What is perfection?

[ranma1/2]

Well what is it?

Can something perfect create imprefection?

Can pefection be improved on?

Can something perfect make mistakes?

Can you add or subtract from something perfect and make it better?

Does perfection exists?

[Keltoi]

Obviously you are asking this question in the context of God.

The phrase more appropriate to God would be "absolute perfection".

What is perfection? In the context of God it is in reference to His sovereign power. Meaning nothing happens outside of God's will. At least that is my understanding of the concept.

Can something perfect create imperfection? Obviously...God can choose to do as He wills. The question should be "would he?" When it comes to human beings, I believe the "perfection" God is looking for is avoidance of sin. That is next to impossible for a human being...but it is the active seeking of that perfection that rewards us with salvation through God.

Can perfection be improved on? If you are talking about God, I don't think the question is even relevant or sensible. Perhaps it is too early for philosophy. :)

Can something perfect make mistakes? Again, if you are talking about God I don't believe the question to be all that sensible. God is the ultimate and only sovereign divine power in the universe.

Can you add or subtract from something perfect and make it better? Sort of a repeat of other questions isn't it?

Does perfection exist? Only in One, that being God.

[- Qatada -]

Can something perfect create imprefection?

I think that's the only question needed in your post. :) A Perfect being will only create something which is lacking in perfection, since that imperfect being cannot be perfect.


Why can't it be perfect? Because it is dependant upon the Perfect being, i.e. its creation and sustenance. And the only One that could be Perfect is the one who is dependant upon no other.

[ranma1/2]

actually im not refering to god specificly.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[- Qatada -]

We will because that's what implies perfection to us as believers :)

[ranma1/2]

wouldnt a quality of being perfect include the ability to make perfection?

also the desire to create imperfection could be seen as imperfection.

[Muezzin]

If an author wrote a story about perfect characters with no flaws, and a perfect setting with no dangers, it would be a pretty boring story, wouldn't you say?

For me, contrast is perfection.

[- Qatada -]

wouldnt a quality of being perfect include the ability to make perfection?

This is like saying, can you pick up a rock which can't be picked up? The statement is flawed because a creation is by default imperfect by being created - since it was dependant upon God by being created in the first place. So how can it be perfect?

also the desire to create imperfection could be seen as imperfection.

That's not true at all, there are many who create amazing technologies - yet they purposelly create flaws within them for safety purposes.

I.e. they may create glass which will break (whereas they could have installed glass which will not break) - but they allow the glass to be breakable so that a person can escape in a car accident for example.


Or, since you're from Japan - you've probably heard of Metal Gear Solid by Hideo Kojima. In that (in the game) - Otacon [the scientist guy] creates some flaws within the Metal Gear [which is a machine of destruction] incase it gets in the hands of people who may use it for a bad purpose.




Peace.

[aamirsaab]

Hello and :sl:
Interesting topic

Well what is it?

That's a good question. Let's take the dictionary definition:
# the state of being without a flaw or defect
# paragon: an ideal instance; a perfect embodiment of a concept
# the act of making something perfect

source

So 3 seperate definitions really. Let's go with the state of being without a flaw or defect. Problem arises; what constitutes as a flaw or defect? A siamise twin perhaps? But surely that is only a flaw in the sense that it is against the norm? In which case, perfection as a state of being is completely dependant upon society's perception.

Can something perfect create imprefection?

All a matter of intention and context; for example a supplier of ketchup may dilute his product with water so he may stretch his product and essentially tripple his sales. Clearly an imperfect product. Admittedly, this is assuming the supplier is perfect which certainly impacts heavily on the example. In which case, it'd be rather difficult to give an appropriate example, unless you were referring to God.

Can pefection be improved on?

Depends on the actual definition. Though i'll attempt an answer in a general sense of perfection: person A scores 98 out of 100 in his test. He cannot be called perfect (in relation to the test) because he clearly made a flaw (and lost 2 marks). But, person A is perfect compared to those who scored 0. (Though, maybe that's just a matter of perception?)

Can something perfect make mistakes?

Matter of intent. Also, have to clarify what constitutes as a mistake (i.e is it really a mistake or is it a matter of perception)

Can you add or subtract from something perfect and make it better?

Depends on how broad the definition of perfection is. Though, one answer that is feasable is a simple No.

Does perfection exists?

Depends on your perception and definition of perfection. I personally believe the shark is the perfect predator (seeing as it hasn't had to evolve, plus it's a pure killing machine!) but one could easily dispute that with the fact that the shark isn't truly perfect, since it's only good at being a predator (one class, for example). In other words, it depends on how broad a definition you give to perfection; is it something individual or is it a general thing.

So it really depends on what perfection means.

[ranma1/2]

i have no doubt that subjective perfection exists but actual perfeciotn is the question.

[aamirsaab]

i have no doubt that subjective perfection exists but actual perfeciotn is the question.

O ok.

In that case:

Can something perfect create imprefection? - No (though depends on intention)

Can pefection be improved on? - No

Can something perfect make mistakes? - No

Can you add or subtract from something perfect and make it better? - No

Does perfection exists - Yes (by this I mean God)

[truemuslim]

Well what is it?

Can something perfect create imprefection?

Can pefection be improved on?

Can something perfect make mistakes?

Can you add or subtract from something perfect and make it better?

Does perfection exists?

i thought it was a poem....:-[

Can something perfect create imprefection?

