Theists: What do you mean when you say that God is 'perfect'?

[Angrboda]

Maybe this is a good way of simplifying it into a quick answer:

"God is absolute in his perfection in that there is nothing lacking in his character or nature.  He does not need anything or anyone to exist. He is complete within Himself."

This is actually asserting three different things, so I'm going to respond to it similarly piecemeal.

God is absolute in his perfection in that there is nothing lacking in his character or nature.

To say that God is absolute in his perfection simply means that however God fulfills the criterion for perfection, he fulfills it in the highest degree; since this is already contained within the notion of what it means to be a perfection, that part of the phrase is just useless verbiage. On the more substantial portion of this phrase, to say that God is not lacking anything is to say that he has a full set of whatever it takes to make a perfection. This doesn't enlighten us as to what the characteristics of such a full set are, so in essence, it leaves the meaning of just what a perfection actually is unanswered. We know that to lack something is to be incomplete; that doesn't tell us what completeness consists of. More to the concerns I raised with Steve, this is suggesting that perfections are in some sense templates as to what it means to be complete. This leaves us with the disturbing question of where do these templates come from, and why these specific templates in particular. As noted, God doesn't fulfill all possible templates, only certain specific ones. And the templates themselves either come from God himself, or from outside of him. Either answer introduces difficulties for the consistency and meaningfulness of Christian theology. That these are perfections of his character or nature opens up additional cans of worms that could take several pages to unravel. (What does it mean for God to have a character or nature?) In short, your formulation raises many questions while not actually answering the original question of what does it mean for God to be perfect.

He does not need anything or anyone to exist.

The last two phrases address what is known as God's aseity, or his divine simplicity. Neo informs me that this is what at one time was considered to be the essence of being perfect, yet in some ways does not fit with our intuitions about what it means to be perfect. As I noted with Neo, the question of what God does or does not need from things outside himself is a question of the relationship between God and external things, which itself is not a part of any definition of perfection that I am familiar with. As such it seems to be a whole cloth substitution of one concept (perfection) with a completely separate and different concept (aseity), and as such doesn't so much answer the question of what a perfection actually is so much as it simply replaces our intuitive notions of perfection with a definition that is wholly other.

He is complete within Himself.

This is another, yet different, aspect of God's aseity. Much like the second entry above, it too rather misses the mark by suggesting that we simply call a concept that isn't perfection by the name of perfection, and thereby seem to have answered the question. In essence, it is simply missing the point like entry two above. Whether God's reasons are sufficient in and of themselves for God does not really address what we mean by perfection. It's an aspect of God, but not the particular one that we are interested in, presumably. In my assumption that you're referring to aseity here, this refers to the sufficiency of God's relationship to himself. As such, it also fails to address what it means to be complete, and just what such a completion (or perfection) is a completion of.

I'm interested in where you pulled this sentence from as it's a rather compact expression of a large expanse of theological questions. Is it your own invention?

Regardless, it's worth noting what Wikipedia says about aseity, if not for your benefit, for that of others reading this thread:

Aseity has two aspects, one positive and one negative: absolute independence and self-existence. In its "negative" meaning, which emerged first in the history of thought, it affirms that God is uncaused, depending on no other being for the source of His existence. In its "positive" meaning, it affirms that God is completely self-sufficient, having within Himself the sufficient reason for His own existence. The first concept derives from "the God of philosophers", while the second one derives from "the living God of Revelation" (I am who I am: Exodus 3:14).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aseity

See also the related entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Divine Simplicity.

