fhansen]

The perfection is a state without change. Creation is subject to change. Therefore creation is not perfect. This means that the act of creation is imperfect. This means that God is not perfect.

It might just mean that even God can’t create another God-but that even an imperfect creation is still worth the effort. Our faith teaches that God created His universe in a “state of journeying to perfection”.

 

[STT]

Disagree. Perfection may be attained, as a resultant state. The continuation of perfection, on the other hand, implies an unchanging state.

I didn’t say that perfection cannot be attained.

Material, physical entities are (in our present state) subject to change. However, that does not imply that, by their nature, they must always be subject to change.

I didn’t say that creation must always be subject to change.

Improper inference. If ‘creation’ was intended to be physical, then creation was intended to be mutable. However, that doesn’t mean that creation isn’t a perfect instantiation of the creator’s intent. Your conclusion doesn’t hold up.

Of course my conclusion holds up. Intent has nothing to do with state of creation.

If the act instantiated the creator’s intent, then the act is perfect. Your assertion doesn’t hold up.

Intent has no role to play here. We are talking about act not intent. It is straightforward: Creation is imperfect therefore the act of creation is imperfect.

If your middle terms don’t hold up, your conclusion likewise fails. Nice try, though.

So my conclusion holds.

 

[STT]

In a conversation like this it would be pretty useful, nay, essential to define what “perfection” might be.

By imperfection we mean the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects.

 

[STT]

It might just mean that even God can’t create another God-but that even an imperfect creation is still worth the effort. Our faith teaches that God created His universe in a “state of journeying to perfection”.

So you eventually become perfect, God? That was an impossibility in your opinion.

 

[fhansen]

So you eventually become perfect, God? That was an impossibility in your opinion.

Since perfection resides in God, alone, in Catholic teaching perfection only comes about for creation to the extent that it’s in union with Him. So, He let’s us decide; He let’s us participate in our perfecting -or not. So since perfection is intrinsic to God, alone, we can never approach perfection on *our *own, apart from Him.

 

[joeybaggz]

The perfection is a state without change. Creation is subject to change. Therefore creation is not perfect. This means that the act of creation is imperfect. This means that God is not perfect.

A noted middle ages scholar, Giovanni Mirandola constructed a famous “oration on the dignity of man” in which he posited that, according to Genesis (and there was nothing else in his time to account for the creation of all things), when God had created the animals, all the necessary roles were filled. The universe was self sustaining, self regulating, and self perpetuating. It was only the introduction of man that introduced change, from a negative POV.
If the creator had stopped at the animals and not produced a being that had the ability to act contrary to nature as it was established by the Divine, then there would be no change and the world, existence, would simply sustain itself without change.

Your argument has to be based in an atheistic POV for it to be valid, at least from your perspective.

Don’t know is that is your intent.

Shalom

 

[Roseeurekacross]

The perfection is a state without change. Creation is subject to change. Therefore creation is not perfect. This means that the act of creation is imperfect. This means that God is not perfect.

That isnt a valid argument.

You are saying

All dogs have teeth. All horses have hooves. Therefore all dogs will bite. Therefore all horses will kick. This means dogs and horses are predictable.

 

[PapyrusDouay]

By imperfection we mean the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects.

Your conclusion is based on the assumption that if something changes, it’s because it has flaws, and so it’s imperfect. Therefore perfect things cannot change. i cannot see how this statement is true. Why can’t perfect things change? And if that one assumption is not true, your entire conclusion about creation falls apart.

You assume any change is the result of a flaw. I disagree.

Further, why can’t a perfect God make imperfect things if He so desires. This is a second assumption you make which fails to hold up: that a perfect creator will make only a perfect creation.

I argue, a perfect creator can make both perfect and imperfect creation if said creator so desires. I also argue that a creation subject to change can still be a perfect creation. If a perfect creator intended a creation to be a certain way, subject to change, would that not make that creation perfect?

I admire you train of logical thought, but it’s based on assumptions which are not necessarily true, and is therefore not a sound argument.

One could also argue the reverse of your arguement, since your assumption is a perfect creator can only make perfect things. So…If a perfect creator can only make perfect things, then an imperfect creation is actually perfect.

 

[Reepicheep]

The perfection is a state without change. Creation is subject to change. Therefore creation is not perfect. This means that the act of creation is imperfect. This means that God is not perfect.

I do not agree that perfection must be without change.

 

[Gorgias]

Of course my conclusion holds up. Intent has nothing to do with state of creation.

Intent has no role to play here. We are talking about act not intent.

Intent has everything to do with it. If the creator intended the act he performed, and it perfectly aligned with his will in the act, then the act (by definition) was perfect.

It is straightforward: Creation is imperfect therefore the act of creation is imperfect.

The act of creation could be perfect in its execution, if it attained the creator’s goal. Think about it for a minute…

So my conclusion holds.

