The act of creation is imperfect

[Roseeurekacross]

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

Dont you mean this definition to be the condition of perfection?

Being as free as possible from defects is approaching perfection.

Think about my analogies, both on this thread, and on your other one.
What do you think I am saying?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

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

That is circular.

Q: What is perfection?
A: The lack of flaws and defects.
Q: What are flaws and defects?
A: The lack of perfection.

The concept of perfection cannot be applied in a vacuum. Something is “perfect” in some relationship. A perfect bullet can penetrate any shield. A perfect shield can stop any bullet.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

By -]im/-]perfection we mean the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects.

That is circular.

Q: What is perfection?
A: The lack of flaws and defects.
Q: What are flaws and defects?
A: The lack of perfection.

The concept of perfection cannot be applied in a vacuum. Something is “perfect” in some relationship. A perfect bullet can penetrate any shield. A perfect shield can stop any bullet.

 

[z_0101]

Caveat emptor : I am NOT a philosophist beyond that which pertains to Chemistry.

With that said, even I have had to read a few things, love those rounding-courses, the following comes to mind, and it may not apply and I’ll defer to those with more knowledge than I; however, it seems a good wrinkle to toss into the works:

(I’m copying and pasting the following from anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/platform.htm )
**Plato’s Theory of Forms **
I. The Problems the theory was meant to solve:

1. The Ethical Problem: How can humans live a fulfilling, happy life in a contingent, changing world where every thing they attach themselves to can be taken away?
2. The Problem of Permanence and Change: How can the world appear to be both permanent and changing? The world we perceive through the senses seems to be always changing. The world that we perceive through the mind, using our concepts, seems to be permanent and unchanging. Which is most real and why does it appear both ways?

The general structure of the solution: Plato splits up existence into two realms: the material realm and the transcendent realm of forms.

Humans have access to the realm of forms through the mind, through reason, given Plato’s theory of the subdivisions of the human soul. This gives them access to an unchanging world, invulnerable to the pains and changes of the material world. By detaching ourselves from the material world and our bodies and developing our ability to concern ourselves with the forms, we find a value which is not open to change or disintegration. This solves the first, ethical, problem.

Splitting existence up into two realms also solves the problem of permanence and change. We perceive a different world, with different objects, through our mind than we do through the senses. It is the material world, perceived through the senses, that is changing. It is the realm of forms, perceived through the mind, that is permanent and immutable. It is this world that is more real; the world of change is merely an imperfect image of this world.

There’s much more on this at the above link.

So what I’m proposing, based on Plato’s Theory, is that the creation that STT is proposing is only perceived by humans to be imperfect and subject to change. Whereas the actual creation of God is and was perfect (by His Intent), that it is in a state of “actual” that STT talks about; therefor, because the actual state of form is not changing (perfect creation )negates the assertion that creation is subject to change, it’s only our limited perception of the material world leads us to perceive change, which then possibly invalidates the conclusion STT is attempting to make - that God isn’t perfect because His creation isn’t perfect because creation is subject to change.

Of Course, I expect STT to reject this position; however, I do look forward to reading the position against it.

That all make sense in my head… not sure I’ve expressed it well in writing. :manvspc:

 

[Aloysium]

:two cents:

God is perfect.
Creation is good.
It is imperfect and striving for the perfection that comes with communion in the Trinity, becoming Love.
Although we rejected the initial offer, Jesus Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit has made this possible.

 

[STT]

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.

How a thing which is in the state of actual and has no potentiality can change?

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

So according to you, God can create the worst possible creation and call it perfect? This is really ironic. I am sorry but I cannot accept that.

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.

You can only question the first premise. The rest just follows. What you are suggesting is against the first premise too. So I think we should focus on the question in the first comment.

 

[STT]

Don’t you mean this definition to be the condition of perfection?

What do you mean with the condition of perfection?

Being as free as possible from defects is approaching perfection.

Think about my analogies, both on this thread, and on your other one.
What do you think I am saying?

I don’t see any analogies between this thread and another one. Could you please elaborate?

Well, how about defining perfection as a state of being which has no potentiality.

 

[STT]

That is circular.

Q: What is perfection?
A: The lack of flaws and defects.
Q: What are flaws and defects?
A: The lack of perfection.

That is always true. You define a thing in term of another thing. You fall in trap of circularity if you don’t know the definition of one.

The concept of perfection cannot be applied in a vacuum. Something is “perfect” in some relationship. A perfect bullet can penetrate any shield. A perfect shield can stop any bullet.

