Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wyz_sub10 · 07-16-2003, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Your "barbs" are dulled by the fact that you don't know what "perfect" would be in any of these situations, particularly in the case of the perfect world.

The "perfectness" would, in fact, be determined by the maker, not the observer. The perfect pot maker would make a perfect pot. You must either know objectively what constitutes perfection or you must leave it to the maker to determine.

I think it's quite clear in J/C theology that the "maker" (or "designer", because that is really who determines perfection - not the maker) has determined this world and its people to be imperfect.

Alan N · 07-17-2003, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
The "perfectness" would, in fact, be determined by the maker, not the observer. The perfect pot maker would make a perfect pot. You must either know objectively what constitutes perfection or you must leave it to the maker to determine.

Then why the Bible and all it's prescriptions for behavior, if we are unable to properly determine what they mean? Where's the checkpoint? If we don't understand perfection, perhaps we don't understand salvation, or faith, or [fill in the blanks].

Maybe God has determined that eternity is 87 years. Who are we to question this! Sounds like a prescription for interpretive chaos...hmmm. Sounds like heaven is a pinata, the bible is the blind around your eyes, and JC is the one pulling the string. Take a few good swings, you just might get some candy...remember...not everyone who has been invited will hit the pinata (get the candy).

Wyrdsmyth · 07-17-2003, 06:53 AM

To those who are juggling, equivocating, and doing the theological shuffle, I would ask that you answer this simple question:

Is this world perfect?

Yes or no. Sic et Non. Let's have it.

Perfect means flawless. Imperfect means flawed or in need of improvement. If you cannot imagine any improvements or any way to make something better, then that is perfect. So, I am using the term 'perfect' in its usual connotation.

It's a simple question, with a yes or no answer.

Normal · 07-17-2003, 07:42 AM

Hawkingfan: Why would another have authority?

Socrates: Well what gives one authoirty of perfection in the first place? Do you think the pot maker has authority?

Normal: Surely he does, Socrates, if he is the one who designs the pots

Socrates: Because he has an idea of the perfect pot before he constructs it, and then builts from his perfect idea?

Normal: Correct

Socrates: What is the purpose of the pot to the pot maker? Does he construct the pot for himself or for another?

Normal: I assume he could do either

Socrates: And when the pot maker builds for himself, he has a purpose for the pot in mind, and builds the pot to perfectly fulfill this purpose?

Normal: Yes

Socrates: Is the pot perfect because it fulfills the purpose of the pot maker, in this case?

Normal: Yes

Socrates: And when the pot is made for another, the pot maker builds his pot to perfectly fulfill the purpose of the one who requests the pot?

Normal: Yes

Socrates: But while each of these can be said to be perfect pots for their purposes, they are not perfect pots for other purposes, correct? If another requested a pot for his own purpose, the pot maker would need to make a different pot, for while the other two pots are perfect for their purposes, another purpose has been added now, correct?

Normal: Yes

Socrates: So who has the authority of perfection in each case? The one who knows the purpose of the pot, or the one who puts his own purpose on the pot?

Normal: The one who knows the purpose of the pot must be the one who has authority of perfection.

Socrates: Well there is your answer Normal, the one who knows the purpose can decide either "Yes, this is perfect" or "No, this is not perfect". Only those who claim to know the purpose of the world can comment on it's perfection.

Socrates: There must be at least one with the authority on perfection to answer whether perfection exists.

Hawkingfan: Why?

Socrates: What does the authority of perfection let one do? Does it let one preceive a certain thing and comment on its perfection?

Normal: I suppose the authority of perfection would be useless without that ability, yes

Socrates: And one with authority of perfection will necessarily answer the same as another with authority of perfection?

Normal: Yes, we have agreed on this already

Socrates: So if there is not one with authority of perfection, there are only those without authority of perfection, correct?

Normal: Of course

Socrates: And those without authority of perfection, they cannot say "Yes, this is perfect" or "No, this is not perfect"?

Normal: That follows perfectly from what we agreed?

Socrates: Well if only those who cannot say "Yes, this is perfect" or "No, this is not perfect" exist, there is no one to say either of those things, and therefore the question cannot be answered at all!

Normal: This must be so Socrates

Socrates: But this pot has an unchanging shape, or is this some kind of magic pot?

