"Nonsense" about Christianity

[Avatar]

Nor mutually inclusive obviously.

Actually, I really like Xar's view of it. Substitute "enlightenment" or even better, "awareness" for perfection, and it's...well...perfect.

That which groks is God.

And we obviously grok. Cool, another Stranger fan.

--A

[CovenantJr]

Actually, I really like Xar's view of it. Substitute "enlightenment" or even better, "awareness" for perfection, and it's...well...perfect.

How so? Enlightenment to what extent? Awareness of how much?

[Xar]

I'm not justifying any beliefs. My idea of perfection is the same whether it applies to a divine entity, a novel or a cake. I'm not remotely commenting on whether or not a 'perfect' being would or could have a desire to create. I'm just saying I can understand that argument, given my interpretation of the concept of perfection.

I'm not sure I see perfection as a mountain so much as, for the sake of consistency, a cake. If you have a perfect cake, with jam and icing and whatever else (the details of what you personally consider a good cake aren't really relevant here), and it is indeed absolutely perfect, changing it can only be imperfection. If you add more icing, there'll be too much icing for it to be perfect. If you take some away, there'll be too little. If you change the jam, the flavour will be wrong. If you make it bigger, it's too big; if smaller, too small. If it is perfect, any conceivable deviation can only move it away from that state.

Again, this has nothing to do with my 'beliefs', whatever you, Cail, suspect them to be. It's my understanding of a concept, applied to divinty or anything else you care to name.

I think I see what you mean, but I still think it's perhaps an oversimplification. First of all, your example defines perfection as a subjective term - your perfect cake is not necessarily the cake I would call perfect, for example, simply because we have different tastes. The cake itself could be perfect regardless of how much icing you put on top, simply because one person would think it's perfect with 100% more icing, and one would think it's perfect without icing at all, for example. In your case, "perfection" is a subjective definition you apply to the cake - in the case we are discussing, perfection is meant as an objective term which does not depend on the viewer.

But if you want to study your example of the cake... it assumes that there is only ONE "right" jam (say, blueberry jam). But what if I like blueberry jam just as much as I like strawberry jam? If you replace one with the other, the cake will still be perfect as far as I'm concerned, even though a change was made. What if I used brown eggs instead of white eggs for the cake? It's perfect just the same, but I changed an ingredient. And what if I decide I want to use the same ingredients to make another kind of cake? Your blueberry cake could be perfect, but I could use almost the same ingredients to make the perfect blackberry cake, or even the perfect lemon cake. All perfect, just different from each other...

[CovenantJr]

But if you want to study your example of the cake... it assumes that there is only ONE "right" jam (say, blueberry jam). But what if I like blueberry jam just as much as I like strawberry jam? If you replace one with the other, the cake will still be perfect as far as I'm concerned, even though a change was made. What if I used brown eggs instead of white eggs for the cake? It's perfect just the same, but I changed an ingredient. And what if I decide I want to use the same ingredients to make another kind of cake? Your blueberry cake could be perfect, but I could use almost the same ingredients to make the perfect blackberry cake, or even the perfect lemon cake. All perfect, just different from each other...

Yes, it does assume that there is only one. Subjective 'perfection' is actually just preference and not perfection at all. If perfection doesn't exist objectively, it doesn't exist at all, and any form of 'perfection' is just the personal taste of whoever has the dominant opinion.

[Xar]

But if you want to study your example of the cake... it assumes that there is only ONE "right" jam (say, blueberry jam). But what if I like blueberry jam just as much as I like strawberry jam? If you replace one with the other, the cake will still be perfect as far as I'm concerned, even though a change was made. What if I used brown eggs instead of white eggs for the cake? It's perfect just the same, but I changed an ingredient. And what if I decide I want to use the same ingredients to make another kind of cake? Your blueberry cake could be perfect, but I could use almost the same ingredients to make the perfect blackberry cake, or even the perfect lemon cake. All perfect, just different from each other...

Yes, it does assume that there is only one. Subjective 'perfection' is actually just preference and not perfection at all. If perfection doesn't exist objectively, it doesn't exist at all, and any form of 'perfection' is just the personal taste of whoever has the dominant opinion.

