Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Why does desire imply imperfection?
desire is another type of need. no1 can desire sumthing which does not attract them. if sum1 desires sumthing, than that means that they do no POSESS it already, or the fealing that comes after posessing it {hence the imperfection. the lack of presence of completeness of fealing or sum phenomenon/thing} . sum1 who was complete and perfect and wud stop needing and desiring. because they would already have everything.
Originally posted by leonheartmmExactly how do you know what a perfect being would do?
desire is another type of need. no1 can desire sumthing which does not attract them. if sum1 desires sumthing, than that means that they do no POSESS it already, or the fealing that comes after posessing it {hence the imperfection. the lack of presence of completeness of fealing or sum phenomenon/thing} . sum1 who was complete and perfect and wud stop needing and desiring. because they would already have everything.
Where is the evidence?
It could be just as easily said that a perfect being who knows no imperfection could also seek to see what imperfection holds.
Of course you will say but the desire to seek something also implies that the being isn't perfect or is limited.
In which I say I but a perfect seeking imperfection only means that the perfect being understands to be perfect one must also be imperfect.
Of course you will say if the beings seeks to be perfect through imperfection does that not mean it was imperfect and incompletle at one time.
In which I say the being could be imperfect and perfect at the same time from the very begining.
Of course you will say a being can not be perfect and imperfect at the same time as one makes the other impossible. You will say if something is perfect then it can not be imperfect, and if something is imperfect then it can not be perfect.
In which case I will ask for some evidence concerning said assumption outside of human or physical examples. Why will I ask this because from a fundamental standpoint every example you will use will be in fact imperfection because you will cite humanity which is imperfect and has never experienced perfection. Therefore there is no actual evidence you can use to for your claims of imperfection and perfection not existing at the same time.
In which you will say that there is some logical conclusion you can come to from imperfection to perfection.
In which I will say even logic requires evidence.
Then you will say but you do not need to have evidence to prove that a=b b=c therefore a=c. It just is.
Then I will say yes but not until someone actually observed that this is true. It may have been true before but at the same time it still needed to be seen and observed for it to hold as logic. Therefore in order to make a claim on perfection you need to have observed. Which you haven't.
And honestly I just got up and wanted to hear myself type so have fun reading everything up to this sorry 馃槢
馃槅
Originally posted by leonheartmm
desire is another type of need. no1 can desire sumthing which does not attract them. if sum1 desires sumthing, than that means that they do no POSESS it already, or the fealing that comes after posessing it {hence the imperfection. the lack of presence of completeness of fealing or sum phenomenon/thing} . sum1 who was complete and perfect and wud stop needing and desiring. because they would already have everything.
Have you spent any time as a perfect omnipotent being? If not your opinion is meaningless 馃槵
^ no it is not. that argument can be used to justify any act of god. it is fallacious because the basic meaning of perfection CAN be understood, as opposed to everything it implies{which can not be understood}.
as for the argument by newjak, you can avoid ALL that by just stating it for what it really is, a logical impossibility with self contradictory notions. that is why it makes no sense. however, even if it is assumed FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, that the said being is perfect, than it goes to reason that the being would neither need nor desire anything. because both need and desire exist for things that are not posessed to begin with.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^ no it is not. that argument can be used to justify any act of god. it is fallacious because the basic meaning of perfection CAN be understood, as opposed to everything it implies{which can not be understood}.
Yes it can be used to justify any act of a perfect God. What makes that a bad thing? It's not as though you could do anything about it.
You're inventing (or borrowing) your own definition of perfection and imperfect to make an argument, which is fallacious in and of itself.
Originally posted by Newjak
Exactly how do you know what a perfect being would do?Where is the evidence?
It could be just as easily said that a perfect being who knows no imperfection could also seek to see what imperfection holds.
Of course you will say but the desire to seek something also implies that the being isn't perfect or is limited.
In which I say I but a perfect seeking imperfection only means that the perfect being understands to be perfect one must also be imperfect.
Of course you will say if the beings seeks to be perfect through imperfection does that not mean it was imperfect and incompletle at one time.
In which I say the being could be imperfect and perfect at the same time from the very begining.
