Is God Perfect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevin100

Aristotle could not account for infinity. I think this is a problem for him, and us today in explaining non cause and effect. In short: if you accept that time is infinite you do not need a first mover. Language does not accommodate infinity terribly easily. (If it took an infinite amount of time to get to here today, we would no be here today.) Children have no problem with "it has always been, and it will go on forever", some philosophers consider this to be immature thinking. I am not sure that it is. I think that the older we become the more thought is controlled by language. We cannot think that which we cannot express, or is simpler terms thought is language driven. I think children do not think in this way. They solve problems by imagination rather than by thought.
Kevin

---

But science hasn't discovered anything that's infinite yet. It's still just theory. As far as I can tell from the science literature I read, it's getting increasingly unlikely that we ever will.

Also I think you've mixed up your terminology when it comes to time. Time is a relative function of movement. If we accept the theory of the Big Bang, then "before" it there was no time. Impossible for us to comprehend, but not in any way infinite.

I'm not an ace at general relativity so please correct me if I got anything wrong here.

I've stopped picking on religious, (from the popular supernatural religions). They're wrong on so many levels. Why nit pick about details and degrees of wrongness? It's just cruel.

I’ve done a little more reading around the subject (yep: I wiki’d it). But don’t imagine that what follows is at all scholarly, correct, or even sustainable. It simply reflects my current, limited understanding

First: Paradise Lost. Milton used the Garden of Eden allegory as a metaphor for England’s fall from grace after the dissolution of the Commonwealth and the restoration of the Crown. That’s what I’m told. Maybe this means that God in the poem was King Charles in reality. And while appearing to be perfect, i.e., good, He in fact was evil and trapped Eve into taking the Forbidden Fruit. Thus eating the Forbidden Fruit is participating in an evil regime - the monarchy - and the expulsion from Eden is the demise of the Commonwealth. Although in reality, the Restoration happened after the Commonwealth crumbled, not the other way round.

Second: As to perfection, the ancients did not understand the concept in the way we do today. For them, perfection was “endless” or “great”. Later Parmenides regarded perfection as complete, or entire, and finite. Plato considered the world to be perfect because it was spherical and moved in a perfect circle. It was also in a state of harmony because it had been created by a good demiurge (a creator god who is not necessarily supreme). Thus “perfection” has limits: the creator does not. Aristotle appears to have held the same view – the world was perfect, but the creator was not.

Not even when the Christianity came along was God held to be perfect. He could not be, because He was not finite. Only a finite being lacks nothing and is therefore perfect (I don’t follow that idea at all! Aquinas put it this way, "That is perfect, which lacks nothing of the perfection proper to it" which is a little easier to understand, I think). Also, the divine is beyond human comprehension and is beyond anything we can imagine, including perfection.

It was Descartes who attributed perfection to God. Descartes was a contemporary of Milton, and I think it is likely that the latter was aware of his ideas. I do not know if he was influenced by them, though. According to Descartes, God possessed “perfections” which implies that He was greater then any one perfection and probably greater than all of them together.

Thus, the apparent paradox in Paradise Lost may be resolved if you allow that God is above perfection (we have already considered this in earlier posts), and that Milton did not even consider it necessary to consider perfection. It still leaves open the question whether God was good or evil to “test” Adam and Eve, knowing that they could not possibly pass that test, and then to cast them out of Eden for failing.

TYWD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

Also, the divine is beyond human comprehension and is beyond anything we can imagine, including perfection.

---

This is also known as Christian mysticism and can only work once the paradigm of thought is been shifted to only include "the unmoved mover". The reason for this is of course that it is "argument from ignorance". When in doubt insert God, since it's the default faith. This was just as much a logical fallacy in Aquinas day as it is now. Today we say "God of gaps" and smirk a bit when ever it's brought up.

We can't say anything about something beyond our imagination. It effectively prevents us from having faith in it. We can't take a leap of faith if we don't know to where were leaping. It also makes it impossible for us to deduce God's perfection.

That's the thing I love about Aquinas. He spent his whole life dedicated to proving Gods existence and all he did was to prove that it rests on circular argumentation from the lack of evidence.