Not if you examine it closely.

 

[STT]

That isnt a valid argument.

You are saying

All dogs have teeth. All horses have hooves. Therefore all dogs will bite. Therefore all horses will kick. This means dogs and horses are predictable.

I don’t understand your analogy. Could you please elaborate?

 

[STT]

Your conclusion is based on the assumption that if something changes, it’s because it has flaws, and so it’s imperfect. Therefore perfect things cannot change. i cannot see how this statement is true. Why can’t perfect things change? And if that one assumption is not true, your entire conclusion about creation falls apart.

My conclusion is based on the basic premise that perfect thing does not change.

You assume any change is the result of a flaw. I disagree.

I think we can argue against that. The state of perfection is the state of actual. Things which are not in state of actual have potential to reach actual, therefore they change. You might have problem with my definition. We can think of a better definition if it is so.

Further, why can’t a perfect God make imperfect things if He so desires. This is a second assumption you make which fails to hold up: that a perfect creator will make only a perfect creation.

Because the imperfect creation is not the best therefore the act of creation is bad. Is God allowed to create the worst possible universe, where everything goes wrong, people suffering for no reason, etc? If God is allowed to do that then He is allowed to create something between. I would say that that is simply against divine justice.

I argue, a perfect creator can make both perfect and imperfect creation if said creator so desires. I also argue that a creation subject to change can still be a perfect creation. If a perfect creator intended a creation to be a certain way, subject to change, would that not make that creation perfect?

I think you are missing something in your argument. I cannot follow the last part (bold part). How did you reach to that conclusion?

I admire you train of logical thought, but it’s based on assumptions which are not necessarily true, and is therefore not a sound argument.

Thank you. But lets discuss it further to see if it sounds or not.

One could also argue the reverse of your arguement, since your assumption is a perfect creator can only make perfect things. So…If a perfect creator can only make perfect things, then an imperfect creation is actually perfect.

I don’t see how this argument follows. Could you please elaborate?

 

[STT]

I do not agree that perfection must be without change.

Perfection to me is the state of actual, when there is no potentiality. Therefore there cannot be any change in the state of actual.

 

[STT]

Intent has everything to do with it. If the creator intended the act he performed, and it perfectly aligned with his will in the act, then the act (by definition) was perfect.

The act of creation could be perfect in its execution, if it attained the creator’s goal. Think about it for a minute…

Not if you examine it closely.

So what is the God’s purpose? To put things in state of suffering, imperfection, forever. That doesn’t make any sense.

 

[PapyrusDouay]

My conclusion is based on the basic premise that perfect thing does not change.

Yes, and this is the premise I disagree with.

I think you are missing something in your argument. I cannot follow the last part (bold part). How did you reach to that conclusion?

It means that if a perfect creator created something exactly how he wanted, then it would be perfect. Would this not be true?

I don’t see how this argument follows. Could you please elaborate?

It is the inverse of the arguement you made, using the same logic. Top down, instead of bottom up. You say creation is imperfect, therefore God is imperfect. I’m saying God is perfect, therefore his creation is perfect (even if it may appear imperfect).

 

[STT]

Yes, and this is the premise I disagree with.

So you believe that God is subjected to change? Moreover, I already provided an argument for that: The state of perfection is the state of actual, definition. Things which are not in state of actual have potential to reach actual, therefore they change.

It means that if a perfect creator created something exactly how he wanted, then it would be perfect. Would this not be true?

No, that wouldn’t be true.

It is the inverse of the arguement you made, using the same logic. Top down, instead of bottom up. You say creation is imperfect, therefore God is imperfect. I’m saying God is perfect, therefore his creation is perfect (even if it may appear imperfect).

Yes, but your conclusion is against evidence: Universe is subjected to change therefore it is not perfect.

 

[PapyrusDouay]

So you believe that God is subjected to change? Moreover, I already provided an argument for that: The state of perfection is the state of actual, definition. Things which are not in state of actual have potential to reach actual, therefore they change.

No. I didn’t say a perfect thing MUST change. A perfect thing CAN change. God does not change, but his creation could (and does). I’m not following how the state of actual contradicts the idea that perfect things can change, and yet remain perfect. Being in a state of change is not a future or past state, it is the current state, the current reality, and therefore it is the state of actual.

No, that wouldn’t be true.

Why not? It is as intended. The state of actual, and the intention would be one and the same.

Yes, but your conclusion is against evidence: Universe is subjected to change therefore it is not perfect.

And your conclusion is still making an assumption I disagree with, that change signifies imperfection. Evidence would also suggest physical creation is in a constant state of change. so we could conclude that it wouldn’t be trying to reach a state of perfection, but is already in that state of perfection, which is change. A state of change is the state actual, if you follow the evidence. So…a perfect creator still made a perfect creation which changes.

This is fun.