Perfection and the LPOE

[Jobar]

This is a sharp tangent to Thomas Metcalf's thread here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1170000#post1170000)

Thomas' notion has gotten me to thinking about the logical PoE, and the idea of perfection. God is, by all accounts, perfect, no? And the central tenet of all refutations to the LPOE that I have seen involve the possibility that greater good might come from allowing evil, right?

OK, let's not look at good and evil, but perfection and imperfection. I think we can say that any evil is imperfect, can't we? So a universe with evil in it is less than perfect. So- can we build a defense of the LPOE by asking how can imperfection spring from perfection, and how can imperfection *lead* to greater perfection?

I am not sure we can safely equate evil=imperfection. However, it looks to me like the consequences of theists claiming that evil can be perfect are bullets they won't bite.

Not sure if this adds anything to the LPOE debate- but I don't recall seeing it phrased this way. It means that not only must the apologists posit a greater good coming from evil, but must also justify imperfection coming from perfection.

[Thomas Metcalf]

Originally posted by Jobar :

So a universe with evil in it is less than perfect. So- can we build a defense of the LPOE by asking how can imperfection spring from perfection, and how can imperfection *lead* to greater perfection?

The theist is likely to say this: A universe with the possibility to turn imperfect is better than a universe that is guaranteed to stay perfect forever. It sounds strange, but her defense will be that a universe in which humans have the free will to make things imperfect is better than a universe in which humans don't have the free will to make things imperfect.

I think I would respond that humans' having certain moral characters does not preclude their free will. God should have created the humans with better moral characters.

[Jobar]

Ah, but remember, perfection is an absolute. A 'greater perfection' is one with 'north of the North Pole'. If the theist denies this, then they must dispense with God's unchanging perfection- because how can perfect become more perfect?

[Calzaer]

Isn't there a Japanese philisophy centered around the concept of a flaw in an object that makes the object more perfect than if it were not flawed?

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Jobar
OK, let's not look at good and evil, but perfection and imperfection. I think we can say that any evil is imperfect, can't we? So a universe with evil in it is less than perfect. So- can we build a defense of the LPOE by asking how can imperfection spring from perfection, and how can imperfection *lead* to greater perfection?

I am not sure we can safely equate evil=imperfection. However, it looks to me like the consequences of theists claiming that evil can be perfect are bullets they won't bite.

Not sure if this adds anything to the LPOE debate- but I don't recall seeing it phrased this way. It means that not only must the apologists posit a greater good coming from evil, but must also justify imperfection coming from perfection.

Apologists need not posit a greater good coming from evil (though they often do). In this case, it's perhaps appropriate to recall the defense that god, being a perfect being, cannot creating anything equalling his own perfection. Yet existence is more perfect than nonexistence, therefore he must at least create something that is less perfect than himself (I think Augustine originated this argument. C.S. Lewis may have repeated it somewhere. It actually seems vaguely Neoplatonist to me--reality thus being a series of corrupted and distant emanations from God, like enneads--but somehow I like it.)

Perhaps also one could say that evil, the imperfection, is a necessary consequence of the existence of perfection. Evil being the absence of god, its possibility at least must co-exist alongside god. Therefore even in god's perfection, we must admit the simultaneous possibility of the existence of evil.

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by Calzaer
Isn't there a Japanese philisophy centered around the concept of a flaw in an object that makes the object more perfect than if it were not flawed?

Yin-Yang, perhaps? I believe its basis is something similar to... "the greatest good has some small taint of evil and even the blackest evil is diluted by one white spot of virtue.

[Lion Eyes]

It is "wabi". It is an effort to keep a low profile from the wrath of the gods, who are challenged by seeming perfection in humans. At least that's my understanding.

[Jobar]

Originally posted by the_cave
Apologists need not posit a greater good coming from evil (though they often do). In this case, it's perhaps appropriate to recall the defense that god, being a perfect being, cannot creating anything equalling his own perfection. Yet existence is more perfect than nonexistence, therefore he must at least create something that is less perfect than himself (I think Augustine originated this argument. C.S. Lewis may have repeated it somewhere. It actually seems vaguely Neoplatonist to me--reality thus being a series of corrupted and distant emanations from God, like enneads--but somehow I like it.)