I love religion.

Tom: I do not want to believe that divine perfection is beyond human contemplation - and I would not disagree with you for saying divine perfection depends upon human contemplation.

However, I have trouble with the suggestion that perfection depends upon a prime mover, as you appear to hold. Is this because you consider the prime mover creates everything, including concepts like hard and soft, abstract and concrete, early and late, perfect and imperfect? I am of the view that these concepts do not get created and would be the same in any other universe as they are in this one.

We have discovered (or I have anyway) that the early Christians and the Ancients did not link the two things: God was not perfect because he was not limited, and to be perfect, a thing had to be complete, entire or finished. But they also believed He was the prime mover notwithstanding his "unfinished" condition.

So why is it necessary for perfection to depend upon a prime mover?

TYWD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

Tom: I do not want to believe that divine perfection is beyond human contemplation - and I would not disagree with you for saying divine perfection depends upon human contemplation.

However, I have trouble with the suggestion that perfection depends upon a prime mover, as you appear to hold. Is this because you consider the prime mover creates everything, including concepts like hard and soft, abstract and concrete, early and late, perfect and imperfect? I am of the view that these concepts do not get created and would be the same in any other universe as they are in this one.

We have discovered (or I have anyway) that the early Christians and the Ancients did not link the two things: God was not perfect because he was not limited, and to be perfect, a thing had to be complete, entire or finished. But they also believed He was the prime mover notwithstanding his "unfinished" condition.

So why is it necessary for perfection to depend upon a prime mover?

TYWD

---

Actually I think it does. The prime mover has to set up the rules. The whole point with the idea of the prime mover is that it was nothing before it at all. Compare it to the Hindu god Brahma who not only had the power to create the world but also itself. It must be the same deal with the Christian concept of god. They just ignore anything "before". What is considered perfect is relative and strongly dependent upon the universe it exists in. It's also dependent on context, but let's ignore that for now. All the concepts: hard and soft, abstract and concrete, early and late, perfect and imperfect are all highly context sensitive and are of course not the same regardless of universe. I'm sure you'll agree if you just gave it a little extra thought.

I have tried, but I cannot see why perfection must be linked to a prime mover, even in the context of our earlier posts (only after Descartes was God, the prime mover, held to be perfect and the chances are that Milton did not regard Him as such at all).

It is agreed that perfection only came into being after the Creation, but not that it might be something else had the universe been made differently. I still think that, whether in a divinely created, three-dimensional universe, or an eleven dimensional one brought into being by some colossal explosion out of nothing, and tied together with bits of string, up is still up, and not left, or right, or having the characteristics of Swedishness. Likewise, first will always be followed by last and, to my way of thinking, perfect will always be flawless. If these concepts are the same in any universe, they are not created by God, they just ARE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

I have tried, but I cannot see why perfection must be linked to a prime mover, even in the context of our earlier posts (only after Descartes was God, the prime mover, held to be perfect and the chances are that Milton did not regard Him as such at all).

It is agreed that perfection only came into being after the Creation, but not that it might be something else had the universe been made differently. I still think that, whether in a divinely created, three-dimensional universe, or an eleven dimensional one brought into being by some colossal explosion out of nothing, and tied together with bits of string, up is still up, and not left, or right, or having the characteristics of Swedishness. Likewise, first will always be followed by last and, to my way of thinking, perfect will always be flawless. If these concepts are the same in any universe, they are not created by God, they just ARE.

---

Abstract semantic containers are always different depending on what you put in it. For every Christian there's a different "god" concept. For every person there's a different "perfection" concept. It's just play with words. These concepts only have value when you talk about concrete manifestations of them. You can discuss that in relative terms, but not it's "perfection".

ie The entity that controlled the pen of all the authors and editors of the Bible, that voice in my head when I pray, that entity that guided my car away from the collision and that force that made sure my baby was beautiful..etc. What can I deduce about the entity from these manifestations? I can't even deduce they're the same entity, so whether or not it's perfect or not doesn't really enter in to it.

