Bertsura

One of the attributes some theists who believe in a creator God give to their deity is perfection. Of course, there is a great difficulty in determining just what perfection means. How do we know if something is perfect? Unless there is some criteria to base our judgments upon, determining perfection is an impossible task. Maybe we can prepare a free throw shooting challenge for God and if he makes 100% of googol free throws, there is an excellent probability that God may be perfect when it comes to free throw shooting. Considering the great number of things that can be used to gauge perfection, along with the task of actually finding God, we begin to see the magnitude of the task that the theists who assert this perfection have.

Some theists may object to this test of perfection and they may assert that God is perfect by definition. Of course, we return to the same difficulty of determining what perfection means. In this case, however, we don't have to think too hard. A perfect creator implies perfect creation and so the only way to reconcile the idea of a perfect God and the universe is by conceding that everything that happens in the universe is perfect, whatever perfect means. Is there anything wrong with this reasoning?

Styrofoamdeity

(posted in error)

Phil4987

Start with the assumption that God exists, and you can reach any conclusions you like. Theists like believers in the Abrahamic god make the mistake of adding so many qualities to their god-concepts. It's quite funny how they imagine they know the mind of God, much like they imagine "He" exists.

Iacchus

So, if energy is neither created nor destroyed, and is merely transformational, might I suggest that whatever it is that drives these transformations exists at a "perfect" state?

Ruiner

That came out of left field.

Is "Conservation of Energy" your definition of perfection Iacchus? Are you saying that the conditions in this universe are "perfect" for "CoE"? And just what do you mean by "whatever is driving these transformations"?

Gawen

Sending this to GRD

Iacchus

As much as things change or, appear to change -- this is the key, for we now have folks trying to deny that cause-and-effect exists -- it all begins with, and ends with, the most "perfect" equillibrium.

Iacchus

Am merely assessing the possibility that perfection exists. Which it does.

And if by this you mean everything exists in a perfect state of balance? Then yes.

"CoE?" What is that?

Obviously something "other" than change.

Iacchus

Why, is it because you didn't like my answer? If one wishes to ascribe the qualities of perfection to a Creator, and yet doesn't believe that perfection is possible, thereby ruling out the possibility of a (perfect) Creator (that is, if I understood the original post correctly?), then we don't have to tackle God, as much as we have to try and ascertain whether perfection exists or not. If it does, then we can't rule out God by means of this ... albeit it most certainly does rule out the notion that things happen by random or by chance, which pretty much blows evolutionary theory out of the water.

Wolfie

Either you have equilibrium or you do not have equilibrium - there is no middle ground. 'Perfect equilibrium' therefore is not a valid description as it implies that there is such a thing as an imperfect equilibrium.

It's like the argument over 'unique'. I always bite when I hear the term 'fairly unique'. It is not up for debate - either something is unique - or it isn't!