Then I'm afraid your example was ill chosen, because a cake - unlike a sentient being - cannot be inherently perfect by virtue of the fact that a large part of its attributes - its scent, texture, taste and so on - can be liked more or less depending on whoever tastes of it. A cake cannot change itself and has no hand in making itself more or less perfect. It's a static thing, and depending on the situation you place it in, it can be more or less perfect. A sentient being, on the other hand, is dynamic by definition: the utter stagnation of a sentient being is known as death.

A large part of our confusion is given by the fact that we are constrained - or rather, we constrain ourselves - to a linear universe and a sequence of causalities: we judge and imagine everything according to these causalities, and when we try to take certain concepts (such as perfection, or the existence of evil in the world) and we force them to fit into our concept of how the universe works, it's an ill fit at best. Hence the difference in my definition of perfection and yours: they are both different, but equally valid attempts at describing a concept we cannot observe within the universe our senses delimitate.

Nevertheless, when talking about a transcendent deity, especially in the case of the Judeo-Christian God, we define that deity as the being that created this universe in the first place, and therefore is not necessarily constrained by the linear sequence of causalities we observe in it; this God's point of view, thoughts, and even the concept of this Godhood wouldn't necessarily fit into our framework. Let me give you a simple example: if I take a book and I place it vertically upon a table, within our three-dimensional universe we will perceive it as a parallelepiped on a flat surface. In a two-dimensional universe, it would be perceived as a thick, flat white line embedded into an equally flat, differently colored surface. In a one-dimensional universe, it would be a section of white line in the middle of a differently colored line. In a zero-dimensional universe, it would be a dot. With each reduction in the number of dimensions, you lose resolution.

Our problems with defining concepts such as "omnipotence", "omniscience", "perfection" and so on when applied to the concept of a God who created this universe derive from the fact that if such an Entity existed, and He created the universe, it would follow that He could not be bound by the logic constraints of the universe. In other words, if we were living in the two-dimensional universe described above, any attempt to describe the book would be "it's a line" - we could argue about how thick it is, the hue of white, its appearance and so on, but we simply couldn't say "it's a three-dimensional book" because we wouldn't have a concept of what a three-dimensional book is. After all, we only have two dimensions.

Similarly, we don't have a concept of what God would really be: we can only approximate to what we think He would be like within the constraints our universe forces upon our perceptions.

[Menolly]

Judaism teaches that HaShem created because The All wished to do good, so G-d created beings that could appreciate it.

First, the angels were created, but they had no free will and were able to only praise HaShem, Lucifer being cast out to be The Adversary of mankind still falling within that purpose.
HaShem, seeing that the angels had no free will, wished for beings who would need to choose to work to attain oneness with The All, thus learning to appreciate goodness, created mankind for this purpose.

Lurianic Kabbalism then goes on...

The key concepts in Lurianic Kabbalah are tzimtzum (contraction)and the “shattering of the vessels.” Luria posits a story of creation in which Creation is essentially a negative act in which the Ein Sof (God’s essential self) must bring into being an empty space in which Creation can occur. The Almighty was everywhere--only by contracting into itself, like a man inhaling in order to let someone pass in a narrow corridor, could the Godhead create an empty space, the tehiru (Aramaic for “empty”), in which the Creation could occur. God retracts a part of the Eternal being into the Godhead itself in order to allow such a space to exist, a sort of exile. So Creation begins with a Divine exile.

After the tzimtzum, a stream of Divine light flowed from the God­head into the empty space the Almighty had created, taking the shape of the sefirot and Adam Kadmon (Primal Man). The light flowed from Adam Kadmon, out of his eyes, nose, mouth, creating the vessels that were eternal shapes of the sefirot. But the vessels were too fragile to contain such a powerful--Divine--light. The upper three vessels were damaged, the lower seven were shattered and fell.

Thus the tehiru became divided into the upper and lower worlds, a product of the shevirah (shat­tering). And so evil came into the world, through a violent separation between those elements that had taken part in the act of creation and others that had willfully resisted, contributing to the shattering of the vessels. The elements that had fought against the creation were the nascent powers of evil, but because they opposed creation they lack the power to survive; they need access to the Divine light, and continue to exist in the world only to the extent that they can gather the holy sparks that fell when the shevirah took place.

