The act of creation is imperfect

[PapyrusDouay]

Well, I think one can get ride of a constant change by choosing a proper reference view if I understood you correctly.

I don’t think I understand what you mean.

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

understood, but you can’t have a “best” if there is not something else on the spectrum. And it’s still a value judgement which I think makes it subjective. It is not necessarily analogous to “perfect”, which we have defined for purposes of this arguement as “in a state of actuality”.

This is in reference to how “the worst thing” cannot be perfect. “Perfect” would be theoretically measurable by your definition. Whereas best is still based on a personal opinion, even if it is an absolute. We’d need to define what “best” or “worst” is in this case. But as it stands, based on conventional definitions, you could assign the “worst” label to something that is in a state of actuality since it’s a personal judgement.

I meant the question in post #25, here.

Ok, I think that question was addressed in my last post.

 

[z_0101]

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.

Ok, at the outset I did mention that I’m not a philosopher no?

So this is way out of my field of expertise; however, I’ll fall on my sword here and hope that someone comes to my rescue :

I am not suggesting that evil is so much an illusion as it is a perception of the material world. The change that we perceive that may result in a disparity between the perfect form and the material form could be interpreted as evil and any action on our part that furthers such a disparity could also be interpreted as an evil act.

The reward might be that we can see and understand the beatific vision of the form and how the material and the form relate and the converse being that the punishment could be that one loses the ability to see the beatific vision and the perfect relationship with the knowledge that such exists.

 

[STT]

I don’t think I understand what you mean.

What I mean is that a constant change is not really a change. Consider a car that is moving with constant speed. You can always find a frame of reference which car doesn’t move within it.

understood, but you can’t have a “best” if there is not something else on the spectrum. And it’s still a value judgement which I think makes it subjective. It is not necessarily analogous to “perfect”, which we have defined for purposes of this arguement as “in a state of actuality”.

This is in reference to how “the worst thing” cannot be perfect. “Perfect” would be theoretically measurable by your definition. Whereas best is still based on a personal opinion, even if it is an absolute. We’d need to define what “best” or “worst” is in this case. But as it stands, based on conventional definitions, you could assign the “worst” label to something that is in a state of actuality since it’s a personal judgement.

That is true (the bold part) but creation is timeless too therefore best is absolute if we can agree that the creation is timeless, so called block universe.

Ok, I think that question was addressed in my last post.

Cool.

 

[STT]

Ok, at the outset I did mention that I’m not a philosopher no?

That is alright. I am not a philosopher too.

So this is way out of my field of expertise; however, I’ll fall on my sword here and hope that someone comes to my rescue :

I think there is no way around this. It is like chasing our tails. The problem of evils is very old.

I am not suggesting that evil is so much an illusion as it is a perception of the material world. The change that we perceive that may result in a disparity between the perfect form and the material form could be interpreted as evil and any action on our part that furthers such a disparity could also be interpreted as an evil act.

That I fully understand but the problem of evil is very real, we feel it in every moment of our lives.

The reward might be that we can see and understand the beatific vision of the form and how the material and the form relate and the converse being that the punishment could be that one loses the ability to see the beatific vision and the perfect relationship with the knowledge that such exists.

Oh well, if there is such a thing like beatific vision. Why beautiful vision should be a reward? I think those who reject God also deserve to have it. This way they could make a better decision, to accept or to reject God.

 

[PapyrusDouay]

What I mean is that a constant change is not really a change. Consider a car that is moving with constant speed. You can always find a frame of reference which car doesn’t move within it.
.

Yes, exactly. And as this was a reference to that phenomenon of constant change in nature/creation, it brings me right back to my point. It then cannot be a state of potentiality, and so must be a state of actuality. A state of no change = a state of actuality = perfection (definitions based off your arguement) If by your definition, a state of actuality is “perfection”, then creation must be “perfect”. So… God, who is perfect, did not create something that is imperfect.

Or to put another way, you tried to prove that an imperfect creation is evidence of an imperfect God. We’ve now established that there is no imperfect creation, so there is no evidence of an imperfect God.