Whether or not god is perfect or not is just double abstraction. It's like saying the words, "Complete and unhinged greatness" and pretending you've made a statement or even a complete sentence.

edit: just to be perfectly clear here, I'm not talking about whether or not "God" exists or not. I'm simply talking about what the concept of "God" includes. Which is the step before exploring any possible existence.

If we deny words a common, precise meaning, how can we consider the question at all? Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

If we deny words a common, precise meaning, how can we consider the question at all? Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.

---

I'd argue that abstract words are very valuable. The whole point with abstract words is that they are containers to be filled with meaning. They are like variables in programming. A very powerful tool.

It only becomes a problem when the content of the container is erroneously inferred.

According to the linguist Stephen Pinker we cannot actually imagine anything abstract and will always see everything as concrete. So when we talk about it we translate it from the abstract to concrete and then the receiver needs to do the opposite for it to make any sense.

Compare it to talking about a car. If I say, "You will be able to transport the garden table in your car". I always have one image of a car in my mind which I fit the table in, while you in your head will have another image of a car which you are trying to fit the same table into. If it won't fit in your image you'll have to think of another concrete car in which it will fit. This is not a problem with the abstract word "car", this is a strength. One word, ("car") can mean any car which saves a lot of time and energy.

The word "god" is the exact same thing. If I say "god listens to your prayers", I have imagined a concrete physical way I'm effected by that god, and also a concrete way I'm praying and for these words to be transferred. It may not be conscious, but we all do it. It needs to be translated to a physical way you feel when there is god-human contact.

"God" has not been given a common precise meaning for Christians so no Christian knows they are talking about the same god as another when they are referring to this abstract entity. I think they are on purpose avoiding this because it will create a stronger perceived unity between Christians. It's a bit like a national flag. We all try our hardest to keep the symbol as free as possible from anything concrete. It's all rubbish like "the land of the free" and other abstract expressions. This may be a very powerful reason, and even very positive. But we shouldn't work backward from this and start assuming that just because many people stand behind the same symbol, that the symbol symbolises the same thing for each supporter.

This is why reasoning about any concrete physical properties of god always will fail. Thomas Aquinas has taken this and run with it as far as we could, and it didn't go very well.

I wish I'd started this thread before I'd taken my English A-Level exam. But I'm 40 years too late! However, I suspect the examiner might have said I'd strayed too far away from Milton's Paradise Lost to pass.

I'm filled with admiration and respect for you, Tom.

TYWD

Is God perfect....hmm interesting,

Now Satan and his devils weren't always evil. Satan before his fall was one of the bigger heavenly creatures and his name was Lucifer «he who carries the light». His position was on the highest place of the unbody creatures and spiritual perfectio

Before his fall he was the first in the angelic hierarchy having power, brilliance, wisdom as well as the kindness of the angelic nature. He was Gods right hand man and yet tried to over throw God. Now if God was perfect would he have not seen this coming? Would he have not allowed Satan such power in the first place? Evil and imperfection was there before man and the temptation of Eve.

Perhaps God tested man with the forbidden fruit as he had been betrayed by one so close already. Hence he is not perfect as he knows doubt and betrayal.

Thank-you Widget. Very nicely put.

Now, we have all heard references to an angry God in the Old Testament. And He admits to being a jealous God too (although the meaning of "jealous" might be up for debate). Man has experienced the wrath of God many times. My question now is, does God have the right to punish Man for any transgressions of holy writ that he commits? If God is not perfect Himself, can He expect us to overcome our failings?

Someone trawled through the Bible and counted how many deaths God is responsible for: well over 2 million* (and I think that excludes "uncountable" events like the Flood). Were these the acts of a fair and just God, I wonder (I notice some wag commented, "They all deserved it." Maybe they did. What do you think?).

And someone also asked how many deaths Lucifer was responsible for. Wouldn't that be interesting to know?

TYWD


* http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot....od-killed.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

And someone also asked how many deaths Lucifer was responsible for. Wouldn't that be interesting to know?

TYWD


* http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot....od-killed.html

---

But how does this compare with Satan? How many did he kill in the Bible?

The only direct reference to Satan killing in the bible is in the book of Job, and even these he shares with God, since God allowed him to do it as a part of a bet.The seven sons and three daughters of Job.