Well god is perfect, if u mean mess up , no , if u mean mess something up on purpose, yes. if u dont mean god. no

Can pefection be improved on?

perfect is high enough...cant get higher

Can something perfect make mistakes?

No, its perfect...

Can you add or subtract from something perfect and make it better?

Its already its highest. so no

Does perfection exists?

Depends... if ur talkin bout god , yes, if ur talkin bout perfection in people. no

:w:

[snakelegs]

i have no doubt that subjective perfection exists but actual perfeciotn is the question.

isn't "perfection" itself subjective. what is "actual perfection"? who defines?

[Keltoi]

I suppose the best definition of "perfection" would be flawless. Then you have to define "flawless"...which would lead to other definitions. True, unless one is referring to God in this matter, the idea of perfection is completely subjective.

[snakelegs]

i think that perfection is not an absolute, and if it is, then it is unknowable....sorta like god is beyond our knowledge.

[Whatsthepoint]

does a perfexct being require anything?
The usual answer is no.
Why does it require existence then?
Why did it create the universe?
All actions a product of a necessity, let it be an apparent one (hunger) or a hidden one ((hidden) psychological needs).
A perfect being would have neither apparent nor hidden needs and would therefore create nothing.

there are countless arguments against a perfect being (god), some are good, some are bad, there are people who will dismiss each one as stupid, as opposed to others who will calim every one proves there's no god..

[Snowflake]

Other than in reference to Allah, perfection is a only a perception. i.e. a person in love says someone is perfect, even though they may not be. So really the definition of perfection boils down to one's own perception. Make sense? :?

[barney]

Why does God have to be perfect?
It's not a prerequisite for a deity is it?

OK, so it might have to be infinatly powerful, but that's not a reason why it cant make mistakes. The duck billed platypus springs to mind, dinosaurs etc.

[aamirsaab]

Why does God have to be perfect?
It's not a prerequisite for a deity is it?

It's an assumption in regards to most deities. In Alla's case, He has several names which all classify Him as being perfect.

OK, so it might have to be infinatly powerful, but that's not a reason why it cant make mistakes. The duck billed platypus springs to mind, dinosaurs etc.

All a matter of intent, you see. It's a similar question to why doesn't God stop all the poverty on Earth - It's the Will of Allah :)

Also: who's to say they are mistakes? :p

[Muezzin]

does a perfexct being require anything?
The usual answer is no.
Why does it require existence then?
Why did it create the universe?

Do you mean 'why does it require to create a universe of existence'? Or 'why does the being require its own existence'?

If you mean the first interpretation the answer is it does not require it, it simply willed it.

If you mean the second interpretation, that statement does not make sense.

All actions a product of a necessity, let it be an apparent one (hunger) or a hidden one ((hidden) psychological needs).
A perfect being would have neither apparent nor hidden needs and would therefore create nothing.

From your fundamentally imperfect point of view. Not because you're you, but because you're human.

there are countless arguments against a perfect being (god), some are good, some are bad, there are people who will dismiss each one as stupid, as opposed to others who will calim every one proves there's no god..

Perfection, as humans define it, is by necessity subjective. The most objective standard I can think of isn't really a standard at all - it's more about balance.

[ranma1/2]

isn't "perfection" itself subjective. what is "actual perfection"? who defines?

exactly! what is actual perfection?

[ranma1/2]

since many have suggested that god is "perfect" please list some of the qualities of its perfection. Can it make mistakes? If ti were to make something what reason would it have for creating imperfection in it? What reason should it have for then punishing the things it created for having those exact imperfections they were designed with?

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


The reason why God is God is because He is perfect.


In arabic, an illaah is anything which is worshipped. Worship consists of being a slave (abd), and doing anything which your master commands you (ibaadah.)


The only true illaah who can be obeyed is the One who is Perfect, this is why Islam does not permit the worship of the creation.

That's why, God is known as Al-Illaah (Allah) - the One and only true God.



Since God is not like His creation in any way, and He is Perfect. There is none similar or like Him in any way - this is a sign of His Uniqueness. So none shares His Power, Knowledge, Wisdom, or any of His Attributes.


For One to be Perfect, they can not have an equal in any way. So those who claim that God is similar to His creation - they are contradicting this concept.



There are 2 extremes throughout the many different religions in the world;

1) This is the extreme in which 'god is similar to the creation.'

This is the claims of some christians who say Jesus son of Mary is God or the ancient Greeks who claimed that god had a family, or others who say that we can serve idols because these idols are 'god'. They use the claim that 'everything is God' because the creation is within God himself!

However, this is false because if humans, idols or the creation was God - then doesn't the Big Bang explain that the universe had a beginning?

Also, some claim (i.e. in some aspects of hindusim) - God came to life by the energy of 'Om' - so if God had a beginning, then can that really be an attribute of One who is perfect? Doesn't Perfection imply that One is not dependant upon another? (i.e. in this context, 'god' is dependant upon that energy source.)


So how can God be God if He has human attributes? This is falsehood, because the only reason why God is God is because He is NOT similar to His creation.



2) The other extreme is that there is none like God, therefore God cannot have any attributes. This includes many religions like Sikhism, and even some Islamic sects which strayed such as the Mu'tazilah [the philosophers.]

These people attempt to defend God but because of this extreme caution, they argue that He has no attributes. So they deny that God has Knowledge, Wisdom, Control etc. because all these attributes - the creation has them also.