So, one of the very first thoughts of Ari Ha-Kadosh (Isaac Luria) is that in order to do good, it took a negative act of the Ein Sof to bring it about...

Basically, in my eyes, while HaShem is omniscient and omnipresent, and as Jews we say the Shema (affirming that HaShem is our G-d and that HaShem is One) thrice daily, the more I read the more I agree with the terms "enlightenment" and "awareness," other than "perfection." The reason why HaShem wished to do good is never explained, and mankind was created to choose to follow The All's ways...
...or not.

[Vraith]

huh...this thread went a bunch of different places pretty quickly.
On perfection, though...SW and Cjr, I think, [hope I'm refering to the right peeps] you've got a pretty Platonic version: If it can change, then it's not Ideal, which eventually leads to subjectivitity/illusion and a number of other implications, too.
But Xar made an important point, even if it's buried:

A sentient being, on the other hand, is dynamic by definition: the utter stagnation of a sentient being is known as death.

Whatever else we disagree on, God must at least be this. And perfection is the same. Perfection does not preclude change/creation, it must include the possiblility of change as a necessary condition. It must include growth. A healthy seed is a perfect seed...but it is meaningless, might as well not even exist, if it does not become other than a perfect seed [a perfect rose, for example]
God could easily be this way...perfect at every given instant, yet not identical from instant to instant.
For those of you who value Biblical sources as part of defining God: If I recall correctly, God said "I am THAT I am," not "I am AS I am."
Perfection not as a state of being, but as a process of being.

[Seven Words]

huh...this thread went a bunch of different places pretty quickly.
On perfection, though...SW and Cjr, I think, [hope I'm refering to the right peeps] you've got a pretty Platonic version: If it can change, then it's not Ideal, which eventually leads to subjectivitity/illusion and a number of other implications, too.
But Xar made an important point, even if it's buried:

A sentient being, on the other hand, is dynamic by definition: the utter stagnation of a sentient being is known as death.

Whatever else we disagree on, God must at least be this. And perfection is the same. Perfection does not preclude change/creation, it must include the possiblility of change as a necessary condition. It must include growth. A healthy seed is a perfect seed...but it is meaningless, might as well not even exist, if it does not become other than a perfect seed [a perfect rose, for example]
God could easily be this way...perfect at every given instant, yet not identical from instant to instant.
For those of you who value Biblical sources as part of defining God: If I recall correctly, God said "I am THAT I am," not "I am AS I am."
Perfection not as a state of being, but as a process of being.

Except there is an outside impetus to the change to maintain perfection. All there was, was God. How can there BE any dynamism? there are no outside forces.

[Xar]

huh...this thread went a bunch of different places pretty quickly.
On perfection, though...SW and Cjr, I think, [hope I'm refering to the right peeps] you've got a pretty Platonic version: If it can change, then it's not Ideal, which eventually leads to subjectivitity/illusion and a number of other implications, too.
But Xar made an important point, even if it's buried:

A sentient being, on the other hand, is dynamic by definition: the utter stagnation of a sentient being is known as death.

Whatever else we disagree on, God must at least be this. And perfection is the same. Perfection does not preclude change/creation, it must include the possiblility of change as a necessary condition. It must include growth. A healthy seed is a perfect seed...but it is meaningless, might as well not even exist, if it does not become other than a perfect seed [a perfect rose, for example]
God could easily be this way...perfect at every given instant, yet not identical from instant to instant.
For those of you who value Biblical sources as part of defining God: If I recall correctly, God said "I am THAT I am," not "I am AS I am."
Perfection not as a state of being, but as a process of being.

Except there is an outside impetus to the change to maintain perfection. All there was, was God. How can there BE any dynamism? there are no outside forces.

Except that not all of a sentient being's changes occur in response to outside stimuli. If you just sit down in a silent room, close your eyes and do not move, your mind doesn't shut down... it keeps working, generating new thoughts all the time. In fact, your mind never stops thinking, even when you sleep. And if you put someone in a sensory confinement chamber, they'll keep on thinking. There are only two ways for you to stop your mind from continuously thinking: entering a state of deep meditation (which is very difficult and requires a lot of practice) or dying. So if the mind keeps on thinking even in the absence of external stimuli, then it follows that even without outside forces, God could change.