[Godscreated]

In a recent conversation with a theist, I asked what makes something 'perfect'.  Their response was that something is perfect if it is "maximally ideal for its intended purpose."  I see this as basically correct.  What makes something a perfect coffee maker would make that same thing a lousy microwave oven, and vice versa.  It seems that to be perfect, a thing must be in some relation to a purpose or an end or a goal such that it maximally fulfills that end.  But here we come upon a problem, because God doesn't have such.  There is no end or purpose or goal which is defined for God.  It would seem at first glance then, that the word simply doesn't apply to God.  If I had a nondescript object on my kitchen counter which had no purpose, what would it mean for me to say that it is 'perfect'?  The best that could be said is that I'm using the word 'perfect' as a superlative, like saying that something is 'super' or 'awesome'.  Yet theists continually assert that their God is 'perfect' and seem to want to mean something more by it than just a superlative, but what do they mean?  Some take the lazy way out and claim that God's perfectness applies to "everything" -- God has all possibilities in the maximal degree, but this is clearly incoherent.  An object which contained all perfections (whatever that means) would include perfect justice and perfect mercy. Since justice consists in giving people what they deserve, and mercy consists in giving people less than they deserve, the two can't be perfectly fulfilled at the same time.  So the 'everything' answer is ruled out.

So what do you mean when you say that God is 'perfect'?

 Why would we apply perfection to anything or anyone, nothing is perfect because to be perfect it/they would need to last forever without any outside influence or help. Man's morals don't seem to last very long at all so they are out, man himself last only a few years so scratch him of the list. Whatever man builds eventually falls into ruin and has to be rebuilt over and over, scratch these thing off, too. Everything in nature dies or is in someway changed over time, nothing ever stays the same. Even something as wonderful as water changes, going from liquid to gas to a solid. I think you see where I'm going, nothing is perfect because it changes. God doesn't change, He is the same now as He was in the past and He will be the same in the eternal future. God has lasted for an eternity and is complete within Himself not because He is perfect but because He is the only eternal being and there can never be another. 

To answer another statement you made, God did not make His moral values, to do so would imply that God was created and had to grow into what He is now, God has always existed as who He is now and will always exist as the same. God has no beginning and no end yet he has seen all of eternity, this is what is meant by His eternal nature and because of this nature He is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and with regard to these attributes God is perfect in all ways. God is the eternal standard not because He says He is but because it is who He has always been, even before the creation. True there was no one to follow his standards and God himself doesn't have to follow them they are who He is, who he has been and who He will always be, the unchanging eternal God.

As for God's perfect justice, He can not be anything but perfect in His justice because He has perfect knowledge due to His omniscience. God will give out perfect justice to the unjust which is all of mankind, including Christians. Those who choose to reject who God is choose to be judged by Him and then accept the judgement they deserve. Those who have chosen not to go through that particular judgement will be shown the judgement of mercy because their judgement was put upon another and God will not see what they deserve because it has already been paid for and there is no balance due. The reason there will be no balance due is due to the perfect price that was paid for the imperfect people and that price was paid by God himself so that He could give us the judgement of mercy through the grace of salvation.

GC

[Angrboda]

In a recent conversation with a theist, I asked what makes something 'perfect'.  Their response was that something is perfect if it is "maximally ideal for its intended purpose."  I see this as basically correct.  What makes something a perfect coffee maker would make that same thing a lousy microwave oven, and vice versa.  It seems that to be perfect, a thing must be in some relation to a purpose or an end or a goal such that it maximally fulfills that end.  But here we come upon a problem, because God doesn't have such.  There is no end or purpose or goal which is defined for God.  It would seem at first glance then, that the word simply doesn't apply to God.  If I had a nondescript object on my kitchen counter which had no purpose, what would it mean for me to say that it is 'perfect'?  The best that could be said is that I'm using the word 'perfect' as a superlative, like saying that something is 'super' or 'awesome'.  Yet theists continually assert that their God is 'perfect' and seem to want to mean something more by it than just a superlative, but what do they mean?  Some take the lazy way out and claim that God's perfectness applies to "everything" -- God has all possibilities in the maximal degree, but this is clearly incoherent.  An object which contained all perfections (whatever that means) would include perfect justice and perfect mercy. Since justice consists in giving people what they deserve, and mercy consists in giving people less than they deserve, the two can't be perfectly fulfilled at the same time.  So the 'everything' answer is ruled out.

