If God is perfection, then how come we are supposedly not?
Now I realize that “freewill” (the magic word that just comes out of nowhere) supposedly justifies imperfection in the universe, but how is it feasible that some entity that knows only perfection can create something … imperfect?
And if we claim that God is only capable of creating perfection, then isn’t it feasible that everything within the universe is “perfect” and can only be perfect?
It really isn’t very logical to impose that a perfect God created us to be imperfect. And if God DID create us to be perfect, then this is evidence that God isn’t perfect … at least in terms of creating a perfection.
Now freewill is certainly the capacity for imperfection, so we can’t really use that argument to justify “imperfection.”
Now if we take the notion that God can only be perfect and was the sole creator of everything with the intent of perfection, then everything within the universe is perfect to this God. It has no possible source for imperfection except through God.
Maybe the universe and everything in it, including ALL of humankind, is perfect if we consider deriving from perfection?
If we take the Christian perspective, and if you accept that Jesus Christ is God, Perfection personified, who became Man, then is Man, the creature, imperfect? Also was the original Man, Adam imperfect too? (And Paul called Jesus Christ the second Adam) Or is imperfection merely the possession of knowledge of good and evil? But God do have the knowledge of good and evil too. But perhaps we are begging the question here: What is imperfection vis-a-vis Perfection as we know, albeit without clarity, it in God.
If we look away from Man, and at Angels, are Angels Perfect or Imperfect? Off course you may say we know nothing about angels and rendering this whole approach moot.
Well if it is looked upon that the universe itself is a manifestation from perfection, then is this manifestation still “perfect” if it cannot create something that becomes a manifestation of perfection itself?
Now if we take this the other way and claim that the universe and all within it did derive from perfection, then wouldn’t it be more logical to deduce that the way everything within the universe functions perfectly as was planned by the perfect manifestation?
Therefore, if we have to submit to the notion that the universe derived completely from a perfect source then everything that encompasses is perfect as well. It would be impossible for anything to be imperfect from a perfect source unless that source was not perfect.
Can we honestly claim that it is more logical to assert that imperfection can exist now if at some point imperfection never did initially?
That doesn’t make any sense. It seems more logical to deduce that either this manifestation was imperfect and has remained imperfect or is perfect and has remained perfect.
The “mystery” of this shift is “explained” through free will, but it is not explained at all. It just takes emphasis off of the equation.
It seems to me that there are two realistic probabilities in regards to such a manifestation origin:
Everything has worked out as planned and the universe in it’s entirety is “perfect.”
or
Everything has not worked out as planned within the universe because it was imperfect from it’s conception by an imperfect manifestation.
To say that God is perfect and created a perfect universe would mean that everything within the universe can only be perfect. To say that God is imperfect and created an imperfect universe makes more sense as well. But to say that God is perfect, but created the universe to be imperfect really isn’t very logical.
No it is not dishonest nor illogical to assert that. What was initially and what is now may not necessarily be the same thing. How can you deduce logically that a thing “perfect” remains “perfect”?
To make such a deduction you would have to explain what you mean by a “perfect” thing. If you define immutability or unchangeability as necessary attributes in being “perfect” then you have a tautology, and we will not make any progress in the real world. We then cannot disagree your logic that a perfect thing remains perfect and an imperfect cannot start perfect but we have no idea whether that corresponds to reality or not.
And so you have to return to the real world and show why you think the Universe is a “perfect” or “imperfect” thing. Only then are we beginning to talk meaningfully.
And you have to show the role of “free will”, whatever it is, in such a world and its ability to cause/affect perfection or otherwise.
If perfection is all the prevailed, then how can anything else BUT perfection not reign unless something OTHER THAN perfection was introduced?
It isn’t logical to assert otherwise.
To claim the universe is an all encompassed creation of God and only God with no other input, then this is the culmination of God’s creation. To claim that something doesn’t necessarily have to remain “perfect” when perfection is all it could possibly ever know doesn’t make sense either.
I think free will is used as an excuse to cover these irrationalities. How can we possibly understand God if we are only chasing our tails? Free will is nothing more than chasing our own tails and ignoring the logic used to understand how something that can be “perfect” can create something that is supposedly imperfect even though it has no other means of knowing anyting different from the initial perfection. There is no deviation present or even possible from this initial perfection unless the initial manifestation allowed it … perfectly and willingly.
I agree Dev. Whatever is simply is. I was merely pointing out that to claim that what is is a negative deviation from the initial manifestation belittles the initial manifestation. It doesn’t empower it.
Is that so? It is not obvious to me why it is so, even if I accept what you said is negative is indeed negative. And then there is no logical necessity that it cannot be so, right?
Again where is the logical necessity for “empowerment” of the “initial manifestation”?
Ok, God created the universe supposedly. God being this initial manifestation. Let’s also “assume” according to the argument that God was the only influence upon this universe.
Now, if God was the ONLY initial influence upon the universe and God is perfect, where exactly did the deviation towards imperfection derive from?
What I am claiming is that the universe and everything within the universe is perfect due to the initial source being perfect in itself. I do not see, and perhaps you can logically explain to me, how there can be any deviation from the initial source without any outside influences. If we are to assume that God, and only God, created the universe, then it is only feasible that everything within the universe can know nothing else but what God has imposed upon this creation.
If God is perfect, then the universe has no other influence except this perfect influence … unless there is some outside influence at some point.
I never said that there was a logical necessity, but only imposing that if we are to claim that an imperfect universe exists, then it leads ultimately to an imperfect creator. If we claim that there is a perfect creator, then this leads to a perfect creation.
This is really rather simple:
Perfect creator = perfect creation
Imperfect creator = imperfect creation
Please correct me if I am wrong, but due to your persistant refutations, I’m assuming this is your thesis:
Perfect creator = imperfect creation
I realize that “freewill” is used to explain the deviation, but is free will NOT still part of the creation?
That, at least to me, isn’t logical at all. To each their own.
WHY cant a perfect creator = perfect OR imperfect creation?
But then such arguments are meaningless and goes round and round in circles because we have not make clear our implicit meaning of such words as “perfect” or “imperfect”.
What you have implictly assumed is that a Perfect Creator CANNOT (by definition?) create an Imperfect Creation. If you have defined it so then it is so, and I have no arguments with you. That is all I want to get from you.
I can also argue that a Perfection constrained to just Perfection, or any other constrains, is not Perfection at all. An infinity set can have proper subsets that are both infinite and finite cant it?
Now if you want to debate, meaningfully, then you must be prepared to hear other views, ideas, definitions of what Perfect is and be ready to adjust, accommodate, revise or refute these.
And another error, logical one, you have committed is that you have, again implicitly, taken that the Universe is Imperfect and assumed we know what you are talking about. Two objections: have you been fully acquainted with Perfection to say what is not? And then what is it in the Universe that makes it Imperfect? Death, Destruction and Decay? If so why are such incompatible with the notion of Perfection?
I think you are just looking for an argument and not actually considering my thought at all. You are just being an antagonist. Is this even a “debate?” Do you even have a position or just vested in degrading and lecturing me on every thought I propose?
I’m just pointing out that it is common in theological thought to impose that the creator is “perfect” (however you want to define “perfect”) but the creation is not. That, at least to me, doesn’t make much sense. I can only assume that since you are refuting everything that I have to say then it makes perfect sense to you. Please by all means explain to me how a creator can create something different from itself that has no other influence other than the initial manifestation.
Please, for once, instead of attacking my position, let me hear yours. If all you can do is complain about the thought of others without any thought of your own, then this conversation is over from my end.
)