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job ... And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.
...
And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the LORD ... put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
...
And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house...And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. -- Job 1:1-19

Now come to mention it, God was gambling with his people like we bet on horses or dogs. Is this also an act of a perfect God? One who casually bets with another over his "children's" actions and thinks nothing of seeing everything taken from Job, his family, home, health, status and respect. Then gives him back a new family as if the old family meant little or nothing to replace like one would put a bull in a new heard of cows. Talk about adding insult to injury.

I thought Satan just was a misunderstanding. Armstrong spells it out in her, the History of God.

If I remember correctly. The root of the word is from erroneous worship. If you do it wrong you worship "Sheitan". So let's say God thinks suicide bombing really is wrong and you blow yourself up in gods name. Or even as something as simple as going to church on a Saturday. Then you're worshipping Satan.

So Satan isn't an actual entity or force. It's a misunderstanding, (on several levels). As far as I know it's only Catholicism who believe in Satan as a guy with horns. All the other Abrahamic sects have stuck with the original interpretation. So being corrupted by the devil isn't being talked into doing bad. It's just you being confused. Which is a much more beautiful world, isn't it?

It's also a very old term that is pre-pagan even.

edit: and reverting to the classic interpretation also evaporates a whole bag of theological paradoxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

So Satan isn't an actual entity or force. It's a misunderstanding, (on several levels). As far as I know it's only Catholicism who believe in Satan as a guy with horns. All the other Abrahamic sects have stuck with the original interpretation. So being corrupted by the devil isn't being talked into doing bad. It's just you being confused. Which is a much more beautiful world, isn't it?

---

Except that then one can only blame God for the evil in the world, not a dark, depraved Nemesis. Either that or we must all take responsibility for the evils that we do. No more, "The Devil made me do it!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

Thus, the apparent paradox in Paradise Lost may be resolved if you allow that God is above perfection (we have already considered this in earlier posts), and that Milton did not even consider it necessary to consider perfection. It still leaves open the question whether God was good or evil to “test” Adam and Eve, knowing that they could not possibly pass that test, and then to cast them out of Eden for failing.

TYWD

---

Ok well you may also add on that since God is all knowing is aware of how everything will unfold before it happens, then he was testing them knowing they would fail. Then he laid the smack down on the descendants of man, not just the offending parties and singled out the woman for the extra bit of punishment. God would have been aware of the presence of the serpent that will be Eve's tempter and seducer into disobedience. Sort of makes the whole thing seem like a cruel game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Widget

Ok well you may also add on that since God is all knowing is aware of how everything will unfold before it happens, then he was testing them knowing they would fail. Then he laid the smack down on the descendants of man, not just the offending parties and singled out the woman for the extra bit of punishment. God would have been aware of the presence of the serpent that will be Eve's tempter and seducer into disobedience. Sort of makes the whole thing seem like a cruel game.

---

It's one of the reasons I'm not Christian. Not because evil exists. I don't believe in evil. Christianity itself creates a universe where it's good vs evil struggle, but the creator is good. So Christianity has set itself up as its own logical inconsistency. But this can all be solved by reading the Bible liberally. I read it so liberally that it becomes irrelevant. It also helps if you assume god is free from the shackles of logic that constrains humanity.

i once read "CHOKE," a book by Chuck Palaniuck
in the book it was proposed that Christ had to learn how to use miracles.
maybe God had to learn to use forsight? even if he knew the outcomes, probability of outcomes, and repracautions of each outcome (because life is like dominos) you have the choice to muck with God's plan, or at least try.
take a smoker for example, with every cigarete he is giving God a dead line for his death potentially messing with his plan.
so no i can't say God is perfect

Maybe if He were a SHE he would be perfect?