So what do you mean when you say that God is 'perfect'?

 Why would we apply perfection to anything or anyone, nothing is perfect because to be perfect it/they would need to last forever without any outside influence or help. Man's morals don't seem to last very long at all so they are out, man himself last only a few years so scratch him of the list. Whatever man builds eventually falls into ruin and has to be rebuilt over and over, scratch these thing off, too. Everything in nature dies or is in someway changed over time, nothing ever stays the same. Even something as wonderful as water changes, going from liquid to gas to a solid. I think you see where I'm going, nothing is perfect because it changes. God doesn't change, He is the same now as He was in the past and He will be the same in the eternal future. God has lasted for an eternity and is complete within Himself not because He is perfect but because He is the only eternal being and there can never be another. 

It's not clear from your response that you think God is in fact perfect, nor what it would mean for him to be. That something that changes is necessarily imperfect does not in and of itself imply that something which is unchanging is therefore perfect. A diamond may greatly resist change due to its hardness, that in itself does not imply that a diamond is close to perfection. The things you list, his aseity, his unchanging nature, his eternal nature and so forth that you mention may indeed be attributes of God, but it's not clear that any of them imply his perfection, nor that they explain what it means to say that He is perfect. You've talked around the question rather than answered it.

To answer another statement you made, God did not make His moral values, to do so would imply that God was created and had to grow into what He is now, God has always existed as who He is now and will always exist as the same.

I did not say that God "made" His moral values. What I did say was that if the standard of God's perfection as a moral being emanates from himself, then that seems to make his moral values rather arbitrary, and therefore questionable as a foundation for morals, and, importantly, that to argue otherwise seems to require engaging in circular reasoning and thus any opposing conclusions that you did thus reach would seem to be therefore vacuous and thus worthless.

God has no beginning and no end yet he has seen all of eternity, this is what is meant by His eternal nature and because of this nature He is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and with regard to these attributes God is perfect in all ways.

I don't understand what you mean by "with regard to these attributes God is perfect in all ways." What you seem to be saying is that these are examples of (some of) God's perfections. It's not clear in what way you mean this to demonstrate the nature of perfection as it relates to God, and anyway, in this case especially, one cannot reliably reason from a finite set of examples to a general principle about God's perfections, so it would seem this is unhelpful.

God is the eternal standard not because He says He is but because it is who He has always been, even before the creation. True there was no one to follow his standards and God himself doesn't have to follow them they are who He is, who he has been and who He will always be, the unchanging eternal God.

Again, durability of the substance of God's virtues, to speak figuratively, doesn't imply their perfection, nor answer in what way they answer the call as perfections.

As for God's perfect justice, He can not be anything but perfect in His justice because He has perfect knowledge due to His omniscience. God will give out perfect justice to the unjust which is all of mankind, including Christians. Those who choose to reject who God is choose to be judged by Him and then accept the judgement they deserve. Those who have chosen not to go through that particular judgement will be shown the judgement of mercy because their judgement was put upon another and God will not see what they deserve because it has already been paid for and there is no balance due. The reason there will be no balance due is due to the perfect price that was paid for the imperfect people and that price was paid by God himself so that He could give us the judgement of mercy through the grace of salvation.

I don't think you understood the point I was making with regard to God's justice. I was addressing a specific way in which some theists have addressed the problem of what it means for God to be perfect by simply claiming that, whatever it means, God exemplifies any and all perfections that are possible and so it doesn't matter what the specific meaning of perfect was. I was simply pointing out that this response would not work, for the reasons given, that perfect justice and perfect mercy could not simultaneously be fulfilled. (And I pointed out to Steve that there was a time before Jesus was crucified in which God extended both mercy and justice to the people of Israel, so the notion that Christ's sacrifice answered the objection I made was simply an untenable response.) I think you simply misunderstood my point.