Perhaps also one could say that evil, the imperfection, is a necessary consequence of the existence of perfection. Evil being the absence of god, its possibility at least must co-exist alongside god. Therefore even in god's perfection, we must admit the simultaneous possibility of the existence of evil.

{emphasis mine}

So God cannot prevent the existence of evil, i.e. non-omnipotent.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Jobar
{emphasis mine}[/color]

So God cannot prevent the existence of evil, i.e. non-omnipotent.

Well, by some definitions...but the idea is, the existence of anything also provides for the possibility of its non-existence. The existence of an omnipotent being also provides for the possibility of its non-existence. There is no being powerful enough to prevent this, because it is a logical necessity. So there really is no power that can absolutely prevent the existence of evil--therefore, god's power is not deficient in this regard, because such a power is unimaginable, and technically impossible.

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by the_cave
Apologists need not posit a greater good coming from evil (though they often do). In this case, it's perhaps appropriate to recall the defense that god, being a perfect being, cannot creating anything equalling his own perfection. Yet existence is more perfect than nonexistence, therefore he must at least create something that is less perfect than himself (I think Augustine originated this argument. C.S. Lewis may have repeated it somewhere. It actually seems vaguely Neoplatonist to me--reality thus being a series of corrupted and distant emanations from God, like enneads--but somehow I like it.)


Why is existence more perfect than non-existence?

Do imaginary turkeys weigh less than real turkeys? Presumably yes, as an imgainary turkey weighs nothing.

If I imagine a 500-pound turkey, does that weigh more or less than all the real turkeys in the world?

Comparing the qualities of non-existent things with existing things is something fraught with possible fallacies.

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by the_cave
So there really is no power that can absolutely prevent the existence of evil--therefore, god's power is not deficient in this regard, because such a power is unimaginable, and technically impossible.

Wave goodbye to Heaven.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Steven Carr
Wave goodbye to Heaven.

?

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Steven Carr
Why is existence more perfect than non-existence?

Well, which would you rather do: exist, or not exist?

Do imaginary turkeys weigh less than real turkeys? Presumably yes, as an imgainary turkey weighs nothing.

If I imagine a 500-pound turkey, does that weigh more or less than all the real turkeys in the world?

Comparing the qualities of non-existent things with existing things is something fraught with possible fallacies.

I don't understand what this has to do with my argument.

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by the_cave
Well, which would you rather do: exist, or not exist?




I don't understand what this has to do with my argument.

Which would you rather bowl - a score of 300 or a score of 150?

Clearly, a perfect bowling score is an imaginary one.

Non-existing things are often more perfect than existing things.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Steven Carr
I don't understand what this has to do with my argument.

Which would you rather bowl - a score of 300 or a score of 150?

Clearly, a perfect bowling score is an imaginary one.

Non-existing things are often more perfect than existing things.

Yes, but surely an existing score of 300 is more perfect than a non-existing one.

I think the suggestion actually is that god can't logically create something equal in perfection to himself, because then he would no longer be the most perfect thing. So he must create something of lesser perfection. Now this actually isn't an argument that I myself make, but I'm using to illustrate how some theologians explain the emergence of imperfection from perfection.

I myself think that the free-will defense takes care of everything!

(I believe that Augustine actually goes on to insist that any universe with some good in it gets created, as the existence of that good is so desireable that it must be created. But I may have my source wrong on that one.)

(Actually, the Catholic Encyclopedia informs me that god was free to create or not to create. There's also an interesting argument there that claims there is no most perfect world, just as there is no largest number--so god cannot create the most perfect world, as there is no such thing. So all he can do is create some world that provides for the fulfillment of his intentions.)

I agree this kind of comparison can be "fraught with fallacies," as you say. (For example, is a non-existent bowling score of 400 more perfect than a score of 300? In one way, yes; it is larger. But in another way, no, because there is no such score. 300 is as perfect as it gets. But then perhaps this merely goes to show that perfection is relative...?)

[Ryanfire]

Yes, but surely an existing score of 300 is more perfect than a non-existing one.


A non-existent score is non-existent, and therefore not a score.

Without other scores to compare to, how do we know 300 is the perfect score?

answer: We understand 300 is the highest possible score (best possible scenerio) because of the rules governing the game. We designed it.