The above is another extreme.

Islam is the answer to all the confusion that has occured throughout history;


The answer is in the Qur'an;

There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.

[Qur'an Ash-Shura 42:11]

He has many Attributes, but there is none Like Him in sharing these attributes.

So when He is the Seer, Hearer, Knower, Powerful etc. - He is in reality all of these, however - there is none like Him in these attributes in any way. We do not know the 'howness' of these Attributes, but we accept them as they are. We cannot comprehend God, so we accept them without knowing the details.


This is God's Perfection, a perfection which people throughout history have differed about. And this Qur'an was sent down to unite mankind on what they differed.



And Allah knows best.

[- Qatada -]

If ti were to make something what reason would it have for creating imperfection in it?

We've discussed that imperfection is by default for something which is dependant upon another.

What reason should it have for then punishing the things it created for having those exact imperfections they were designed with?

Because He is willing to forgive us no matter how great our error is, so long as we regret our evil and repent for it in this life [to redeem ourselves like gator said], are sincere to Him, and we do not associate partners with Him.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi ranma

Can something perfect create imprefection?

Can he? Yes
Would he? I don't know

Can pefection be improved on?
Can you add or subtract from something perfect and make it better?

Generally speaking, I believe by definition any change to something perfect would make it less perfect.

Can something perfect make mistakes?

If by something perfect you mean an omnipotent omniscient being, then no, he can't make mistakes. If you mean in in any other context, then that depends on the purpose. If the purpose for the being is not to make any mistakes, then the perfect form of that being cannot make mistakes. Allow me to elaborate on that with an example that I used in the other thread. The perfect espressos machine would make perfect espresso's. People might attempt to make tea with an espresso machine, and on some machines, that actually works! However the perfect espresso machine could make imperfect tea; because it is not within the criteria for perfection of the espresso machine to make perfect tea. this because it is not created for the purpose of making tea in the first place. So it's inability to make perfect tea doesn't render it into a "imperfect espresso machine". It might however render it as an "imperfect polyvalent machine". So it's important to ask the right question. Are you talking about the "perfect espresso machine", or about the "perfect polyvalent machine that apparently is designed to make espresso".

Does perfection exists?

In the Utopian sense, I'm inclined to say no, because I believe the human definition of Utopian perfection is flawed by inherited contradiction. That is to say, when people make a checklist of criteria of how an Utopian perfect would be, they are inclined to add contradicting criteria. (Example: It should have free will, but it shouldn't allow people to make the wrong choices). However I do think it is self evident, that there exists a perfection in the nature of "The best possible solution/method for a problem/objective" even if that solution/method exists only theoretically.

[Muezzin]

since many have suggested that god is "perfect" please list some of the qualities of its perfection. Can it make mistakes? If ti were to make something what reason would it have for creating imperfection in it? What reason should it have for then punishing the things it created for having those exact imperfections they were designed with?

'Perfection' and 'imperfection' as perceived by human beings are subjective terms by necessity.

Therefore, those questions are rendered moot.

[ranma1/2]

please stop avoidign answering, id like your opinion on what is perfect.

If you declare someting is perfect (god for many of you) id like to hear these perfecrt qualities.

[barney]

OK, so God is perfect, but we all know, from these discussions before, that when Ranma gets round to posting a massive list of imperfections backed by scripture, the most common response is, that its impossible to veiw Gods perfection with Human Eyes.

So God is not perfect in a human understanding. He is perfect in a different way.

To me that means he has a different quality altogether and putting human attributes to him in anything will not work.
We simply dont know these attributes then? So we're all agnostic! :)

[Abdul Fattah]

please stop avoidign answering, id like your opinion on what is perfect.

If you declare someting is perfect (god for many of you) id like to hear these perfecrt qualities.

I think most monotheistic religions agree on omniscient and omnipotent. In Islam, we have some more qualities that we are certain of:

The All Beneficent, The Most Merciful in Essence,
The Most Merciful, The Most Merciful in Actions,
The King, The Sovereign, The True and Ultimate King,
The Most Holy, The Most Pure, The Most Perfect,
The Peace and Blessing, The Source of Peace and Safety, The Most Perfect,
The Guarantor, The Self Affirming, The Granter of Security, The Affirmer of Truth,
Al-Muhaymin The Guardian, The Preserver, The Overseeing Protector,
The Almighty, The Self Sufficient, The Most Honorable,
The Powerful, The Irresistible, The Compeller, The Most Lofty, The Restorer/Improver of Affairs,
The Tremendous,
The Creator,
The Rightful,
The Fashioner of Forms,
The Ever Forgiving,
The All Compelling Subduer,
The Bestower,
The Ever Providing,
The Opener, The Victory Giver,
The All Knowing, The Omniscient,
The Restrainer, The Straightener,
The Expander, The Munificent,
The Abaser,
The Exalter,
The Giver of Honour,
The Giver of Dishonour,
The All Hearing,
The All Seeing,
The Judge, The Arbitrator,
The Utterly Just,
The Subtly Kind,
The All Aware,
The Forbearing, The Indulgent,
The Magnificent, The Infinite,
The All Forgiving,
The Grateful,
The Sublimely Exalted,
The Great,
The Preserver,
The Nourisher,
The Reckoner,
The Majestic,
The Bountiful, The Generous,
The Watchful,
The Responsive, The Answerer,
The Vast, The All Encompassing,
The Wise,
The Loving, The Kind One,
The All Glorious,
The Raiser of The Dead,
The Witness,
The Truth, The Real,
The Trustee, The Dependable,
The Strong,
The Firm, The Steadfast,
The Protecting Friend, Patron and Helper,
The All Praiseworthy,
The Accounter, The Numberer of All,
The Producer, Originator, and Initiator of All,
The Reinstater Who Brings Back All,
The Giver of Life,
The Bringer of Death, The Destroyer,
The Ever Living,
The Self Subsisting Sustainer of All,
The Perceiver, The Finder, The Unfailing,
The Illustrious, The Magnificent,
The One, The Unique, Manifestation of Unity,
The One, the All Inclusive, The Indivisible,
The Self Sufficient, The Impregnable,
The Eternally Besought of All, The Everlasting,
The All Able,
The All Determiner, The Dominant,
The Expediter, He Who Brings Forward,
The Delayer, He Who Puts Far Away,
The First,
The Last,
The Manifest, The All Victorious,
The Hidden, The All Encompassing,
The Patron,
The Self Exalted,
The Most Kind and Righteous,
The Ever Returning, Ever Relenting,
The Avenger,
The Pardoner, The Effacer of Sins,
The Compassionate, The All Pitying,
The Owner of All Sovereignty,
The Lord of Majesty and Generosity,
The Equitable, The Requiter,
The Gatherer, The Unifier,
The All Rich, The Independent,
The Enricher, The Emancipator,
The Withholder, The Shielder, the Defender,
The Distressor, The Harmer,
This attribute can only be found in hadith,
The Propitious, The Benefactor,
The Light,
The Guide,
The Incomparable, The Originator,
The Ever Enduring and Immutable,
The Heir, The Inheritor of All,
The Guide, Infallible Teacher and Knower,
The Patient, The Timeless.

[جوري]

We simply dont know these attributes then? So we're all agnostic! :)

You don't need to quantify every last step of a composite cognitive process to reach a conclusion.. sometimes all you need to do is look at an end result and that is satisfactory to what antedated it...
If I come home and find an apple pie on the table, it is logical for me to conclude, that someone baked or bought and put it there, that it didn't appear ex nihilo from primitive parts and slowely eveolved into 'perfection' that will acquiesce to my taste buds.. whether or not there are a few burnt crusts to spoil its state thus rendering it 'imperfect' and by default denote that no being brought it there, it was either there all along in a constant state of self renewal or every few hundred years acquired a few new ingredients to be in that last and final slightly imperfect state..

to get back to your point, I can safely conclude, that where some of us are left at agnostic and satisfied with an orphan apple pie left at the table 'what could it mean?' some of us look for meaning, perhaps the one who left it there, loves us, intends good for us.. what can I personally do to show a measure of gratitude?

cheers

[Muezzin]

please stop avoidign answering, id like your opinion on what is perfect.

Balance.

[Abdul Fattah]

OK, so God is perfect, but we all know, from these discussions before, that when Ranma gets round to posting a massive list of imperfections backed by scripture, the most common response is, that its impossible to view Gods perfection with Human Eyes.

Could you point me in the right direction of that link? I haven't seen such a list in this thread so I'm thinking you meant in another topic? I'm pretty confident that any "imperfections backed by scripture" most likely come from a poor interpretation of said scripture or a poor understanding of the qualities and their implications.

So God is not perfect in a human understanding. He is perfect in a different way.

I would say, human definition of perfection is ambiguous. So it depends on the circumstances where you use it. (example, the difference between the earlier mentioned perfect espressos machine, and the perfect polyvalent machine that is mainly designed for making espressos)

To me that means he has a different quality altogether and putting human attributes to him in anything will not work.

True, only Christians believe that mankind is created in God's image. Jews have a different interpretation of genesis, and muslims don't believe the genuineness of that verse.

We simply dont know these attributes then? So we're all agnostic! :)

In some sense yes, with the difference that most agnostic will be agnostic regarding anything related to God, even his existence whereas theists do believe in certain qualities and the existence of God.

Why does God have to be perfect? It's not a prerequisite for a deity is it? OK, so it might have to be infinatly powerful, but that's not a reason why it cant make mistakes. The duck billed platypus springs to mind, dinosaurs etc.

Omnipotence is indeed no garuantee against making mistakes, but if you add omniscience to it that's a whole different thing. If you know everything there's nothing that you couldn't have anticipated.

[Whatsthepoint]

If you mean the second interpretation, that statement does not make sense.

Perhaps it does. If a being needs nothing, why does it need to exist? It's a valid question really..
A perfect being would either remain totally unchanged for eternity, doing absolutely nothing, or not exist at all.
That's my human intepretation..
:-[

[Abdul Fattah]

Perhaps it does. If a being needs nothing, why does it need to exist? It's a valid question really..
A perfect being would either remain totally unchanged for eternity, doing absolutely nothing, or not exist at all.
That's my human intepretation..
:-[

1. Who says that one needs to exist in order to exist?
2. Perfection can include the possibility to change. For example, the perfect espresso machine might enable to choose whether you like a regular or extra strong. In other words perfection is not the same as rigid. It could be a perfect dynamic state rather then a perfect static state.