Normal: I suppose the shape is unchanging.

Hawkingfan: Why can't it be a magic pot?

Socrates: If we are dealing with a magician, and not simply a pot maker, he could trick you into believing a rock was the perfect pot!

Socrates: Would not the perfect pot be just small enough to carry the amount of water he needs to carry?

Normal: Yes.

Hawkingfan: But it's not perfect for god either.

Socrates: What is the purpose of the pot to god? Does god need to carry water?

Normal: That is absurd Socrates, surely not

Socrates: Does god have a need for a pot at all?

Normal: I would assume god has no need for a simple pot, as perfect as it may be

Socrates: So what of the question of the pot's perfection to god?

Normal: It is indeed a useless question

Socrates: Perhaps not Normal, you claim god does not need to carry water, correct?

Normal: Yes, of course, do you disagree?

Socrates: Not presently, but continue answering my questions as you have done. If it is correct as you claim, that god does not need to carry water, and therefore the pot is useless to him, then is not everything useless to god? What does god need of us?

Normal: Some would say god needs us to worship and praise him

Socrates: Yes, I have heard of these people as well. Magus55, and theopilius, and EsterRose, and others all make this claim and are respected in their own circles, but why should we believe them? You say god does not need to carry water, why?

Normal: Surely god has no need for water, Socrates, what an absurd question

Socrates: But we surely need water?

Normal: Surely

Socrates: So what seperates us from god? Why does one need water and the other not?

Normal: We need water to live Socrates, such a base question.

Socrates: So we need that which allows us to live?

Normal: Yes, what else could you consider a need?

Socrates: And it is claimed god needs us to worhsip and praise him?

Normal: Yes

Socrates: So if all man died, and there was no one to worship and praise god, he would die?

Normal: Unfortunately, that follows from what we agreed, but I would argue there are some needs we have that are not associated with merely living. We all require a certain standard for our lives. For example, a certain amount of freedom is necessary for most people. And love is equally considered a need throughout the world. People do not die without these, but they are necessary things.

Socrates: Excellent point, Normal, but what of this freedom? Why do you say people need freedom?

Normal: I suppose it comes from a desire to be free

Socrates: And this love, it comes from another desire as well, perhaps a desire to love or to be loved?

Normal: Yes

Socrates: So all needs come from a desire then, and water equally, from a desire to live?

Normal: Yes, that is clear now

(Parts credited to Symposium) Socrates: And what is this desire a sign of? When you desire something, you surely do not have it, correct? For those that desire to live, they have life presently, but wish to have life in the future. And those that have love now, wish to have it in the future. In all cases, they desire something they do not have, or something they have that they wish to have in the future. You cannot desire something you have?

Normal: Surely not

Socrates: So a desire is a sign of something you have not?

Normal: That follows from what we agreed

Socrates: So when these people claim that god needs worship and praise, they claim he does not have these things, or wishes to have them in the future?

Normal: That seems to follow

Socrates: Well how can you claim god doesn't have one thing, yet needs it, such as worship and praise, and at the same time claim doesn't have another thing, such as water, and doesn't need it? Why does god need one and not the other?

Normal: It seems they were wrong in claiming that about god

Socrates: So you cannot say about the pot whether it is perfect for god?

Normal: That seems to follow

theophilus · 07-18-2003, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth
To those who are juggling, equivocating, and doing the theological shuffle, I would ask that you answer this simple question:

Is this world perfect?

Yes or no. Sic et Non. Let's have it.

Perfect means flawless. Imperfect means flawed or in need of improvement. If you cannot imagine any improvements or any way to make something better, then that is perfect. So, I am using the term 'perfect' in its usual connotation.

It's a simple question, with a yes or no answer.

Yes, it is perfect.
It is perfectly suited to the purpose for which it was created.

Now, unless you know that is not true, all your "juggling, equivocating, and doing the atheist shuffle," is simply an act of petulance.

Hawkingfan · 07-18-2003, 01:11 PM

Normal,
You're boring me. And contradicting yourself explaining the pots "purpose".

theophilus · 07-18-2003, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
I think it's quite clear in J/C theology that the "maker" (or "designer", because that is really who determines perfection - not the maker) has determined this world and its people to be imperfect.

