(October 28, 2012 at 6:41 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote:(October 28, 2012 at 5:30 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: [...]perfection is not possible logically.
Or maybe flaws are not possible logically?
Try this argument on for size: Objective perfection is the absence of objective flaws. It is not meaning itself, but rather an absence of the negative objective meaning of flaws. It is objective flawlessness. Since there are no objective flaws because there is no objective meaning in the world whatsoever, objective perfection therefore 'exists' as an absence of objective flaws.
Perfection is used in that sense. And in this sense, objective perfection does exist, for example, scoring 100% on a test, is a perfect result.
Perfection in that sense is rationally possible, so it is how we define it. I was using it more in the sense of "Greatest possible being" .
In the case of eternal being, it can be perfect in the sense it has no flaws, but it can't be perfect in the sense it's the greatest possible being.
