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

[Mystic]

The nature of all of God's Titles/written Names is they remain ambiguous without a light and sight through a witness and guide appointed by him.

The true name of God is a living witness who connects everyone to God.  The beautiful names of God are the ways to God, the navigators to the just city. They perceive the light as is, and are the means to know God.

Even if you list all of God's attributes endless, all they do is remind of a connection we have with source, but the symbols you write remind of something from creation and it's link to the Creator.

The Creator possess all greatness and praise in creation, and all of it belongs to him and is borrowed from him, but the means to truly praise God with middle harmony is by the Leader of the humans and the witness among them.  There is no way to know God but through a living connection who connects the highest reality to the material realm, and connects guidance at all levels, his stations that are found everywhere.

That is why Quran says "Say: no wage/reward do I ask for it except the love of the near kin (of mine)". (part of 42:23).

It is because that love of them as connectors to God means you appreciate the connection to God and love God's greatest gift and favor to humanity mainly guiding them through a revelation with appointed guides to interpret it correctly and manifest its wonders if and only if we center our attention to them and obey them when we are reminded, and seek knowledge regarding it from them when we do not know.

[The Grand Nudger]

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. 

So, a perfect god with no relationships is not substantially bettered by a perfect god -with- relationships?

---

In your conclusion "that a truly perfect being would be completely self-satisfied and wouldn't need or want anything" is obviously wrong.  The experience of a relationship with creatures of free would seem to add something of value that was not there before.

So a perfect god is not made better by adding something of value that was not there before? Perfection was lacking something of value?

[Mystic]

You can't conceive perfection but you can perceive you are connected to it.

[SteveII]

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. 

So, a perfect god with no relationships is not substantially bettered by a perfect god -with- relationships?

---

In your conclusion "that a truly perfect being would be completely self-satisfied and wouldn't need or want anything" is obviously wrong.  The experience of a relationship with creatures of free would seem to add something of value that was not there before.

So a perfect god is not made better by adding something of value that was not there before?  Perfection was lacking something of value?

Category error.  I clearly said earlier that 'perfect' modifies an attribute and not a person. So, adding experiences does add to God--namely experiences. However, the experience in no way detracts from the perfect attributes because it has nothing to do with them.

[KevinM1]

Because he was flawed and lacking and therefore imperfect?

(or nonexistent)

Just a thought!

I guess that depends if you consider wanting more out of life when you're a 'perfect' being to be a flaw, deficit or lack of some kind. Did God want more or did God need more? (if we pretend he exists for sec ) And if God merely wanted more . . . is having a desire necessarily a flaw of some kind? Would God be more perfect if he had no desires?

See, that's why I find theology utterly pointless. It's like pretending Superman is real for a second and then having a super serious conversation about how important it is to know exactly how his powers work. And then you wake up like "Oh yeah it doesn't matter because he's not real."

Personally I think that a truly perfect being would be completely self-satisfied and wouldn't need or want anything. There would be no point in creating a universe. Him would be all that existed and that would be perfect. Nothing more necessary. And no more "better" to move towards, so it's not just that he doesn't need more . . . there's no point in wanting more because you already have it all. It's as good as it gets. It's perfect.

I guess one objection could be "he can do whatever he wants and he's still perfect." But my point would be that . .  . what's stopping anything from being perfect then? Can't God do things that are imperfect? I guess the answer would be "He could but he wouldn't". So then the question is "Are all the actions that God takes flawless? Has God even made a mistake?", etc. Round and round we go.

Theology: Study of an imaginary being.

It's just funny to me, because every time I bring it up, and every time I point out that a perfect being - one that is complete and self-sustaining - would never have reason to create anything, I get a bunch of non-answers about this perfect being's sheer amount of love and whatnot.

The mere act of creation points to this being's deficiency. Because a want implies incompleteness. And a being that's utterly complete wouldn't want for anything.

It's pretty simple logic, and I've never seen a theist handle it in a way that doesn't simply push it off to the side to be ignored. Of course, if this being isn't perfect, then it's open to criticism. It can no longer be presented as the paragon of any virtue. So, it definitely makes sense as to why it's tap danced around.

[Mystic]

You aren't looking to connect to the Creator, if you did you would look for possible connectors to him and would read scripture with seriously resolve to know the truth.

So yeah keep asking questions and wanting very fast answers, being not satisfied with the answer, and then when presented details of those answer, not having the attention span to process it.

It is all the religions faults for not providing proofs for God right...can't be a fault of you guys not wanting to believe no matter how clear proofs are.

[The Grand Nudger]

Category error.  I clearly said earlier that 'perfect' modifies an attribute and not a person. So, adding experiences does add to God--namely experiences. However, the experience in no way detracts from the perfect attributes because it has nothing to do with them.

An answer to a question you were not asked.  

Does perfection lack something of value?  Do relationships not substantially add to whatever did not previously have them?  These were your contentions, not mine.

[Edwardo Piet]

No, no no. You are putting words in my mouth to fit your stupid premise. Where did I say God was imperfect?

I didn't put words in your mouth just because you're unable to recognize that what you said entailed it. You said that God was lacking something. That means that he wasn't self-sufficent, which is a flaw/imperfection, which means he isn't perfect.

I never suggested you literally used those exact words, but I understood what you said actually entailed. You can call that putting words in your mouth all you want, but who cares what precise words you used when what I said was correct. What you said means that God is imperfect.

You don't have to literally say the words "God is imperfect" to be saying that God is imperfect. There's a use/mention distinction which is another distinction that you don't seem to recognize. When I say that you are saying X that is not the same thing as saying that you are saying "X".

It's just like Neo's shit about how Aquinas didn't say "Therefore God" just because he didn't literally use those exact two words. Even though that was what Aquinas was saying. There's more than one sense of "say".

[Neo-Scholastic]

Good topic, Jor. I would have to refer back to Question 3 of the Summa Theologica, but as I recall Divine Perfection has more to do with completeness than anything else. God is perfect in the sense that He is complete in Himself in need of nothing outside Himself.

So why did god create anything?

Because that is in His nature to give out of His excess and yet costs Him nothing. It is like seeing a smiling person who makes you smile. They are completely happy prior to your notice and remain happy regardless of how you respond. The pleasure you take from the other person's smile takes nothing away from him.

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.

I don’t know if it makes any sense to consider God a species within some other genus. My place-holder thought is that God serves as maximally great all-encompassing category like Plotinus’s mystical notion of “The All” or from the Book of Revelation, “the All in all.” That said, I have to punt on your objection. I’m still puzzling over this issue and will keep your concern in the back of my mind while doing so.

…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.

I’m not exactly understanding the objection since I do not see a logical argument being made in the first place. To my mind it is more like a dictionary entry. “The Good” and “God” are synonyms united by Aristotle’s observation in the Nichomochean Ethics that what men should most desire derives from a common source. For Christians, Scripture tells us that we are to "Love the Lord your God above all else." That sounds to me like the highest good.

I would say the true circularity enters when people try to develop ethical theories in the absence of some notion of a single highest good from which all other goods are derived. It has been my position all along that people choose whether or not to recognize that there is a highest Good, something most to be desired, that serves as an arbiter when deciding among various apparent goods, such as between temporary pleasure or loyalty to principle. It is only by choosing to believe there is some kind of highest good that allows people to debate about the relative value of some moral principle versus some other. Otherwise there can be no shoulds.

[Mystic]

Well said Neo!