It is quite clear that corruption (the correct term) has come into the created order because of sin. In J/C theology, we call this "the fall."

The perfection of the world would be determined by the intention of the creator (designer/maker). Since God decrees all things that come to pass, the fall was not a surprise; it was part of the eternal purpose, as was God's remedy, i.e., redemption through Christ.

At Christ's return, the creation will be restored to its full perfection as the sons of God will be completely perfected.

theophilus · 07-18-2003, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alan N
Then why the Bible and all it's prescriptions for behavior, if we are unable to properly determine what they mean? Where's the checkpoint? If we don't understand perfection, perhaps we don't understand salvation, or faith, or [fill in the blanks].

The function of the law is to expose sin, restrain its effects, and lead men to Christ. It is not to produce perfection.

Maybe God has determined that eternity is 87 years. Who are we to question this! Sounds like a prescription for interpretive chaos...hmmm. Sounds like heaven is a pinata, the bible is the blind around your eyes, and JC is the one pulling the string. Take a few good swings, you just might get some candy...remember...not everyone who has been invited will hit the pinata (get the candy).

I am speechless.

theophilus · 07-18-2003, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
theophilus:
The "perfectness" would, in fact, be determined by the maker, not the observer. The perfect pot maker would make a perfect pot. You must either know objectively what constitutes perfection or you must leave it to the maker to determine.

So, theophilus, are you arguing that this is in fact a perfect universe from the god's-eye view?

'Perfect' is another one of those absolute terms; impossible of accurate definition.

Yes, I am arguing that God, by whom the world was created and for whom it exists, is the sole determiner of its perfections.

If by perfection we mean "suitability" for its intended purpose, then it is perfect because it accomplishes God's purpose.

If you know otherwise, I'd be glad to know your source.

Philosoft · 07-18-2003, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Yes, I am arguing that God, by whom the world was created and for whom it exists, is the sole determiner of its perfections.

Are "perfections" necessarily determined by a determiner?

Quote:

If by perfection we mean "suitability" for its intended purpose, then it is perfect because it accomplishes God's purpose.

If this is the only definition of "perfection" you stipulate, then a perfect God would also need a purpose and, presumably, a purpose-giver.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-17-2003, 06:53 AM	#33
Wyrdsmyth Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Sarver, PA, USA Posts: 920	To those who are juggling, equivocating, and doing the theological shuffle, I would ask that you answer this simple question: Is this world perfect? Yes or no. Sic et Non. Let's have it. Perfect means flawless. Imperfect means flawed or in need of improvement. If you cannot imagine any improvements or any way to make something better, then that is perfect. So, I am using the term 'perfect' in its usual connotation. It's a simple question, with a yes or no answer.