Well, how about defining perfection as a state of being which has no potentiality.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That is always true. You define a thing in term of another thing. You fall in trap of circularity if you don’t know the definition of one.

It reminds me of two snakes, each starting to nibble the tail of the other one, and when they both finish, you will have nothing.

Well, how about defining perfection as a state of being which has no potentiality.

That would be nonexistence.

 

[STT]

Caveat emptor : I am NOT a philosophist beyond that which pertains to Chemistry.

With that said, even I have had to read a few things, love those rounding-courses, the following comes to mind, and it may not apply and I’ll defer to those with more knowledge than I; however, it seems a good wrinkle to toss into the works:

(I’m copying and pasting the following from anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/platform.htm )
**Plato’s Theory of Forms **
I. The Problems the theory was meant to solve:

1. The Ethical Problem: How can humans live a fulfilling, happy life in a contingent, changing world where every thing they attach themselves to can be taken away?
2. The Problem of Permanence and Change: How can the world appear to be both permanent and changing? The world we perceive through the senses seems to be always changing. The world that we perceive through the mind, using our concepts, seems to be permanent and unchanging. Which is most real and why does it appear both ways?

The general structure of the solution: Plato splits up existence into two realms: the material realm and the transcendent realm of forms.

Humans have access to the realm of forms through the mind, through reason, given Plato’s theory of the subdivisions of the human soul. This gives them access to an unchanging world, invulnerable to the pains and changes of the material world. By detaching ourselves from the material world and our bodies and developing our ability to concern ourselves with the forms, we find a value which is not open to change or disintegration. This solves the first, ethical, problem.

Splitting existence up into two realms also solves the problem of permanence and change. We perceive a different world, with different objects, through our mind than we do through the senses. It is the material world, perceived through the senses, that is changing. It is the realm of forms, perceived through the mind, that is permanent and immutable. It is this world that is more real; the world of change is merely an imperfect image of this world.

There’s much more on this at the above link.

So what I’m proposing, based on Plato’s Theory, is that the creation that STT is proposing is only perceived by humans to be imperfect and subject to change. Whereas the actual creation of God is and was perfect (by His Intent), that it is in a state of “actual” that STT talks about; therefor, because the actual state of form is not changing (perfect creation )negates the assertion that creation is subject to change, it’s only our limited perception of the material world leads us to perceive change, which then possibly invalidates the conclusion STT is attempting to make - that God isn’t perfect because His creation isn’t perfect because creation is subject to change.

Of Course, I expect STT to reject this position; however, I do look forward to reading the position against it.

That all make sense in my head… not sure I’ve expressed it well in writing. :manvspc:

That is very interesting. So what you are suggesting is align to block universe where creation is created as whole, unchanging and actual. I however have only one objection to this picture and that the existence of evil. If what you are suggesting is true then the evil also an illusion therefore there would no punishment or reward after death, yet it is promised. The world is like this, some enjoy it more and some suffer more, yet it is perfect.

 

[STT]

It reminds me of two snakes, each starting to nibble the tail of the other one, and when they both finish, you will have nothing.

That is correct.

That would be nonexistence.

Why? It seems to me that things are moving toward becoming more perfect.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Why? It seems to me that things are moving toward becoming more perfect.

Since there is no definition of “perfection” (two snakes nibbling each other ) there is no (grammatical) gradation of it. There is no “perfect” dinner (and as such no “more prefect” dinner), no “perfect” vacation, no “perfect” job, etc… people just like to exaggerate and use “bombastic” words.

 

[PapyrusDouay]

How a thing which is in the state of actual and has no potentiality can change?

What? I do not understand this sentence.

So according to you, God can create the worst possible creation and call it perfect? This is really ironic. I am sorry but I cannot accept that.

I never said anything about “worst”, that’s a qualifier you added; that word also implies comparison. What is “better”? We’re talking about imperfect vs perfect. Not better or worse, best or worst. If you’re putting a value on perfect/imperfect, then this would be another place where your arguement falls apart, as it’s a different thing and would be a different discussion.

i’m also not really sure what you cannot accept. It almost sounds like your dismissing my arguement just because you don’t like it, not because you found something wrong with it. And, if that’s the case, this isn’t really a discussion if your picking and choosing based on whether or not you LIKE it. I’m pretty sure that’s not what you mean though, so please clarify.

You can only question the first premise. The rest just follows. What you are suggesting is against the first premise too. So I think we should focus on the question in the first comment.

I AM questioning the first premise, because it’s based on a faulty notion. Even if the rest of your logic follows, it does not make it correct if the premise is faulty. Your argumentation is good, but it’s based on a straw man.