Without other gods to compare to, how does god know he is the perfect god?

How can we know the rules governing god unless we designed him?


So all he can do is create some world that provides for the fulfillment of his intentions.)


If god is omniscient (total knowledge of everything), how can god have intentions when they have all been fulfilled?

If his intentions have not been fulfilled, then he is not omniscient.


I agree this kind of comparison can be "fraught with fallacies," as you say. (For example, is a non-existent bowling score of 400 more perfect than a score of 300? In one way, yes; it is larger. But in another way, no, because there is no such score. 300 is as perfect as it gets. But then perhaps this merely goes to show that perfection is relative...?)


Perfection is the perception of a best possible scenerio that which is governed by a set of rules.

If there are no governing rules (limits), how can there be a best possible scenerio? Even god couldn't understand himself to be perfect, he has nothing to test himself against.

If god is limited, he is not perfect.

[fishbulb]

I think that we have demonstrated adequately that, when you allow someone to use a term like "perfect" without nailing down its meaning, all sorts of goobledygook can ensue.

Perfect is usually defined as meaning "without flaw," though some people take it to mean "as good as can possibly be," which does not mean the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. But even if you get everyone to agree to one or the other definition, you are still in trouble. Who decides whether something is flawed or is as good as it can possibly be? It it you? Is it I? If so, the Universe is clearly not without flaw, and it is easy to imagine a plausible Universe that is better than this one, so it is not as good as it can possibly be.

But, sooner or later, someone will argue that what they really mean by perfect is that it is perfect according to god. There really is no convincing counter to this argument: according to god, maybe this Universe contains the exact right amount of random destruction and suffering for this particular point in its history. The fact that we disagree vehemently is irrelevant.

On the other hand, the perfect according to god position merely begs the question. If perfection merely means being the way that the all-powerful, all-knowing creator wants things to be, then shouldn't the Universe be perfect by definition? If omnipotent god didn't think that this was the correct state of affairs, wouldn't it be different?

As long as you don't confuse perfect according to you, perfect according to me, perfect according to the child in Somalia dying of malnutrition, and perfect according to god, the answer to the question is as obvious as it is irrelevant.

[xorbie]

Here is my take on the issue. Omnipotence does not mean the ability to be illogical or imperfect or immoral. I personally believe that forcing someone to do anything is immoral. God is omnipotent in that he could create a perfect universe, but I suspect that this perfect universe would be totally and completely empty - that is to say existence necessitates evil. This is simply a fundamental fact. Also, the existence of heaven, or of lives beyond this one all point to the fact that whatever evils happen in this life might be offset by the good in the next.

I still maintain that the only attack on the EoG is "Why would God create humanity?" ... It just seems irrational to me.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Ryanfire
A non-existent score is non-existent, and therefore not a score.

Alright, fair enough.

answer: We understand 300 is the highest possible score (best possible scenerio) because of the rules governing the game. We designed it.

Sure, I agree. And what I think we're trying to do is figure out what the rules are for governing the concept of perfection, goodness, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, etc.

Without other gods to compare to, how does god know he is the perfect god?

God's not really worried about it...he is what he is. We're the ones worried about it, so we're the ones who need to define our terms (Just as in bowling. It would be absurd to ask how the scoreboard knows it's the highest score.)

How can we know the rules governing god unless we designed him?

That's ridiculous...you might as well ask me how we can know the rules governing the universe unless we designed it?

We're not assuming that we invented the rules of reason as though reason itself were a game (at least, I'm not assuming that...) So in working out what sort of god a god could be, or whether he could exist at all, using reason, it seems to me that we're trying to discover something, in the same way we discover other truths about things.

If god is omniscient (total knowledge of everything), how can god have intentions when they have all been fulfilled?

If his intentions have not been fulfilled, then he is not omniscient.

I don't understand at all what god's knowledge has to do with the fulfillment of his intentions.

Perfection is the perception of a best possible scenerio that which is governed by a set of rules.

If there are no governing rules (limits), how can there be a best possible scenerio? Even god couldn't understand himself to be perfect, he has nothing to test himself against.

If god is limited, he is not perfect.

? I don't think that perfection must mean "without limit." There are other definitions of perfection besides that (in fact, you just gave one: "Perfection is the perception of a best possible scenerio that which is governed by a set of rules." So perfection in fact implies limits, i.e. rules.)