07-17-2003, 07:42 AM	#34
Normal Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 639	Hawkingfan: Why would another have authority? Socrates: Well what gives one authoirty of perfection in the first place? Do you think the pot maker has authority? Normal: Surely he does, Socrates, if he is the one who designs the pots Socrates: Because he has an idea of the perfect pot before he constructs it, and then builts from his perfect idea? Normal: Correct Socrates: What is the purpose of the pot to the pot maker? Does he construct the pot for himself or for another? Normal: I assume he could do either Socrates: And when the pot maker builds for himself, he has a purpose for the pot in mind, and builds the pot to perfectly fulfill this purpose? Normal: Yes Socrates: Is the pot perfect because it fulfills the purpose of the pot maker, in this case? Normal: Yes Socrates: And when the pot is made for another, the pot maker builds his pot to perfectly fulfill the purpose of the one who requests the pot? Normal: Yes Socrates: But while each of these can be said to be perfect pots for their purposes, they are not perfect pots for other purposes, correct? If another requested a pot for his own purpose, the pot maker would need to make a different pot, for while the other two pots are perfect for their purposes, another purpose has been added now, correct? Normal: Yes Socrates: So who has the authority of perfection in each case? The one who knows the purpose of the pot, or the one who puts his own purpose on the pot? Normal: The one who knows the purpose of the pot must be the one who has authority of perfection. Socrates: Well there is your answer Normal, the one who knows the purpose can decide either "Yes, this is perfect" or "No, this is not perfect". Only those who claim to know the purpose of the world can comment on it's perfection. Socrates: There must be at least one with the authority on perfection to answer whether perfection exists. Hawkingfan: Why? Socrates: What does the authority of perfection let one do? Does it let one preceive a certain thing and comment on its perfection? Normal: I suppose the authority of perfection would be useless without that ability, yes Socrates: And one with authority of perfection will necessarily answer the same as another with authority of perfection? Normal: Yes, we have agreed on this already Socrates: So if there is not one with authority of perfection, there are only those without authority of perfection, correct? Normal: Of course Socrates: And those without authority of perfection, they cannot say "Yes, this is perfect" or "No, this is not perfect"? Normal: That follows perfectly from what we agreed? Socrates: Well if only those who cannot say "Yes, this is perfect" or "No, this is not perfect" exist, there is no one to say either of those things, and therefore the question cannot be answered at all! Normal: This must be so Socrates Socrates: But this pot has an unchanging shape, or is this some kind of magic pot? Normal: I suppose the shape is unchanging. Hawkingfan: Why can't it be a magic pot? Socrates: If we are dealing with a magician, and not simply a pot maker, he could trick you into believing a rock was the perfect pot! Socrates: Would not the perfect pot be just small enough to carry the amount of water he needs to carry? Normal: Yes. Hawkingfan: But it's not perfect for god either. Socrates: What is the purpose of the pot to god? Does god need to carry water? Normal: That is absurd Socrates, surely not Socrates: Does god have a need for a pot at all? Normal: I would assume god has no need for a simple pot, as perfect as it may be Socrates: So what of the question of the pot's perfection to god? Normal: It is indeed a useless question Socrates: Perhaps not Normal, you claim god does not need to carry water, correct? Normal: Yes, of course, do you disagree? Socrates: Not presently, but continue answering my questions as you have done. If it is correct as you claim, that god does not need to carry water, and therefore the pot is useless to him, then is not everything useless to god? What does god need of us? Normal: Some would say god needs us to worship and praise him Socrates: Yes, I have heard of these people as well. Magus55, and theopilius, and EsterRose, and others all make this claim and are respected in their own circles, but why should we believe them? You say god does not need to carry water, why? Normal: Surely god has no need for water, Socrates, what an absurd question Socrates: But we surely need water? Normal: Surely Socrates: So what seperates us from god? Why does one need water and the other not? Normal: We need water to live Socrates, such a base question. Socrates: So we need that which allows us to live? Normal: Yes, what else could you consider a need? Socrates: And it is claimed god needs us to worhsip and praise him? Normal: Yes Socrates: So if all man died, and there was no one to worship and praise god, he would die? Normal: Unfortunately, that follows from what we agreed, but I would argue there are some needs we have that are not associated with merely living. We all require a certain standard for our lives. For example, a certain amount of freedom is necessary for most people. And love is equally considered a need throughout the world. People do not die without these, but they are necessary things. Socrates: Excellent point, Normal, but what of this freedom? Why do you say people need freedom? Normal: I suppose it comes from a desire to be free Socrates: And this love, it comes from another desire as well, perhaps a desire to love or to be loved? Normal: Yes Socrates: So all needs come from a desire then, and water equally, from a desire to live? Normal: Yes, that is clear now (Parts credited to Symposium) Socrates: And what is this desire a sign of? When you desire something, you surely do not have it, correct? For those that desire to live, they have life presently, but wish to have life in the future. And those that have love now, wish to have it in the future. In all cases, they desire something they do not have, or something they have that they wish to have in the future. You cannot desire something you have? Normal: Surely not Socrates: So a desire is a sign of something you have not? Normal: That follows from what we agreed Socrates: So when these people claim that god needs worship and praise, they claim he does not have these things, or wishes to have them in the future? Normal: That seems to follow Socrates: Well how can you claim god doesn't have one thing, yet needs it, such as worship and praise, and at the same time claim doesn't have another thing, such as water, and doesn't need it? Why does god need one and not the other? Normal: It seems they were wrong in claiming that about god Socrates: So you cannot say about the pot whether it is perfect for god? Normal: That seems to follow

07-18-2003, 01:11 PM	#36
Hawkingfan Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,247	Normal, You're boring me. And contradicting yourself explaining the pots "purpose".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.