Anyway, thank you for your response.

[Catholic_Lady]

Maybe this is a good way of simplifying it into a quick answer:

"God is absolute in his perfection in that there is nothing lacking in his character or nature.  He does not need anything or anyone to exist. He is complete within Himself."

This is actually asserting three different things, so I'm going to respond to it similarly piecemeal.

God is absolute in his perfection in that there is nothing lacking in his character or nature.

To say that God is absolute in his perfection simply means that however God fulfills the criterion for perfection, he fulfills it in the highest degree; since this is already contained within the notion of what it means to be a perfection, that part of the phrase is just useless verbiage. On the more substantial portion of this phrase, to say that God is not lacking anything is to say that he has a full set of whatever it takes to make a perfection. This doesn't enlighten us as to what the characteristics of such a full set are, so in essence, it leaves the meaning of just what a perfection actually is unanswered. We know that to lack something is to be incomplete; that doesn't tell us what completeness consists of. More to the concerns I raised with Steve, this is suggesting that perfections are in some sense templates as to what it means to be complete. This leaves us with the disturbing question of where do these templates come from, and why these specific templates in particular. As noted, God doesn't fulfill all possible templates, only certain specific ones. And the templates themselves either come from God himself, or from outside of him. Either answer introduces difficulties for the consistency and meaningfulness of Christian theology. That these are perfections of his character or nature opens up additional cans of worms that could take several pages to unravel. (What does it mean for God to have a character or nature?) In short, your formulation raises many questions while not actually answering the original question of what does it mean for God to be perfect.

He does not need anything or anyone to exist.

The last two phrases address what is known as God's aseity, or his divine simplicity. Neo informs me that this is what at one time was considered to be the essence of being perfect, yet in some ways does not fit with our intuitions about what it means to be perfect. As I noted with Neo, the question of what God does or does not need from things outside himself is a question of the relationship between God and external things, which itself is not a part of any definition of perfection that I am familiar with. As such it seems to be a whole cloth substitution of one concept (perfection) with a completely separate and different concept (aseity), and as such doesn't so much answer the question of what a perfection actually is so much as it simply replaces our intuitive notions of perfection with a definition that is wholly other.

He is complete within Himself.

This is another, yet different, aspect of God's aseity. Much like the second entry above, it too rather misses the mark by suggesting that we simply call a concept that isn't perfection by the name of perfection, and thereby seem to have answered the question. In essence, it is simply missing the point like entry two above. Whether God's reasons are sufficient in and of themselves for God does not really address what we mean by perfection. It's an aspect of God, but not the particular one that we are interested in, presumably. In my assumption that you're referring to aseity here, this refers to the sufficiency of God's relationship to himself. As such, it also fails to address what it means to be complete, and just what such a completion (or perfection) is a completion of.

I'm interested in where you pulled this sentence from as it's a rather compact expression of a large expanse of theological questions. Is it your own invention?

Regardless, it's worth noting what Wikipedia says about aseity, if not for your benefit, for that of others reading this thread:

Aseity has two aspects, one positive and one negative: absolute independence and self-existence. In its "negative" meaning, which emerged first in the history of thought, it affirms that God is uncaused, depending on no other being for the source of His existence. In its "positive" meaning, it affirms that God is completely self-sufficient, having within Himself the sufficient reason for His own existence. The first concept derives from "the God of philosophers", while the second one derives from "the living God of Revelation" (I am who I am: Exodus 3:14).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aseity

See also the related entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Divine Simplicity.

Actually, the way I saw it, those are not 3 separate things, but are part of the same explanation for what is meant by saying "God is perfect."

There is nothing lacking in His character/nature that would make Him need anything else to exist, ei He is self sufficient.

Basically another way of saying He is the supreme being. From my understanding, that's what is meant by asserting God is perfect.