What question are you referring to? I’d be glad to discuss it.

 

[STT]

What? I do not understand this sentence.

I mean. Things which are in the state of potentiality change to reach the state of actuality. Perfection is the state of actuality therefore there cannot be any change in it.

I never said anything about “worst”, that’s a qualifier you added; that word also implies comparison. What is “better”? We’re talking about imperfect vs perfect. Not better or worse, best or worst. If you’re putting a value on perfect/imperfect, then this would be another place where your arguement falls apart, as it’s a different thing and would be a different discussion.

I think there is a relation between the best and perfect. Don’t you think?

i’m also not really sure what you cannot accept. It almost sounds like your dismissing my arguement just because you don’t like it, not because you found something wrong with it. And, if that’s the case, this isn’t really a discussion if your picking and choosing based on whether or not you LIKE it. I’m pretty sure that’s not what you mean though, so please clarify.

That is not correct. I just found your argument not convincing. Please consider the previous comment.

I AM questioning the first premise, because it’s based on a faulty notion. Even if the rest of your logic follows, it does not make it correct if the premise is faulty. Your argumentation is good, but it’s based on a straw man.

This is already addressed in the first comment in this post.

What question are you referring to? I’d be glad to discuss it.

I meant the question in the former post.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

What do you mean with the condition of perfection?

I don’t see any analogies between this thread and another one. Could you please elaborate?

Well, how about defining perfection as a state of being which has no potentiality.

STT , i dont feel that you are reading what you type, thinking about others responses, nor responding appropriately.

 

[STT]

STT , i dont feel that you are reading what you type, thinking about others responses, nor responding appropriately.

That is not correct. Perhaps you don’t read my post carefully.

 

[PapyrusDouay]

I mean. Things which are in the state of potentiality change to reach the state of actuality. Perfection is the state of actuality therefore there cannot be any change in it.

Ok, I understand you definition of perfection as being something in a state of actuality. But you are also making the assumption that there is only onevreason for change…one reason for motion…to reach the state of actuality. What if…being in motion/ a state of constant change was in fact the state of actuality. It’s not potentiality, because it’s already actuality, with change being the constant (as evidence in nature would suggest).

II think there is a relation between the best and perfect. Don’t you think?

No. if your definition of perfection is being in a state of actuality, then that is a solid, objective definition. To qualify something as worst or best is a value judgement and pretty subjective.

IThat is not correct. I just found your argument not convincing. Please consider the previous comment.

Good

IThis is already addressed in the first comment in this post.

Ok

II meant the question in the former post.

So that would now be the first section in this post? Just trying to make sure I got it.

 

[rinnie]

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.

Then could you explain to me how the Blessed Mother was saved from Original Sin and was perfect without sin throughout her entire life.

And could you explain how Jesus died on the cross for our sins, for he had none of his own.

And for the third question please state ONE sin that was made by God the Almighty. Just One.

And how was Man made in the Image of God mean that Man could not sin because he was made in the image of a perfect God, Where did God state that Man would remain perfect because he was created perfect? Thanks,

 

[STT]

Ok, I understand you definition of perfection as being something in a state of actuality. But you are also making the assumption that there is only onevreason for change…one reason for motion…to reach the state of actuality. What if…being in motion/ a state of constant change was in fact the state of actuality. It’s not potentiality, because it’s already actuality, with change being the constant (as evidence in nature would suggest).

Well, I don’t understand what do you mean with constant change. God simply doesn’t change.

No. if your definition of perfection is being in a state of actuality, then that is a solid, objective definition. To qualify something as worst or best is a value judgement and pretty subjective.

I think that the best is only objective, so called God, who is actual. The rest are relative.

Good

Cool.

Ok

Cool.

So that would now be the first section in this post? Just trying to make sure I got it.

I meant the question in post #25, here.

 

[STT]

Then could you explain to me how the Blessed Mother was saved from Original Sin and was perfect without sin throughout her entire life.

That is your belief. I don’t believe so. This is not even consistent in your system of belief, a person who is given birth is sinful.

And could you explain how Jesus died on the cross for our sins, for he had none of his own.

Again, that is your belief and I don’t believe that there is any use that someone die for the sins of others. It doesn’t make any sense to me. To be honest, I don’t understand how this is related to this thread.

And for the third question please state ONE sin that was made by God the Almighty. Just One.

Creation.

And how was Man made in the Image of God mean that Man could not sin because he was made in the image of a perfect God, Where did God state that Man would remain perfect because he was created perfect? Thanks,

God only mentioned that creation is good and that is the problem. You can expect wheat when you plant barely.