[Whatsthepoint]

1. Who says that one needs to exist in order to exist?
2. Perfection can include the possibility to change. For example, the perfect espresso machine might enable to choose whether you like a regular or extra strong. In other words perfection is not the same as rigid. It could be a perfect dynamic state rather then a perfect static state.

1. er lol... I don't quite get it, could you elaborate please.
2. well, why would a perfect being need change if it's perfect.

[Abdul Fattah]

1. er lol... I don't quite get it, could you elaborate please.

Well you assumed that in order to exist, you first "need" to exist. Why couldn't anything just exist, without the necessity to exist?

2. well, why would a perfect being need change if it's perfect.

What if the ability to change certain things is what makes it perfect in the first place? As an example, consider the Islamic rule about pork.

If the rule would say: "Pork is forbidden." That would be a static rule. Its ruling is always the same.

However the rule is: "Pork is forbidden, except when there is no other alternative to eat, and one doesn't transgress in it." That is a dynamic rule, because is allows for different rulings in different circumstances. However these changes aren't actually changes to the rule it self, they are included into the very rule themselves. In analogy, A perfect deity might have the capability to change, without making himself less perfect, on the assumption that these changes are within the dynamics of his being.

[ranma1/2]

It seems to me that if there is need to change such as to change a cup of coffee then you are adding or subtracting from it and thus its imperfect.

the perfect cup of coffee would always me just what you need. (thus perfect)

[Muezzin]

It seems to me that if there is need to change such as to change a cup of coffee then you are adding or subtracting from it and thus its imperfect.

the perfect cup of coffee would always me just what you need. (thus perfect)

Your idea of a perfect cup of coffee would probably differ from someone else's. Thus, perfection is subjective. So we can't truly know it in its objective sense. I do like the Eastern conceps of balance, Yin ang Yang etc in that regard. That's really the closest we'll ever get to some sort of objective view of 'perfection', if there is such a thing.

Perhaps it does. If a being needs nothing, why does it need to exist?

One doesn't need to exist, one just does. If a being doesn't exist, it ceases to be a being. It becomes nothing. Nothingness is not perfection or imperfection, it is simply the absence of something. Unless of course you're seeking to undermine theism, in which case, this is a truly novel argument. Somewhat insane, but novel.

It's a valid question really..
A perfect being would either remain totally unchanged for eternity, doing absolutely nothing, or not exist at all.
That's my human intepretation..
:-[

Eh? If it doesn't even exist, it can't be perfect or imperfect, since it doesn't exist. Are you saying God would commit cosmic suicide or something?

[Abdul Fattah]

It seems to me that if there is need to change such as to change a cup of coffee then you are adding or subtracting from it and thus its imperfect.

the perfect cup of coffee would always me just what you need. (thus perfect)

What if one person likes it with sugar whereas the other likes it with milk or one wants it extra strong and the other just regular. To me a perfect espresso machine would allow you to choose which way you want it.

[snakelegs]

It seems to me that if there is need to change such as to change a cup of coffee then you are adding or subtracting from it and thus its imperfect.

the perfect cup of coffee would always me just what you need. (thus perfect)

what you have given is merely your concept of a perfect cup of coffee.
i could just as well claim that the perfect cup of coffee is the one that requires a relationship of engagement and participation, by the drinker changing it to suit his individual taste, so that he is more than a passive consumer.
i don't think perfection exists as an absolute.

[ranma1/2]

what you have given is merely your concept of a perfect cup of coffee.
i could just as well claim that the perfect cup of coffee is the one that requires a relationship of engagement and participation, by the drinker changing it to suit his individual taste, so that he is more than a passive consumer.
i don't think perfection exists as an absolute.

I think in that case your stretching the meaning of a cup of coffee.
Of course i agree that perfection doesnt exists as an absolute.
However i would think that you could make your perfect cup of coffee better by adding to it.

[kirk]

Does perfection exist?

There was a woman I once knew..........

k

[snakelegs]

I think in that case your stretching the meaning of a cup of coffee.
Of course i agree that perfection doesnt exists as an absolute.
However i would think that you could make your perfect cup of coffee better by adding to it.

of course i'm stretching it. point is - there is no such thing as "a perfect cup of coffee" as an absolute.

[Pygoscelis]

I am perfect.

I am also modest.

I am also joking.

[Abdul Fattah]

of course i'm stretching it. point is - there is no such thing as "a perfect cup of coffee" as an absolute.

I'd argue, that language carries an inherited ambiguity, not only in the defenition of perfection, but also in the definition of cup of coffee, that renders the debate of whether or not perfection exists into a strictly semantical one. In the end neither one of us would argue that there isn't such thing as "the best possible form"

[ranma1/2]

I'd argue, that language carries an inherited ambiguity, not only in the defenition of perfection, but also in the definition of cup of coffee, that renders the debate of whether or not perfection exists into a strictly semantical one. In the end neither one of us would argue that there isn't such thing as "the best possible form"

i would def argue that.

[Muezzin]

I think in that case your stretching the meaning of a cup of coffee.
Of course i agree that perfection doesnt exists as an absolute.
However i would think that you could make your perfect cup of coffee better by adding to it.

If you need to add to (or subtract from) it, it's imperfect. There are no degrees of perfection - something is either perfect or imperfect. So before you added enough sugar or milk for you to consider it 'perfect', the cup of coffee must have been imperfect.