Of course you will say a being can not be perfect and imperfect at the same time as one makes the other impossible. You will say if something is perfect then it can not be imperfect, and if something is imperfect then it can not be perfect.
In which case I will ask for some evidence concerning said assumption outside of human or physical examples. Why will I ask this because from a fundamental standpoint every example you will use will be in fact imperfection because you will cite humanity which is imperfect and has never experienced perfection. Therefore there is no actual evidence you can use to for your claims of imperfection and perfection not existing at the same time.
In which you will say that there is some logical conclusion you can come to from imperfection to perfection.
In which I will say even logic requires evidence.
Then you will say but you do not need to have evidence to prove that a=b b=c therefore a=c. It just is.
Then I will say yes but not until someone actually observed that this is true. It may have been true before but at the same time it still needed to be seen and observed for it to hold as logic. Therefore in order to make a claim on perfection you need to have observed. Which you haven't.
And honestly I just got up and wanted to hear myself type so have fun reading everything up to this sorry 馃槢
馃槅
wow
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes it can be used to justify any act of a perfect God. What makes that a bad thing? It's not as though you could do anything about it.You're inventing (or borrowing) your own definition of perfection and imperfect to make an argument, which is fallacious in and of itself.
it is a bad thing because it can not be falsified and hence it is not a logical argument but a superphilosophy.
and it is not MY definition of perfection but the concept generally understoof by the greater part of living humans in this world. utter perfection wud be complete and not require anything more to make it any BETTER. ofcourse COMPLETE perfection is self contradictory which is why the problems arise when u try to reconcile it as an attribute of god. it isnt fallacious at all.
Originally posted by leonheartmmThe only reason complete perfection is considered self contradictory is because it has never been seen or has never been known. Everything we have never observed to be true we consider self-contradictory by nature.
it is a bad thing because it can not be falsified and hence it is not a logical argument but a superphilosophy.and it is not MY definition of perfection but the concept generally understoof by the greater part of living humans in this world. utter perfection wud be complete and not require anything more to make it any BETTER. ofcourse COMPLETE perfection is self contradictory which is why the problems arise when u try to reconcile it as an attribute of god. it isnt fallacious at all.
Which in and of itself is not grounds to disqualify something it just means we can not fathom a condition in which something would be completely perfect.
Which also is the reason why every time you say what a perfect being would do should be dismissed as you do not know what a perfect being would do. There is no logical step to be made because there is no evidence in which to create a logical bridge. As evidenced by the mere fact everything you will reference is imperfect.
Unless you can actually reference something that is perfect?
Originally posted by Newjak
The only reason complete perfection is considered self contradictory is because it has never been seen or has never been known. Everything we have never observed to be true we consider self-contradictory by nature.Which in and of itself is not grounds to disqualify something it just means we can not fathom a condition in which something would be completely perfect.
Which also is the reason why every time you say what a perfect being would do should be dismissed as you do not know what a perfect being would do. There is no logical step to be made because there is no evidence in which to create a logical bridge. As evidenced by the mere fact everything you will reference is imperfect.
Unless you can actually reference something that is perfect?
Perfection, as you are stating, does not exist. The universe is perfect in it's imperfection.
newjak you are wrong. i am NOT basing my assumption on the fact that we have never seen a perfect being{btw, the reasoning that its contradictory just because such a being hasnt been see is like putting the horse before the coach. normally, self contradictory concepts dont exist in real life BECAUSE they are self contraidtory i.e. a square circle.
now going by your reasoning, i cud make a case for a square circle by saying that no1 has seen a square circle and hence no1 can comment on its nature and if it exists or not and hence there is nothing nrgating the existance of a square circle. heck i cud make an argument for any contradictory thing that way. the REASON no1 has seen a perfect being is because they can not EXIST due to the contradiction. the best we can do [and what iw as doing] is elaborate on the hypothesis of existance, orf different COMPONENTS of such contradicting concepts and also explain how they are incompatible and contradictory in themselves}
the contradiction exists because a perfect being wud already have EVERYTHING. but technically that shud also mean it has IMPERFECTION{among other contradictory traits}, if it doesnt than it is not perfect. but if it does, than it is contraidctory as you can be perfect and imperfect at the same time. that is why such a thing doesnt exist.