If this is the case then one or more of the following must be true:
(a) Billions of Gods coexist (one for every human)
(b) If there is only one supreme God, it cannot be perfect
(c) This is an over-simplified argument and I’m way off track
(d) The power of God is so incredible that humans cannot even begin to comprehend its awesomeness. Therefore, any attempt to define God is a waste of time.
(e) God does not exist
(f) None of the above
Please state your answer and why you choose it. If you answered (f), give your specific response. Please feel free to point out any fallacies in my argument.
Howso is perfection subjective? We can say that anything (except God, I suppose) is subjective, depending on aout epistemic views. I’m not saying you can’t stake a claim to this premise, I’m only asking you to.
You’re missing the entire point of the argument. Perfection is subjective meaning that what I define perfect to be is different from what you define perfect to be. We all have different definitions. Perfection can only be defined by the individual.
Dear faust,
This is kind of reiterating what I said above but here goes…There is no such thing as ‘Perfection’ (capital ‘p’) that is the ultimate form of perfection. We all define perfection differently. Think about it, if you were to describe the perfect individual, it would be completley different from my description. Does that mean your definition is any more valid than mine? Not at all, it is merely a matter of different perspectives.
spw317, this is a pointless word game, just as pointless as Anselm’s ontological proof of God’s existence. Do you have any intuition for the fact that it is a pointless word game? Because it just seems intuitively obvious to me, before I even state any problem with it.
If I must point out a fallacy formally, it would be that you assume the only definition for ‘perfect’ in ‘God is perfect’ must be a definition that agrees with everyone’s individual view of perfection. A theist would respond that humans are flawed, hence their view of perfection is corrupt and incomplete, hence the only true standard of perfection is God’s own. ‘God is perfect’ is only completely true from God’s own standpoint.
This is precisely the doctrine that a theist would dispute. There is a valid definition to which everyone else’s is compared: God’s.
spw - we don’t all define perfection differently. We may define the perfect human differently. But God is, by definition, perfect, or perfection. And we do know what this means. Aporia is on the money here. Once you say there is no such thing as Perfection, you are already saying there is no God. That’s the fallacy of the foregone conclusion, or something like that.
Even if we did all define perfection differently, wouldn’t the simple solution be just to ask what the particular theist we were talking to meant when he applied the term to God, and go from there?
I mean, ‘big’ is subjective, but that doesn’t mean a particular elephant is of a nebulous, undetermined size. Nevertheless, I feel justified in calling them big.
Thanks for the responses everybody! It was just a thought the other night when I couldn’t fall asleep and I knew it was just a little too simple of an idea. With simplicity, especially in religion, usually comes fallacy.
If “God” exists, and created everything, then he’s most-likely made so much by now [billions of years], that “He” can’t keep track of it all. It’s breaking down and degrading, whilst in other ways, it’s all evolving.
I agree. The universe is constantly changing and evolution is only one of those many changes. Of my many interpretations of God, I think this is the most accurate:
P.S. Dan~,
I appreciate that you used quotations around He because God is genderless. A lot of religions need to be more aware of that because God is often percieved as male.
God is also a female, a homosexual male, a homosexual female, a desk, a tree, a dog, a cat, water, alcohol, and marijuana all at the same time! The point here being that, yes we can’t prove what it is and isn’t. Therefore we shouldn’t label it anything and the best way to do this is by assuming its genderless.
===============
If there is someone or something I can compare you with, then I can decide whether to me you are perfect or not.
If God exists and created everything…then we should give him thanks that we are able to enjoy his creations and help those unfortunate ones who are suffering. So you have a nice house and a nice car and expensive jewelries. Sure you paid good money to obtain them, you think they belong to you. But do you really own them? Are they not subject to change and will return to their source? have you given thanks to that source?
Actually, to be quite honest, the non-moral/non-christian version of the word: “perfection” partians to sufficiency.
If you have nice friends, healthy food, and shelter, your life is basically “perfect”, because your needs have been satisifed, for example.
And, if “God” were to “create” something, it would be “perfect” after it was “finished” or after there was “enough of it”, if we are going by sufficiency.
“Imperfection” could also, on earth, be viewed as a step towards an eventual “perfection”, which is constantly unfolding. Our time-line is not “over” or “done” yet, so we’ve not really “completed” our natural cycle in the long-term sense of the word.
I disagree, I think perfection goes beyond sufficiency, needs, and satisfaction. Perfection is ampleness in that you are provided with your “wants.” You are more than just satisfied, you are gratified.
homeyz.