 

[bardegaulois]

STT, I wonder if you’re drawing your arguments from a certain reading of some philosophical tradition you’re somehow not citing or mentioning here, or if you’re just seeming to make these up as you go along. If I can interject Aquinas here for a moment, he speaks in the first Part of the Summa, Question 9, about God in Himself as actus purus, containing all perfections, completely immutable, and not containing any admixture of potentiality.

However, the second article of this question deals with the mutability of every creature. Not once does Aquinas fall into the easy dualism of stating that the Creator is perfect, and thus creation is imperfect, as you seem to be doing. Indeed, perfection was spoken about in Question 4, but not once was creation asserted to be imperfect - neither there nor in the part dealing with creation later. Moreover, I don’t know where you’re getting your conflation of immutability and perfection from.

It seems you’ve read enough of the Summa and Aristotle to think you have an inkling of Catholic philosophy, but not enough to understand it as you ought. If you want to read more about what Aquinas says about God as actus purus, go ahead: newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm

 

[rinnie]

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.

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.

Creation.

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

Where does Catholic teaching giving birth is sinful?

And the Blessed Mother being free from original sin at her conception is indeed a Catholic teaching.

What does God saying that creation is good have to do with wheat and I guess you are saying barley. Why is it the fault of God if his creation is created for good? Did you expect him to created Man to be bad? And if so why?

And it is sad you do not understand the Love God has for us to send his only Son to pay for our sins, so we can have eternal life with him.

 

[rinnie]

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.

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.

Creation.

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

How can you judge God and say he is a sinner because he created Man? Who named you Judge. The word of God states he is perfect without sin, and he is the one to judge us, and no one is worthy to Judge God.

 

[STT]

Yes, exactly. And as this was a reference to that phenomenon of constant change in nature/creation, it brings me right back to my point. It then cannot be a state of potentiality, and so must be a state of actuality. A state of no change = a state of actuality = perfection (definitions based off your arguement) If by your definition, a state of actuality is “perfection”, then creation must be “perfect”. So… God, who is perfect, did not create something that is imperfect.

I don’t understand how do you get from this (red one) to this (blue one).

Or to put another way, you tried to prove that an imperfect creation is evidence of an imperfect God. We’ve now established that there is no imperfect creation, so there is no evidence of an imperfect God.

No, you have not establish that universe is perfect. Universe is in fact subjected to change which is not constant. Therefore universe is in the state of potentiality.

 

[STT]

How can you judge God and say he is a sinner because he created Man? Who named you Judge. The word of God states he is perfect without sin, and he is the one to judge us, and no one is worthy to Judge God.

We are going nowhere if we don’t judge what we accepted as belief. I think we have the right to judge what we accepted as God because we are not given opportunity to be with God, to know God, etc. We are simply left in the wilderness.

 

[STT]

STT, I wonder if you’re drawing your arguments from a certain reading of some philosophical tradition you’re somehow not citing or mentioning here, or if you’re just seeming to make these up as you go along. If I can interject Aquinas here for a moment, he speaks in the first Part of the Summa, Question 9, about God in Himself as actus purus, containing all perfections, completely immutable, and not containing any admixture of potentiality.

I am just making up my question as I go along.

However, the second article of this question deals with the mutability of every creature. Not once does Aquinas fall into the easy dualism of stating that the Creator is perfect, and thus creation is imperfect, as you seem to be doing. Indeed, perfection was spoken about in Question 4, but not once was creation asserted to be imperfect - neither there nor in the part dealing with creation later. Moreover, I don’t know where you’re getting your conflation of immutability and perfection from.

Perfection is the state of actuality therefore there is no mutability in perfection.

It seems you’ve read enough of the Summa and Aristotle to think you have an inkling of Catholic philosophy, but not enough to understand it as you ought. If you want to read more about what Aquinas says about God as actus purus, go ahead: newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm

Thanks for the link.

 

[bardegaulois]

I am just making up my question as I go along.

Perfection is the state of actuality therefore there is no mutability in perfection.

Thanks for the link.