Unless of course your opinion changed, which is fine, but that comes down to perfection being a point of view again, and that makes us run in circles.

[Abdul Fattah]

i would def argue that.

So you would argue that there's no such thing as the best possible form? Why not? Why would it be impossible for one form to be superior to all other alternative forms?

[ranma1/2]

So you would argue that there's no such thing as the best possible form? Why not? Why would it be impossible for one form to be superior to all other alternative forms?

i think you can always improve it somehow.

[snakelegs]

So you would argue that there's no such thing as the best possible form? Why not? Why would it be impossible for one form to be superior to all other alternative forms?

again, who does the defining? isn't it subjective? who decides what is superior, what constitutes superiority?

[AntiKarateKid]

Allah is perfect. Infinite and perfect. We cannot comprehend him, we can on the other hand obey him.

By the way, it is ridiculous to say you THINK you can improve on Allah. You can't even comprehend what he is so you are just spewing blind conjecture.

[snakelegs]

who said that they thought they could improve on god?

[AntiKarateKid]

i think you can always improve it somehow.

Just a response to that.

[snakelegs]

oooops - ok.
i agree with your earlier statement - you cannot not "improve" on god.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi snakelegs

again, who does the defining? isn't it subjective? who decides what is superior, what constitutes superiority?

Therer's a difference between:
(1) Acknowledging that there exist "X" which is the best possible form.
(2) stating that a given form A is indeed perfect.

Since that's rather abstract, I'll give an analogy with tallness rather then perfection.

(1) I acknowledge that there exists a human being, which is taller then all other human beings.
(2) I saw a very tall man today, I think he is the tallest human ever to exist.

I find (1) self evident, whereas (2) would always be debatable. I was talking about (1), the questions you asked me are about (2), not (1).

Hi ranma

i think you can always improve it somehow.

By your own definition, perfection was something that cannot be improved on. So now you're saying that: "the best possible form" cannot exist, because any form can always be improved right? I think you're wrong, allow me to show you why

First, lets discuss any situation with a finite number of options. Out of those finite number of options, there will probably be some options that are better than others. However, since your supply of options is limited, obviously at least one of those options has no options that are better to it. Just as like when you have a limited amount of people, only one of them can be taller then all the others. We call that person the tallest of the group. Simularly, I would say that the "most perfect" option is perfect in the sense that it is "as good as it gets". Note that I already stated before that I do not believe in an Utopian perfection, but that I argue there is inevitably such a thing as the best possible form.

Now I doubt you have any objections to this logic; and niether do I doubt you object to the best possible outcome in a set of finite options. So if you still insist that perfection is impossible, then I would assume that you believe so because you think that there is always an infinite number of options. However I would argue that even then, perfection is possible. But the proof is a bit more complex then in the case of a finite number of possibilities. Because here we need to take into consideration the criteria for perfection. I already showed that in order to know whether something is perfect, we need to know what it is, what it's purpose and function is (remember the espressos machine). Any options that's fit all of these criteria, would then by my judgment be perfect. Now I take it you would disagree, and say that you can always make an improvement, even when those criteria are met. However, I say that is wrong. Because any improvement that you make to the perfect espresso machine, is one of two things. Either it is:
1. Something that is neutral towards it being perfect or not. (for example, you think a red espresso machine is better, since the color fits your kitchen, but both the red and the blue version make perfect espressos)
2. Something you forgot to add to your list of initial criteria (you improved the machine so that the quality of it's espressos is even better)
The second case can be disregarded, since the flaw in the "perfection wasn't an inherited flaw, but we simply misjudged the machine due to inaccurate criteria. As for the neutral changes they don't render the previous option imperfect, since the premise was that the perfect espresso machine is judged by it's end product of espresso's and not for example by it's ability to make tea.

[ranma1/2]

how can you say god is perfect if you cant comprehend god?
and i have no problem saying you can choose the best choice out of limited optioins but that hardly means the choice is the perfect choice.

[snakelegs]

Hi snakelegs

Therer's a difference between:
(1) Acknowledging that there exist "X" which is the best possible form.
(2) stating that a given form A is indeed perfect.

Since that's rather abstract, I'll give an analogy with tallness rather then perfection.

(1) I acknowledge that there exists a human being, which is taller then all other human beings.
(2) I saw a very tall man today, I think he is the tallest human ever to exist.

I find (1) self evident, whereas (2) would always be debatable. I was talking about (1), the questions you asked me are about (2), not (1).

"tallness" can be objectively measured. "perfection" can not.

[snakelegs]

how can you say god is perfect if you cant comprehend god?
and i have no problem saying you can choose the best choice out of limited optioins but that hardly means the choice is the perfect choice.

easy! god is beyond our comprehension and so is perfection.
obviously, to an atheist, this is all gobblydegook anyway, since god, like perfection, cannot not be scientifically proven.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Ranma

how can you say god is perfect if you cant comprehend god?

How can you say that he isn't when you don't comprehend it either? I don't really see where you're coming from with this. Refine your question please.

and i have no problem saying you can choose the best choice out of limited optioins but that hardly means the choice is the perfect choice.

Aaaagh this is so frustrating.