But very interesting ideas, nonetheless...

[Jobar]

Rather interesting, yes, I agree. Still not sure if this will be a fruitful way to approach the LPOE, though.

the_cave, you said

God's not really worried about it...he is what he is. We're the ones worried about it, so we're the ones who need to define our terms (Just as in bowling. It would be absurd to ask how the scoreboard knows it's the highest score.)

Now, putting aside the fact that scoreboards aren't known for being omniscient, or even conscious- so far it looks like we cannot define 'perfect' at all except in terms of finite, limited things. Because the rules of bowling are simple, we can simply point out the limit to which the score can go, and say that such a score is the measure of a perfect game. Right?

So how are we to measure perfection when we speak of something limitless, infinite? We can't.

I can't quote chapters and verses, but I feel sure that there are many places in the Bible where God is called perfect. Seems to me that even if we can't link perfection to good and imperfection to evil, we have here yet another instance of the impossibility to define what deity is- and therefore the impossibility of saying anything at all meaningful about God.

[Ryanfire]

If god is omniscient (total knowledge of everything), how can god have intentions when they have all been fulfilled?

If his intentions have not been fulfilled, then he is not omniscient.

Posted by the_cave
I don't understand at all what god's knowledge has to do with the fulfillment of his intentions.


If god knows his intentions, then he knows how they will be fulfilled before hand (It is capable of an omniscient being correct?). Thus elimating intentions.


Posted by the_cave
God's not really worried about it...he is what he is. We're the ones worried about it, so we're the ones who need to define our terms (Just as in bowling. It would be absurd to ask how the scoreboard knows it's the highest score.)


Hmm... what if the universe just exists... and the universe is not really worried about it. It is what it is. We're the ones worried about it, so we're the ones who need to define our terms ;)


Posted by Jobar
So how are we to measure perfection when we speak of something limitless, infinite? We can't.


Perfection is meaningless to infinity.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Jobar
so far it looks like we cannot define 'perfect' at all except in terms of finite, limited things. Because the rules of bowling are simple, we can simply point out the limit to which the score can go, and say that such a score is the measure of a perfect game. Right?

So how are we to measure perfection when we speak of something limitless, infinite? We can't.

Well, I agree there needs to be better definitions of "perfect" (and now "infinite") here...I'm not very well-versed in the theological conceptions of these topics, so I can't improve on them right now...something to research.

I will say that part of the problem may be solved by claiming that "infiniteness" is a part of god's perfection...but that may just raise more difficulties. Otherwise, I like it.

I can't quote chapters and verses, but I feel sure that there are many places in the Bible where God is called perfect.

Yes, the traditional Christian god is indeed considered "perfect". I myself might argue for a less "ultimate" conception of perfection than has sometimes been argued...all I myself would argue for is a god who is the most perfect thing that is...I don't like to discuss the "inifniteness" of god, since I'm not sure what it means, I'm not very good at it, I'm not sure it's necessary for theism, and the discussion can very quicky get out of hand...

[Ryanfire]

I will say that part of the problem may be solved by claiming that "infiniteness" is a part of god's perfection...but that may just raise more difficulties. Otherwise, I like it.


"part of" is relative and cannot be used in conjunction with "perfection", an absolute.

The only reason theologians need to redefine words in this manner, is that their views are contradictory in light of language. They attack the language rather than the idea.

lets use your logic:

If "infiniteness" is "part of" perfection, and the universe is infinite, we must conclude that it is perfect.

If god is beyond the infinite universe, that would mean the universe is not perfect. Therefore contradicting "infiniteness" as part of perfection.


all I myself would argue for is a god who is the most perfect thing that is...


How can god be "most perfect"? Can god also be "less perfect"? :rolleyes: I thought perfect was absolute? perfect = perfect


I don't like to discuss the "inifniteness" of god, since I'm not sure what it means, I'm not very good at it, I'm not sure it's necessary for theism, and the discussion can very quicky get out of hand...


God is not "perfect" because there is no determinate way to measure perfection without limits. It renders your view that god is perfect useless.

So once again.. if "infinity" is perfect, then the universe is perfect. Nothing exists outside of it. Not even god.