41 replies to this topic

[Fortigurn]

scitsofreaky, on Jan 29 2005, 07:07 PM, said:

Actually, it does follow. Nature and its laws are perfect because God is perfect, and is therefore incapable of imperfection, so he cannot create something that is imperfect.

That is palpably untrue. Scripture itself never describes the creation as perfect.

[scitsofreaky]

Scripture doesn't, but perfection itself dictates that God can only do things that are perfect.

[Fortigurn]

scitsofreaky, on Jan 29 2005, 07:23 PM, said:

Scripture doesn't, but perfection itself dictates that God can only do things that are perfect.

Where is that written?

[scitsofreaky]

It isn't written, at least not in the Bible (which is what I think you are refering to). Perfection is a lack of imperfection, do you disagree? So, if God was attributed with an imperfect action, ie creating an imperfect world, then He would no longer lack imperfection.

[Fortigurn]

scitsofreaky, on Jan 29 2005, 07:41 PM, said:

It isn't written, at least not in the Bible (which is what I think you are refering to). Perfection is a lack of imperfection, do you disagree? So, if God was attributed with an imperfect action, ie creating an imperfect world, then He would no longer lack imperfection.

How does creating something which is imperfect constitute 'an imperfect action'? And why does someone who is perfect have to be incapable of doing some things?

[scitsofreaky]

If the result is imperfect, how can the action be perfect?
If someone that is perfect does something imperfect, they are no longer perfect.
I think what this boils down to is that you believe whatever God does is perfect; whereas I believe God does whatever is perfect. Is this a fair statement?
(I am really enjoying this )

[Fortigurn]

scitsofreaky, on Jan 29 2005, 07:55 PM, said:

If the result is imperfect, how can the action be perfect?

If the action perfectly completes the intended purpose, then it is perfect.

Quote

If someone that is perfect does something imperfect, they are no longer perfect.

I disagree. If they intended to do somethign which was imperfect, this does not make them imperfect.

Quote

I think what this boils down to is that you believe whatever God does is perfect; whereas I believe God does whatever is perfect.  Is this a fair statement?

That will do, certainly.

[scitsofreaky]

Oh, ok, now I see where you are coming from. Perfection is in the intention, not the result. I disagree, of course, but now I understand what you mean. I will have to think about my next move (perhaps a perry, or maybe a thrust).

[scitsofreaky]

Upon further review, I have to revise my statement. Perfection has to have a perfect intent behind it and a perfect result, because if any part is imperfect, it makes the whole of the action imperfect.

[Fortigurn]

scitsofreaky, on Jan 29 2005, 09:24 PM, said:

Upon further review, I have to revise my statement. Perfection has to have a perfect intent behind it and a perfect result, because if any part is imperfect, it makes the whole of the action imperfect.

This does not exclude the possibility that creating something imperfect may satisfy that perfect intent, and may be perfectly executed.

[mordecai]

Fortigurn, on Jan 29 2005, 01:30 PM, said:

scitsofreaky, on Jan 29 2005, 09:24 PM, said:

Upon further review, I have to revise my statement.  Perfection has to have a perfect intent behind it and a perfect result, because if any part is imperfect, it makes the whole of the action imperfect.

This does not exclude the possibility that creating something imperfect may satisfy that perfect intent, and may be perfectly executed.

Ultimately I think you guys are using rather vague definitions. "Perfect vs. Complete/functional", etc.

The problem ultimately is error, its not "imperfection versus perfection", because someone who possesses complete knowledge can have the intent to make something lesser then himself (i.e. there would be no need to create human beings since they are lesser beings then god himself if you take the "argument from perfection" all the way to its logical conclusion, god is complete therefore needs nothing).

Its efficiency, errors and success rate (and lack thereof) of the bible are contrary to the qualities of omnipotence and omniscience.

Christadelphians are among the smallest denominations of christendom and least represented among christians everywhere. Due to the vagueness and imperfectness of message of the bible its difficult to believe they are the only ones that will be saved if you believe in god. Because the bible is not a perfect work and the fact that CD's themselves are divided (still) over biblical doctrine speaks volumes about it's rather incapable authors (human beings).

There should be no debate over what the message means if it was conveyed properly but the bible and natural history is among the most debated in the world because they are contrary to one another.

[scitsofreaky]

Hey fort, that you. I have to have what I read tested, otherwise I am bound to just believe it without hearing something against it. Like mordecai said, this debate/discussion had a faulty base at best, which is my fault since I brought it up. But, I hope that it has made you think at least half as hard as I have.
Another fault I would like to bring up is that perfection can be relative. You may see something as perfect (the Bible?), whereas I don't.

Quote

because someone who possesses complete knowledge can have the intent to make something lesser then himself

But then there is the intent to create something that is imperfect.

I agree with what you said about the Bible. Christians base their beliefs on faith described by other men, and they somehow seem to think that these people were able to convey an infallible message.

Edited by scitsofreaky, 30 January 2005 - 09:47 PM.