Me) I'd argue, that language carries an inherited ambiguity,... In the end neither one of us would argue that there isn't such thing as "the best possible form"
You) i would def argue that.
Me) But wouldn't there be one option that is always better then the others?
You) i have no problem saying you can choose the best choice out of limited optioins but that hardly means the choice is the perfect choice

Do you like contradicting yourself, or is it just that you don't read my posts but instead read what you want them to say? So again, for clarity, I'll repeat what I have been saying:
I do not believe in an Utopian perfection since it's inherently contradicting, instead I hold that perfection is "the best possibility".

Hi snakelegs

"tallness" can be objectively measured. "perfection" can not.

1. Depends on your definition of perfection (utopian, or as good as it gets)
2. Depends on the measurability of the criteria for perfection (the perfect espresso for example, although the criteria might be debatable, I think that everyone can conceptualize a checklist of how they would like their perfect espresso)
3. Just because we can't measure it, doesn't mean it doesn't exists. (I think it reflects more on our incompetence rather then on an inherited flaw of perfection)

[snakelegs]

Hi snakelegs

1. Depends on your definition of perfection (utopian, or as good as it gets)
2. Depends on the measurability of the criteria for perfection (the perfect espresso for example, although the criteria might be debatable, I think that everyone can conceptualize a checklist of how they would like their perfect espresso)
3. Just because we can't measure it, doesn't mean it doesn't exists. (I think it reflects more on our incompetence rather then on an inherited flaw of perfection)

1. my "as good as it gets" may be very different from yours.
2. the reason why measurability would be necessary, is simply to provide an objective criterion, without which the judgement "perfection" remains subjective. yes, we can each conceptualize a checklist for what constitutes a perfect expresso - but it will be individual (subjective) and mine may be very different than yours.
3. this one i agree with 100% - just because we can't measure it, does not mean it doesn't exist - simply that there is no objective way of proving its existence. you cannot put god in a test tube - does this prove that he doesn't exist? nope.
all i am saying is that i don't think "perfection" exists as an absolute.

[Abdul Fattah]

1. my "as good as it gets" may be very different from yours.

Yes of course, that's why I pointed out in my first post to you that there's a difference between
1. Acknowledging that there technically exists an "as good as it gets"
2. Proposing that a certain option is as good as it gets.

2. the reason why measurability would be necessary, is simply to provide an objective criterion, without which the judgement "perfection" remains subjective. yes, we can each conceptualize a checklist for what constitutes a perfect expresso - but it will be individual (subjective) and mine may be very different than yours.

Remember that language is only a medium to communicate ideas. If I make a checklist, and then can make the espresso according to it, my perfect espresso exists. If you can do the same yours exists to. Just because we disagree on which one of them is perfect, doesn't change that they do exist. again I would argue that our inability to reach agreement on what the criteria would be reflects more on our incompetence rather then on an inherited flaw of perfection. Btw, I never claimed that I know exactly what perfection is like, I only state that I believe it does exist.

3. this one i agree with 100% - just because we can't measure it, does not mean it doesn't exist - simply that there is no objective way of proving its existence.

I think the proof I offered ranma was both subjective as accurate.

you cannot put god in a test tube - does this prove that he doesn't exist?

there's a difference between debating on the existence of god and debating on the existence of perfection. I haven't said anything about god in any posts of this thread as far as I know.

all i am saying is that i don't think "perfection" exists as an absolute.

Yes, I agree hence one of my previous posts:
I'd argue, that language carries an inherited ambiguity, not only in the defenition of perfection, but also in the definition of cup of coffee, that renders the debate of whether or not perfection exists into a strictly semantical one. In the end neither one of us would argue that there isn't such thing as "the best possible form"

Funny how people keep arguing against my posts only to reach a conclusion I have reached several posts ago.

[snakelegs]

Funny how people keep arguing against my posts only to reach a conclusion I have reached several posts ago.

ok - no more argue. :peace:

[ranma1/2]

ok so it sounds like that almost everyone agrees that perfection does not exists but is subjective.

[barney]

ok so it sounds like that almost everyone agrees that perfection does not exists but is subjective.

A perfect answer!:)

[truemuslim]

yep.
unless perfection is god.

[Abdul Fattah]

ok so it sounds like that almost everyone agrees that perfection does not exists but is subjective.

No I agree that utopian perfection does not exist.
I also agree that as good as it gets kind of perfection is subjective but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Hamas]

Assalamu Alaikum,

Firstly im not speaking in the context of God, im speaking in the context of humans, as in me, myself. If i made a gadget or some kind of machine and that machine did its job to the best of its ability and was in accordance with the reason of my making it that to me is perfect that to me is perfection.

You dont have to connect a humans perfection with the perfection of God and you cant even if you wanted to because when you talk about the perfection of God, your talking about a whole new level, a far more advanced level of perfection, one that humans can not even comprehend nor begin to achieve.

God is one, in His essence, His attributes and His acts. No one has partnership with Him in any matter. His existing and His living are not of the same category as the existing and living of created things. His knowledge bears no resemblance to their knowledge. His seeing, hearing, power, will and speech are not similar to, and share nothing with the seeing, hearing, power, will and speech of creation. Aside from the similarity of sharing these names, there is no similarity or sharing.

The court of the Lord is an endless one. The closer you approach, the further you find you have to go...

JazakAllah :)

[ranma1/2]

No I agree that utopian perfection does not exist.
I also agree that as good as it gets kind of perfection is subjective but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

i think calling as good as it gets "perfection" just really doesnt work since teh best option availble could be pretty horrible. There could also be better options that arent availble at the time.
you can have a choice of
green tea ice cream or pickle.
green tea is as good as it gets.

