C2 is unnecessary since we aren’t talking about imperfection, only change and perfection, besides it doesn’t add anything to the argument.
C1 is right but, to avoid misunderstanding, I think it is better to say that change is only possible in imperfect things. That is, things in motion.
Wrong, as usual. This argument is not about change. It is about the degree of perfection within every genus and within every species. Since none of the individuals of any genus/species has absolute perfection in any class of perfections, none can be the cause of any of the classes of perfection. Take ’ existence ’ for example. nothing in the realm of material being possess perfect existence. Therefore existence of any thing in the material realm owes its existence to some thing outside the material realm which is perfect. And since we cannot go on to infinity in such causes, there must be one thing which is Pure Existence, and this we call God, who causes the existence of every other thing and every perfection outside of himself.
C2 necessary otherwise C3 doesn’t follow, unless C3 is self-evident to you.
The question is whether perfection could objectively exists, so called God. C3 says no hence C4 follows.
Good.
How about existence as a whole, including God? I wanted to open a line of argument along that side. So let me present it to you:
P1: Change exists
That I know. I just open a line of argument to show that perfection is its murderer, meaning that it cannot exist assuming that it exists because we are faced with a contradiction. Please read post #24.
I repeat my response in post #23. " This argument is not about change. It is about the degree of perfection within every genus and within every species. Since none of the individuals of any genus/species has absolute perfection in any class of perfections, none can be the cause of any of the classes of perfection. Take ’ existence ’ for example. nothing in the realm of material being possess perfect existence. Therefore existence of any thing in the material realm owes its existence to some thing outside the material realm which is perfect. And since we cannot go on to infinity in such causes, there must be one thing which is Pure Existence, and this we call God, who causes the existence of every other thing and every perfection outside of himself. "
This is where your misunderstanding of God comes in. God (as Fr. Robert Barron is fond of saying) is not just one thing among many. He is not part of the material world and so can’t be classified the same way. Our level of existence in the material world can’t be compared to God’s since he caused our existence.
Thank you for that explanation Linus, it cleared things up for me
Again, C2 is just self-evident, it doesn’t follow from any of the premises so there is no sense in calling it a conclusion.
By what rule of inference do you get C3? C3 should be that the things that change cannot be perfect
I didn’t talk about material word. I talk about whole. Is God a part of the whole? Or God is the whole? Can’t we really separate God from creation? If yes my argument follows and I don’t understand your objection.
Yes God is separate from creation, I don’t see why that supports your argument.
Good and I agree. C2 could however be concluded from previous prepositions and conclusion.
P1: Change exists
This is simple. The boundary cannot exist which means that either God exist or Creation/Universe but not both. We however know that changes exist which means that creation exist hence God cannot exist.
We are living in the universe which is subjected to change. But because of C2 we cannot possibly experience both perfection and imperfection objectively hence we are left with imperfection and change. Hence, God is only a subjective concept.
I am confused. You can look at premises and conclusion if you have any objection. I would be happy to hear you.
The forth argument is about perfection. Am I right? I am trying to simply prove that perfection cannot objectively exist and only exists as an idea.
No, its about graduations of qualities.
By mischaracterizing the fourth way, you may actually be proving that perfection objectively exists, else there could no basis for the claim.
That I understand. But the proof is an attempt to prove God as perfect being.
No, I am aware of that and thanks for your comment.
Not exactly. It is concluded in the fourth way that there must be a perfect being.
]Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
So called God?
P4 is poorly worded but I know what you are trying to say and it requires some justification.There is only a “boundary” between God and creation in the sense that God and his creation are not the same thing. This “boundary” is not something with ontological existence which is neither God nor creation, as you seem to be implying.
C2 implies is that a thing cannot be both perfect and imperfect.