Yep, so I thought. Thus perfection, actuality, potentiality, and mutability are only what you define them to be, with absolutely no reference to Aristotle, Aquinas, or any other thinker who has dealt with such concepts. Rather, as with Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, you words mean only what you want them to mean, without any respect for the conventionalities and understanding necessary to communicate your ideas. Moreover, if your ideas are challenged, you reply not with a cogent argument back, but merely with contradiction.

There was a Monty Python sketch that had this as its premise. Come to think of it… Lewis Carroll, Monty Python… Can you prove to the rest of us, STT, that you are not simply a creation of absurdist British humour?

 

[PapyrusDouay]

I don’t understand how do you get from this (red one) to this (blue one)…

You don’t understand it because you intentionally excluded the rest of the paragraph which set the background for this (as have the rest of our posts/discussions)

No, you have not establish that universe is perfect. Universe is in fact subjected to change which is not constant. Therefore universe is in the state of potentiality.

I did. See above…you’re the one who state previously that the constant change in the universe is not change because it is constant. Based on that (your own definitions), the constant change would not technically be change but a constant. So you yourself, through your own examples have concluded creation is in a state of actuality because the change is not actually “change”, and therefore creation is perfect (state of actuality and state of perfection are the same, according to you). You describe it as true, but you don’t want to explicitly say this is true or accept it.

You initially concluded that since creation is imperfect, then God, it’s creator must be imperfect. Using the same logic…since we’ve determined creation is perfect, then God, it’s creator must be perfect. … the only way this wouldn’t be true is if you’re denying your initial arguements all together.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m still waiting for him to explain to me where the imperfection lies in a caterpillar becoming a butterfly or a rosebud blooming into a rose…

 

[STT]

You don’t understand it because you intentionally excluded the rest of the paragraph which set the background for this (as have the rest of our posts/discussions)

No, I understand the rest of comment. You are basically talking about constant change which is not the case in the universe.

I did. See above…you’re the one who state previously that the constant change in the universe is not change because it is constant. Based on that (your own definitions), the constant change would not technically be change but a constant. So you yourself, through your own examples have concluded creation is in a state of actuality because the change is not actually “change”, and therefore creation is perfect (state of actuality and state of perfection are the same, according to you). You describe it as true, but you don’t want to explicitly say this is true or accept it.

The change in universe is not constant. It is more complex than that.

You initially concluded that since creation is imperfect, then God, it’s creator must be imperfect. Using the same logic…since we’ve determined creation is perfect, then God, it’s creator must be perfect. … the only way this wouldn’t be true is if you’re denying your initial arguements all together.

This doesn’t follow unless you explain how the universe could be perfect.

 

[STT]

I’m still waiting for him to explain to me where the imperfection lies in a caterpillar becoming a butterfly or a rosebud blooming into a rose…

Something which is perfect cannot change. It cannot become better or worst.

 

[z_0101]

I’m still waiting for him to explain to me where the imperfection lies in a caterpillar becoming a butterfly or a rosebud blooming into a rose…
STT;14458809:

Something which is perfect cannot change. It cannot become better or worst.

Is the caterpillar any better or worse than the butterfly or the rosebud better than the rose?
These are as they are designed to be, no more, nor less

Better and worse are very subjective and imho go back to my posting on Plato’s theory of Forms.

 

[Vonsalza]

Something which is perfect cannot change. It cannot become better or worst.

Quoting axiom is not proof.

I reject the truth value of the statement. Ergo, in order to construct logical conclusions using it as a premise, you must prove its truth value.

 

[Reepicheep]

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

Your argument seems to be that the only perfect state is one of stasis. I do not agree.

If a perfect being is not capable of acting then how can it be said to be perfect? If it is capable of acting then it is capable of producing change.
It does not follow that the perfect being will itself be changed by acting.

God can change me without God being changed by the act of changing me.

 

[STT]

Is the caterpillar any better or worse than the butterfly or the rosebud better than the rose?
These are as they are designed to be, no more, nor less

Better or worse in the eyes of beholder which is to my understanding subjective not objective as perfection.

Better and worse are very subjective and imho go back to my posting on Plato’s theory of Forms.

I agree that better and worse are subjective. The worst however does not exist and the best is God and this to my understanding is objective. What do you think?