Musings about omnipotence and perfection.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

(15th February 2011 11:39)DoubtVsFaith Wrote:  

(9th February 2011 00:18)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:  IN all seriousness though, perfection as a attribute to a being is so vaguely defined that the term is meaningless when used that way. Which is to say, how can a being be perfect?

Perfection is a little different to omnipotence I reckon, and I don't see how it is vaguely defined at all if we are to think of a perfect thing to be a thing without flaws. Perfect=flawless. A being can be perfect if it can be flawless.

(15th February 2011 11:46)DoubtVsFaith Wrote:  It just depends whether you're talking about subjective flaws (i.e "flaws" according to whoever) or actual objective flaws (which do not exist).

I think you just answered your own question here between your response to me and your response to KichigaiNeko. Perfection as well as what does and does not constitute a human flaw is entirely subjective. If science has taught me anything about humans is that even what we generally view as our greatest imperfections have a purpose that has benefitted us in some manner or another whether we realize it or not. Even our own ideas on what constitutes a 'perfect' being is so inhuman and alien to us that we essentially define perfection by the very essence of the fact that we don't understand it. Angels, for example.

Because of that, the idea of perfection essentially works like the god of the gaps - it only works as an idea because it exists in the unknown.
Therefore, perfection is meaningless, though I would hypothosize that perfection as an idea is entirely representative of the unknown. It is in the sense that only the unknown can be perfect. Just a random thought, anyway, if it makes any sense. I'm barely awake at the moment.