RE: Theists: What do you mean when you say that God is 'perfect'?
November 30, 2017 at 1:59 pm
(This post was last modified: November 30, 2017 at 2:10 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
The way I personally understand perfection is it is the same as flawlessness or being without flaws. If God has no flaws then he is perfect. But flawlessness should only apply to existent things, of course. It would be silly to say everything we can conceive of that doesn't exist is perfect.
So, I am no theologian, and in fact I think Theology is far less of a subject than the study of utter bollocks, seen as testicles actually exist, but as far as I'm concerned if God exists then God is perfect if he has no flaws.
So, indeed, in that sense I guess it really should refer to what God is not: flawed. If God is real and also flawless then he is perfect, but if he is real and has flaws then he is not perfect. If God is not real then it's a pointless question to ask. Existence is separate from essence, but if we're talking about 'something nonexistent' then who cares. I'd only be interested in God's perfection/imperfection if I believed God existed. Otherwise I may as well be asking if Superman is really all that super.
But in any case, if people are trying to prove God's perfection by saying what his abilities and strengths are then I think they are going about that the wrong approach. I think the list is too long, it would be like trying to prove that all swans are white by finding more white swans. I think they should focus on possible weakness instead and see if he has any. I think a better approach is to imagine what kinds of possible flaws there are and seeing if God has any. And, of course, the fact he doesn't have any can't be because there isn't any him to have any. You have to ask "if God exists and God is X way . . . does X way of being have any flaws?" Asking if God's nature is perfect seems less helpful to me than asking "Does his essence have any flaws?" . . . his essence just literally being "What he at least hypothetically is, leaving the question of existence aside for a moment.".
So, I am no theologian, and in fact I think Theology is far less of a subject than the study of utter bollocks, seen as testicles actually exist, but as far as I'm concerned if God exists then God is perfect if he has no flaws.
So, indeed, in that sense I guess it really should refer to what God is not: flawed. If God is real and also flawless then he is perfect, but if he is real and has flaws then he is not perfect. If God is not real then it's a pointless question to ask. Existence is separate from essence, but if we're talking about 'something nonexistent' then who cares. I'd only be interested in God's perfection/imperfection if I believed God existed. Otherwise I may as well be asking if Superman is really all that super.
But in any case, if people are trying to prove God's perfection by saying what his abilities and strengths are then I think they are going about that the wrong approach. I think the list is too long, it would be like trying to prove that all swans are white by finding more white swans. I think they should focus on possible weakness instead and see if he has any. I think a better approach is to imagine what kinds of possible flaws there are and seeing if God has any. And, of course, the fact he doesn't have any can't be because there isn't any him to have any. You have to ask "if God exists and God is X way . . . does X way of being have any flaws?" Asking if God's nature is perfect seems less helpful to me than asking "Does his essence have any flaws?" . . . his essence just literally being "What he at least hypothetically is, leaving the question of existence aside for a moment.".