Of course there are other possibliities just not available.


the human eyes coudl be much better formed than they are. we only have the one choice that we came with so by default they are as good as ti gets.
(thankfully we can do surgery.)

[Abdul Fattah]

i think calling as good as it gets "perfection" just really doesnt work since teh best option availble could be pretty horrible.

If even the best option is horrible, that means that the situation is horrible, not the options. Doesn't change that the best among those options is still the perfect option in the sense that there is no better alternative.

There could also be better options that arent availble at the time.

that's a play on words, if it's not available it's not an option for this situation. If later it becomes available again, we're dealing with a different situation altogether.

the human eyes coudl be much better formed than they are.

How so?

we only have the one choice that we came with so by default they are as good as ti gets.
(thankfully we can do surgery.)

My motivation for believing that it's as good as it gets is because I think it's the best design without compromising certain criteria. Not simply because "we don't have a choice". See when I mean the different options, I don't mean the different choices we can make, I simply mean the different forms, they could have been created in.

[ranma1/2]

are you saying someone with poor formed eyes couldnt have better eyes? (near sighted, far sighted, blind ect...?) Could humans have better than 20/20 vision, see untraviolet, ect??

[Abdul Fattah]

are you saying someone with poor formed eyes couldnt have better eyes? (near sighted, far sighted, blind ect...?) Could humans have better than 20/20 vision, see untraviolet, ect??

There's a different in saying that the design is flawed, and saying that some people have imperfect eyes (since they aren't formed according to the design). I'd say if you have the current 20/20 it's far enough. There's no need for humans to have further sight or to see ultraviolet for that matter. In fact I think seeing UV might actually cloud our vision more, especially on sunny days. As for extra focus like the eagle eyes, that comes at price. The more you can focus the less panoramic view you have. A perfect eye would have a balance. Also where would you draw the line? at each limit of sight you could say that a further sight is even better. Would you want unlimited distance? I think that might be confusing to. Also note that we need to consider the amplitude and wavelength of photons when dealing with the sight of far away objects. Of course as a creator of the universe, you could change that to, but then you would have to adjust the photon receptors in the eye, you would have to remake the quarks that photons are made up out, and pretty much rebalance the whole universe and it's physics from big bang on. When I say "best possible form"; it's important not to lose sight of the word "possible" because for every change you would make there is a consequence that needs to be balanced out. You need to see the bigger picture here.

[ranma1/2]

There's a different in saying that the design is flawed, and saying that some people have imperfect eyes (since they aren't formed according to the design).

that seems to be a flaw int he design if it can form imperfectly.



I'd say if you have the current 20/20 it's far enough. There's no need for humans to have further sight or to see ultraviolet for that matter. In fact I think seeing UV might actually cloud our vision more, especially on sunny days. [/QUOTE] Some humans do see in the ultraviolet. (more common among women as i recall, and it doesnt cloud their vision.) Ill see if can get a source.

As for extra focus like the eagle eyes, that comes at price. The more you can focus the less panoramic view you have. A perfect eye would have a balance. Also where would you draw the line? at each limit of sight you could say that a further sight is even better. Would you want unlimited distance?

HUmans ahve also been known to have better than 20/20 vision as well so its clear our eyes are not perfect or as good as it is possible to get. (and you would think god could make a design without flaws. Its not limited in what it can do is it?)

... When I say "best possible form"; it's important not to lose sight of the word "possible" because for every change you would make there is a consequence that needs to be balanced out. You need to see the bigger picture here.

and a perfect being would have no problem doing that. (of course if it all happened naturally then what we have is what we would expect. Somethign good enough. (not perfect but good enough)

of course one other neat little factoid is that some poeple cane even see music or smells or tastes ( i think its thought of as some sort of automatic creativity in the brain) of course this isnt realted to anythign but it was on the topic of vision.

[Abdul Fattah]

that seems to be a flaw int he design if it can form imperfectly.

I tend to disagree. Like I said in the other post; there could be reasons that some people are created with flaws in the design. Some peopel might be born with these flaws in order to test them, as well as to test those around them. Flaws can also be a reminder to mankind how dependent they actually are.

Some humans do see in the ultraviolet. (more common among women as i recall, and it doesnt cloud their vision.) Ill see if can get a source.

Yeah some source would be nice ^_^

HUmans ahve also been known to have better than 20/20 vision as well so its clear our eyes are not perfect or as good as it is possible to get. (and you would think god could make a design without flaws. Its not limited in what it can do is it?)

Yes I know, my optician told me I had 11/10 vision. However over the years my eyesight got worse, and now I'm down to 10/10. With glasses I can get my 11/10 sight back. Still, the difference in depth view is only small (perhaps a meter or so). Hardly anything you can count as significant in this debate.

and a perfect being would have no problem doing that. (of course if it all happened naturally then what we have is what we would expect. Somethign good enough. (not perfect but good enough)

I'm not saying that a perfect creator wouldn't be able to balance these request you have. What I am saying, is that perhaps if you balance in these few insignificant things (like further eyesight, and UV-sight); for all we know, the end result might actually be less perfect. You can't just say this feature will be nice, so a form with it is more perfect then one without it. You'd have to first balance the form, and then compare the completely different form. Something that we humans could only test by a parallel universe experiment.