As for where I got the quote from, I had actually heard it before. So I googled it to see exactly how it was worded. Not sure where it originated from exactly, it's just how it was always explained to us.

(Eta)

[Angrboda]

This is actually asserting three different things, so I'm going to respond to it similarly piecemeal.

God is absolute in his perfection in that there is nothing lacking in his character or nature.

To say that God is absolute in his perfection simply means that however God fulfills the criterion for perfection, he fulfills it in the highest degree; since this is already contained within the notion of what it means to be a perfection, that part of the phrase is just useless verbiage.  On the more substantial portion of this phrase, to say that God is not lacking anything is to say that he has a full set of whatever it takes to make a perfection.  This doesn't enlighten us as to what the characteristics of such a full set are, so in essence, it leaves the meaning of just what a perfection actually is unanswered.  We know that to lack something is to be incomplete; that doesn't tell us what completeness consists of.  More to the concerns I raised with Steve, this is suggesting that perfections are in some sense templates as to what it means to be complete.  This leaves us with the disturbing question of where do these templates come from, and why these specific templates in particular.  As noted, God doesn't fulfill all possible templates, only certain specific ones.  And the templates themselves either come from God himself, or from outside of him.  Either answer introduces difficulties for the consistency and meaningfulness of Christian theology.  That these are perfections of his character or nature opens up additional cans of worms that could take several pages to unravel.  (What does it mean for God to have a character or nature?)  In short, your formulation raises many questions while not actually answering the original question of what does it mean for God to be perfect.

He does not need anything or anyone to exist.

The last two phrases address what is known as God's aseity, or his divine simplicity.  Neo informs me that this is what at one time was considered to be the essence of being perfect, yet in some ways does not fit with our intuitions about what it means to be perfect.  As I noted with Neo, the question of what God does or does not need from things outside himself is a question of the relationship between God and external things, which itself is not a part of any definition of perfection that I am familiar with.  As such it seems to be a whole cloth substitution of one concept (perfection) with a completely separate and different concept (aseity), and as such doesn't so much answer the question of what a perfection actually is so much as it simply replaces our intuitive notions of perfection with a definition that is wholly other.

He is complete within Himself.

This is another, yet different, aspect of God's aseity.  Much like the second entry above, it too rather misses the mark by suggesting that we simply call a concept that isn't perfection by the name of perfection, and thereby seem to have answered the question.  In essence, it is simply missing the point like entry two above.  Whether God's reasons are sufficient in and of themselves for God does not really address what we mean by perfection.  It's an aspect of God, but not the particular one that we are interested in, presumably.  In my assumption that you're referring to aseity here, this refers to the sufficiency of God's relationship to himself.  As such, it also fails to address what it means to be complete, and just what such a completion (or perfection) is a completion of.

I'm interested in where you pulled this sentence from as it's a rather compact expression of a large expanse of theological questions.  Is it your own invention?

Regardless, it's worth noting what Wikipedia says about aseity, if not for your benefit, for that of others reading this thread:

See also the related entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Divine Simplicity.

Actually, the way I saw it, those are not 3 separate things, but are part of the same explanation for what is meant by saying "God is perfect."

There is nothing lacking in His character/nature that would make Him need anything else to exist, ei He is self sufficient.

Basically another way of saying He is the supreme being. From my understanding, that's what is meant by asserting God is perfect.

As for where I got the quote from, I had actually heard it before. So I googled it to see exactly how it was worded. Not sure where it originated from exactly, it's just how it was always explained to us.

(Eta)

Okay. Fair enough. I see where you're coming from but I still think there is a bit of a mismatch between our intuitions about perfection and the way that you define it. Regardless, thanks for the clarification and thank you for getting back to me.

[Edwardo Piet]

God sounds like a tool.

He does tend to fix things every now and then.

Nah. He doesn't sound like Tool at all. Tool sound much too good:





Oh . . . a tool. Yeah God is a broken spanner. Or he is a fruitcake only less tasty.