Dragon

If He were a She, we'd know it!!!

sir, it feels to me you are a bit too influenced by your conditionement. why and wish a perfect god? anything perfect dies and our wonderful, ever changing universe is very alive. the easy way to make all the bit fit looks to me as being able to accept the unity of the universe and of the divine. and no strings attached. we may or may not get it, perfection is all inclusive, inperfection included.
deva

very simple, no he is not, my opnion anyway, sorry if anyone is offended by this but I do not believe he is perfect

To the original thread in the question,"Is God perfect?" the answer is "yes." But God's perfection does not depend on how we define perfection or even how we view God. It depends on what God really Is. God cannot be made different than He Is by saying, "can God make a rock bigger than He can lift?" That's stupid.

The Bible teaches that God is a verb noun. God is a process, a method. an all-knowing Way. Once you understand this, it can be seen that evil is used like a weed to require farmers to to use better "methods" to improve the creation of a perfect garden. The imperfections (weeds) is not the garden but with cultivation the garden can be perfect.

God did not say "let's make man once and for all" but rather He said, Let us make man in our image," which is a process. If you say God is not perfect because you are full of sins, know this, God is still working on you to even make you perfect. The thing about free will is that you can either help God in the process or resist Him. The choice is yours.

I hope this helps!

The second part of your question is "can God be God if he is not perfect?" which I don't think is a logical question. One can not fault God for not being what man says God is. God is still creating the universe with man a part of the universe. God does not have to be man's view of perfection but man must become what God thinks man should be.

One more thought on this subject of the perfection God, notice the relationship between God and man. It is very much like the relationship between a dom and a slave (sub). To be truly happy man must submit to his Master just as a sub must submit to his dome. Somewhere on the net I read the twenty five requirements of how a dom's slave had to commit to the BDSM lifestyle to be a true sub. It sounded like a profession of faith of a Christian to God.

ThisWeWillDo:
You have raised many interesting questions. You say you are not a deep thinker. I think you probably are a deep thinker, which is why you ask for help. The problem might be that you are too close to your religious training and not able to see the big picture. Some of the following may help or at least contribute a different point of view.

If you think of God as a process, it is easier to see him as perfect and always becoming more perfect. Sometimes it takes several tries for the scientific method to produce true facts. Scientists not attack the method when they fail, they keep trying and eventually they learn how to send a man to the moon.

A short statement on Free Will. God did not place man in the garden to Test him but to give a safe haven while He thought man how to live. God was spreading light and wisdom so man could leave the garden and not corrupted the rest of God's creation. That shows man how God expects man to use free will.

God didn't deceive Adam. Adam was not ready (readiness) to exist outside the garden. Don't eat there of is what preached Satan said differently. Don't blame God. You say there is good or evil Blame evil.

The theory behind Christian theology is that Christ came to restore light so mankind can live in the world properly. Again here is that free will of which you speak. The choice is up to you. If you choose evil, don't blame God's imperfection. If you choose good (your wife, children, and friend's well being), be thankful that God allowed the choice.

WMRS2

depeche mode said it best " i think that gods got a sick sence of humour and when i die i expect to find him laughing"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

The second part of your question is "can God be God if he is not perfect?" which I don't think is a logical question. One can not fault God for not being what man says God is. God is still creating the universe with man a part of the universe. God does not have to be man's view of perfection but man must become what God thinks man should be.

---

He he. You're very insightful. I don't often hear Christians having realised this. Of course it also makes God unknowable and makes everything humanity has ever said or believed about God questionable. It defeats the point of having faith in God, doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

He he. You're very insightful. I don't often hear Christians having realised this. Of course it also makes God unknowable and makes everything humanity has ever said or believed about God questionable. It defeats the point of having faith in God, doesn't it?

---

It doesn't necessarily defeat the point of FAITH. It defies those who proclaim to know the will of God, which is religion, which is a whole different thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

It doesn't necessarily defeat the point of FAITH. It defies those who proclaim to know the will of God, which is religion, which is a whole different thing.

---

It actually does. If you don't know what it is you have faith in, then what exactly is it you have faith in/believe? You can't have faith in an abstract concept. If you do, then "faith" is the wrong word for it. You might have faith in that there is something more than what science can prove. A widely abused platitude, but is none the less correct usage.

Christian mysticism and any mysticism cult, were political compromises. They never did make any sense. Nobody educated has ever claimed that. And all these usages of "faith" hail from there. If Spock was here, he'd call it illogical.