Oh, and I think none of us said that God changes in order to maintain perfection... that's a misunderstanding: it's not a cause-and-effect situation. Rather, the concept (however difficult to grasp) is that within perfection itself, God continuously changes, all the while remaining perfect. But the change is not NECESSARY to maintain perfection.

[danlo]

So all creation changes all the time, so this in turn helps to change God? So God is changed by this, but since "he's" omniscient God already knows the outcome which makes "him" perfect? Or is God simply perfect all by "himself"?

[Vraith]

So all creation changes all the time, so this in turn helps to change God? So God is changed by this, but since "he's" omniscient God already knows the outcome which makes "him" perfect? Or is God simply perfect all by "himself"?

God was perfect all by "himself." But, being God, knows there is literally no difference between being eternally perfectly only himself and not existing at all. So time, creation and change, and God is involved in, not separate from the creation.
A perfectly ridiculous analogy:
If you turn a perfect pie into perfect baked alaska, you haven't denied the perfection of the pie...and the perfect baker is changing, yet was, and is, a perfect baker.

[CovenantJr]

Then I'm afraid your example was ill chosen

Perhaps so. I never intended to suggest that all aspects of cake are analogous, and repeatedly tried to make that clear. It was the best illustration I could think of at the time. I, unlike cake, am not perfect.

[Cail]

I, unlike cake, am not perfect.

Probably not as tasty either.

[rusmeister]

So all creation changes all the time, so this in turn helps to change God? So God is changed by this, but since "he's" omniscient God already knows the outcome which makes "him" perfect? Or is God simply perfect all by "himself"?

God was perfect all by "himself." But, being God, knows there is literally no difference between being eternally perfectly only himself and not existing at all. So time, creation and change, and God is involved in, not separate from the creation.
A perfectly ridiculous analogy:
If you turn a perfect pie into perfect baked alaska, you haven't denied the perfection of the pie...and the perfect baker is changing, yet was, and is, a perfect baker.

Agree with everything except the second sentence. The one thing we deny over here is the idea that God is "needy".
Otherwise, I think your description is pretty good.

[Xar]

I, unlike cake, am not perfect.

Probably not as tasty either.

You never know, we should ask the cannibals whether they prefer a perfectly tasty cake or a perfectly tasty human

[Avatar]

Awareness of how much?

Awareness of your self?

To paraphrase Bach again, the sky is always a perfect sky, and the sea a perfect sea. They're changing all the time, but they're always perfect. Perfection doesn't mean stagnation. In fact, I think it could mean the opposite. Just because perfection is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist...it just might be different for everybody.

--A

[Seven Words]

Awareness of how much?

Awareness of your self?

To paraphrase Bach again, the sky is always a perfect sky, and the sea a perfect sea. They're changing all the time, but they're always perfect. Perfection doesn't mean stagnation. In fact, I think it could mean the opposite. Just because perfection is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist...it just might be different for everybody.

--A

Except then....what is your definition of a perfect God might not be my perfect God.

[CovenantJr]

Awareness of how much?

Awareness of your self?

To paraphrase Bach again, the sky is always a perfect sky, and the sea a perfect sea. They're changing all the time, but they're always perfect. Perfection doesn't mean stagnation. In fact, I think it could mean the opposite. Just because perfection is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist...it just might be different for everybody.

--A

Except then....what is your definition of a perfect God might not be my perfect God.

Indeed. If perfection is subjective, then God (or any other entity, or any cake) can never truly be perfect, only perceived as perfect by some. Now, a being, that might be perfect or imperfect depending on your point of view, feeling a drive to create - that makes sense. But it also shoots down most of the idea of divinity.

[Seven Words]

No, it shoots down the Christian concept of divinity (and from ym admittedly limited knowledge, Jewish and Muslim....If I'm wrong, please explain it to me so I won't make the error again). But if one believes in multiple deities, that's another matter entirely.

[Cail]

In no way does creation preclude perfection.