[Neo-Scholastic]

LOL 10 theists, 11 opinions...

JOR:

A little research confirmed my original belief. The theological definition of perfection is nested in the classical and scholastic traditions and, as such, has a more precise meaning than common contemporary usage., so it was a nice surprise to see the Angelic Doctor give a precise definition:

"...the first active principle must be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is said to be most perfect according as it is in act, because we call perfect that which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection" & "...created things are then called perfect when from potency they are brought into act, this word 'perfect' signifies whatever is not wanting in act..." - Question 4 Article 1 of the Summa

So this definition returns us to Question 2 and first of the 5 ways.

The above is how the word 'perfection' is defined according to natural reason and also seems to match biblical references to perfection, as in Matt 5:48, 1 Co 13:10, Php 3:15, and especially Jas 1:14, 17, 25 & 3:2. The Greek root used is 'teleioo' which means to bring to an end or completeness.

People commonly think of moral perfection as compliance with specific prohibitions and performance of various obligations. However, these prohibitions and obligations are derivative. The base concept for moral perfection is virtue which is a kind of good. And good is associated with the degree to which a thing fulfills its potential (the degree to which it is in act). A strong, cunning, and ferocious tiger is a fine exemplar of tigerness and by that standard considered 'good'; although many a monkey would beg to differ. A complete tiger is one at actualizes all the virtues of what it means to be a tiger. And what goes for tigers goes for all types of things, from triangles to people.

Now this is a topic that has me curious and I haven't fleshed out all my thoughts on it. So any attempt by me to answer specific questions about all the theological ramifications of Divine Perfection may be premature although as we proceed, I welcome wrestling with your concerns.

SteveII:

I am concerned that when we talk about the Nature of God or His attributes that we may both be on thin ice. That concern is why I mention how we do not truly know what God is (as the Father) but only what He is not. This is how Aquinas puts it:

"Although we cannot know what God is, nevertheless in this doctrine we make use of His effects, either of nature or of grace, in place of a definition...even as in some philosophical sciences we demonstrate something about a cause from its effect, by taking the effect in place of a definition of the cause." - Question 1, Article 8 of the Summa

I take this to mean that what we casually refer to as attributes are more specifically effects of a God who remains incomprehensible. So for example, when we say that God is Ominipotent, what we are actually referring to is His presence in all potency. Or that when we say He is Merciful, Mercy is truly the effect of His agency and not an attribute of God properly. This is not exactly the kind of subtle distinction I would present or defend to most of this lot. Just something to keep in the back of our minds.

[Angrboda]

LOL 10 theists, 11 opinions...

JOR:

A little research confirmed my original belief. The theological definition of perfection is nested in the classical and scholastic traditions and, as such, has a more precise meaning than common contemporary usage., so it was a nice surprise to see the Angelic Doctor give a precise definition:

"...the first active principle must be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is said to be most perfect according as it is in act, because we call perfect that which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection" & "...created things are then called perfect when from potency they are brought into act, this word 'perfect' signifies whatever is not wanting in act..." - Question 4 Article 1 of the Summa

Pardon me for being a bit brusque; I haven't slept. But it seems that one can readily draw an isomorphism between these notions of completeness and the type of definition I gave Steve and CL, that a perfection is a standard or template which, in its fulfillment, amounts to a perfection.

So this definition returns us to Question 2 and first of the 5 ways.

The above is how the word 'perfection' is defined according to natural reason and also seems to match biblical references to perfection, as in Matt 5:48, 1 Co 13:10, Php 3:15, and especially Jas 1:14, 17, 25 & 3:2. The Greek root used is 'teleioo' which means to bring to an end or completeness.

People commonly think of moral perfection as compliance with specific prohibitions and performance of various obligations. However, these prohibitions and obligations are derivative. The base concept for moral perfection is virtue which is a kind of good. And good is associated with the degree to which a thing fulfills its potential (the degree to which it is in act). A strong, cunning, and ferocious tiger is a fine exemplar of tigerness and by that standard considered 'good'; although many a monkey would beg to differ. A complete tiger is one at actualizes all the virtues of what it means to be a tiger. And what goes for tigers goes for all types of things, from triangles to people.

Two things to note here. First, this raises the question of what it means to be a 'good' example of the kind of which God is an example. As noted with Steve, there appears to be some deep circularity here if God is both the specimen of a completed kind of his type, and also the standard setter as to what constitutes the completeness of his kind. And the apophatic dimensions which you mention below only complicate the picture. (If my reading of the Divine Simplicity entry in the SEP is sound, positing the type of apophatic theology that you propose below has the potential for rendering the doctrine of God's simplicity incoherent. That was my take on what I read, but the issues are a little too deep for my grasp.) The second thing to note is that if there is such a circularity involved, it essentially returns us to the starting line with the issue of the enhanced Euthyphro and your solution that God by necessity is morally perfect. The latter is not my primary concern though, as I am more critically concerned with how that circularity manifests itself in the definition of other aspects of God's nature.

SteveII:

I am concerned that when we talk about the Nature of God or His attributes that we may both be on thin ice. That concern is why I mention how we do not truly know what God is (as the Father) but only what He is not. This is how Aquinas puts it:

"Although we cannot know what God is, nevertheless in this doctrine we make use of His effects, either of nature or of grace, in place of a definition...even as in some philosophical sciences we demonstrate something about a cause from its effect, by taking the effect in place of a definition of the cause." - Question 1, Article 8 of the Summa

I take this to mean that what we casually refer to as attributes are more specifically effects of a God who remains incomprehensible. So for example, when we say that God is Ominipotent, what we are actually referring to is His presence in all potency. Or that when we say He is Merciful, Mercy is truly the effect of His agency and not an attribute of God properly. This is not exactly the kind of subtle distinction I would present or defend to most of this lot. Just something to keep in the back of our minds.

Thank you for the note to Steve; I benefited from it as well.

[SteveII]

For a something  to be described as 'perfect', I did say "maximally ideal for its intended purpose." You have very good examples of that above. 

I think for a someone, it simply won't work to discuss purpose. We don't say someone is 'perfect' period. We talk about components--ideal attributes, characteristics, abilities, etc. For example, a perfect husband, a perfect gentleman, a perfect friend, a perfect student, perfectly innocent, has perfect pitch, is perfect for the job. No human is perfect in all attributes, characteristics or abilities. 

It seems that you are suggesting that to be perfect, as a being, is to fulfill to the highest degree a standard or model of function, role, behavior, or being, and that such standards must be capable of failing to be met.  This is fine as far as it goes, but it raises some more intriguing questions.  One such question is what it means for a classless being to meet a standard.  Since God is the only exemplar of his kind, it does not seem sensible to apply a standard permitting of degrees to a class which does not vary in degree.  But a more important question is from where do the standards which God meets come from, and by that I am not speaking of human institutions, but the metaphysical question of what defines the desirable perfections which God meets?  It makes no sense to suggest that God meets all standards for reasons already alluded to, so the question becomes what defines what are the desirable standards for God to meet?  As with the Euthyphro dilemma, there is the question as to whether the standards for love and justice and so forth lie outside himself, or derive solely from God in and of himself.  If they lie outside himself, then God becomes in some sense superfluous, as we can derive our standards for love and justice from this independent source.  If they come from within God himself, then that makes them somewhat arbitrary and trivial.  To say that God meets the standards he sets for a being such as himself makes God and his standards seem rather trite, and appealing to them as a standard we are obligated to follow seems peurile.  (And the question of God's assigning our meaning and purpose, of his providing those things for us, becomes dependent on this arbitrarily derived set of values.    God becomes just another being with a self-interested point of view.  When evolution provides us with biases and values such as the desire for life, theists typically criticize this sourcing of our values, meaning, and purpose as being "arbitrary" and therefore meaningless.  It's hard to see how a God who considers himself the best thing in the world, independent of any external standards, is any less arbitrary and meaningless.)  As you will recall, the euthyphro dilemma was (allegedly) resolved by appealing to the perfection of God's moral nature.  However, in this instance, such an appeal is futile as it occurs in the context of defining just what it would mean for God to be perfect, so appealing to God's perfection in this case would be an example of circular reasoning.  

(ETA:  It also raises the spectre of just what the deeper meaning of saying that God is, by nature, and necessarily, morally perfect is.  If the standard of moral perfection is satisfied by God simply being what God happens to be, morally, then his morals indeed are metaphysically arbitrary, and appeals to the alleged 'perfection' of God's moral nature is again, reasoning in a circle.  It makes little rational sense to justify God's morals by effectively saying that, "God is moral because his nature meets the standard of being what its own definition of what it means to be good happens to be.")

I think your definition of 'perfect' is not quite right. A perfect attribute is not the best as a result of comparison. It is the best because it achieves a standard for which we could conceive no better. For example, the perfect husband is not so because he is a little better than the next best husband. It is possible that there is and ever was only one husband and he may or may not have been perfect. 

Regarding God's attributes, they too are not simply the best, but achieve a standard for which no better could be conceived. As I have said before, it does not matter if we cannot discern what this might be. 

In the case of God we also talk about attributes. It just so happens that the attributes are all perfect (part of the definition of God) so it is handy and appropriate to say God is perfect. 

Ignoring for the moment the implications of your stance for divine simplicity, this really doesn't answer the question.  You assert that whatever 'perfection' happens to be, then God has it.  That really doesn't address the question of what perfection happens to be.

I'm not convinced of the doctrine of divine simplicity. Since a finite mind can't know what exactly 'perfection' entails in one of God's attributes, we are stuck with discussing it conceptually.  

Regarding perfect justice and perfect mercy, I think there are two problems with your argument 

1. Justice is an application of objective standards so if applied without error, you can have perfect justice. But mercy is not the same thing. First, I don't think mercy is an essential attribute of God like justice or holiness is. I think rather that mercy flows from another essential attribute: Love. Second, as only a product of an essential attribute, it is qualified and limited by all the essential attributes (the nature of God) as well as his free will to make choices consistent with that nature.

Well, again, ignoring aseity, the complaint that perfect justice and perfect mercy could not be simultaneously met was asserted in the context of the hypothesis that God exhibits all possible perfections.  Once you start picking and choosing which are necessary attributes of God and which are not, you've abandoned the context upon which the complaint was based.  You can't consistently maintain that God exhibits all possible perfections and then assert that God has primary and secondary attributes.  Beyond that, I'm sure other examples could easily be derived, such as Hammy's observation that God cannot be both perfectly good and perfectly evil.  The main thrust is that if God has perfections, they are selective and not a consequence of God simply possessing "all the marbles."

I don't think mercy is a  necessary attribute but rather contingent because it requires two others to exists: justice and love. Justice provides the framework that established the need for mercy and love provides the reason to offer it. Additionally, mercy is an action that can be (and is) applied subjectively to a situation as part of a other goals or reasons. God had mercy on someone because of intercessary prayer, because if some future event that brought greater good, or because he accepted Jesus' free gift of salvation, etc. 

 

2. When God shows mercy (like salvation), it is not instead of justice. Justice was satisfied--the price paid by Christ.

I think it's fairly reasonable to assert that many times in the old testament, God showed mercy toward the Israelites.  God made trade-offs between mercy and justice when dealing with his people.  While it might be argued that God does not dispense mercy "in place of" justice in the post-resurrection era, it's simply a fact that this was not always the case.  So, no, I think you're wrong here.

That is just proving that mercy is a contingent property of God rather than a necessary one and is often applied subjectively.

[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.".