Welcome to Gaia! ::

Just my philosophical ramblings for the day...

One of the most obvious problems that theists face when they assert that their god is "perfect" is that they have to account for the fact that the universe itself is largely considered an imperfect creation. After all, it seems contradictory that a being with no flaws would only create things that have many flaws.

Suppose for example that there is a computer parts manufacturer that has perfect customer service and possesses the capability to make "perfect" parts; that is, parts that never break down or stop working after prolonged use. Now let's suppose that despite this capability, they always deliberately choose not to manufacture these perfect parts even though it would not cost them anything more to produce. Instead, they always design the parts with imperfections so that they slowly break down. Would you not consider this notion in and of itself to be a flaw that prevents the manufacturer from being considered perfect? Regardless of the fact that the manufacturer possesses the capability to do everything right, the mere fact that they choose not to is by itself an imperfection; a flaw. To argue otherwise seems to suggest that by the same reasoning I could say a character's personality is still "perfect" after murdering someone because technically they still possessed the capability to choose not to murder. Indeed, I would argue that in order for someone to be considered perfect, they don't just have to possess the potential to be perfect; their actions should actually reflect their perfection.

Of course, typically theists solve this problem by rejecting the idea that a perfect being must necessarily create only perfect things anyway. However, this only illustrates another problem with the entire argument. Now it has has merely shifted into a game of "your word against mine" where one person simply disagrees with the other person's conception of what is perfect, and no one really gets anywhere. This is because "perfection" itself is inherently a subjective concept. This is what so many often fail to recognize; outside the realm of very specific theoretical frameworks, there is no universal agreement on what constitutes something to have the attribute of perfection.

Perfection is typically defined as the characteristic of having no flaws, but each person's idea of what is considered a flaw is different. When we judge someone's personality, we determine how close or far away from perfection it is based on our own personal values and morals. For example, I personally see a strong sense of humor as a virtuous quality in someone--even in situations where humor may not normally be considered appropriate. Others however may disagree, and they would see this as a flaw. They would be completely justified in saying that too.

So this is the problem: Even if there is an all-powerful deity out there somewhere, and he claimed himself to be perfect, it ultimately wouldn't mean anything to us. It would just amount to nothing more than an empty assertion of his personal opinion like anyone else's. The only difference is that he's the one waving the biggest stick around, but we all know that might doesn't make right. We have no particular reason to accept his claim of perfection, especially when given all indications about the world around us (which he supposedly created), there is nothing perfect about it by anyone's standards. God cannot simply will objective perfection into existence and then claim the mantle for himself, for this would be a logical contradiction. As I mentioned before, perfection is subjective. It is not a thing; it is an attribute that we use to describe a thing--an attribute that by definition is dependent on one's own personal opinions and values. Given this, it can only be derived from a mind, and thus it is subjective. To claim that something is objectively perfect is just as intellectually bankrupt as claiming that the color red is objectively the most beautiful color.

Therefore, claiming that your deity is "perfect" doesn't really mean anything to anyone who doesn't share your specific conception of it. It has no argumentative power or substance, and doesn't give any more reason to believe in or worship your god. And by that same token, since you have no way to show that your god's particular brand of perfection is objective, you are just as stuck as any atheist when it comes to claiming that there must exist some form of objective morality, meaning, or purpose. Since an objectively perfect god cannot exist, likewise whatever he claims to be the ultimate moral standard or purpose for existence is also just an empty assertion.

One of the things I've gotten so tired of hearing from Christian apologetics is this manipulative word-play where they try to argue that atheists are stuck in some kind of schism because we acknowledge that things like meaning and morality exist while somehow simultaneously arguing that they don't. However, in reality that's not what we're saying at all. What atheists typically reject is the notion of objective meaning and purpose, not necessarily ALL meaning and purpose. These apologetics conveniently ignore the realm of subjectivism, and treat the term as if it is synonymous with non-existent. Unfortunately for them, that's just not the case. The fact of the matter is, a subjective purpose is still a purpose. I acknowledge that things like meaning and purpose exist, but I'm not using the same definitions and context that a Christian uses when they talk about meaning and purpose. I'm talking about subjective purpose. It is a product of the mind; nothing more, and I don't need a deity to be able to explain or justify that.

Thoughts?

No faults or flaws.

And the problem there is God only created things that were perfect, but being they were more complex then something like a computer they had the option of becoming flawed through rebelling against perfection, because they didn't like the fact they weren't the greatest. God was perfect, what He made was perfect, but when it chose to become flawed, it was. The failure therefore, is not God's.

God rested to present a precedent for the rest of us.

I don't think I have to now, but I did put up less of an argument then I should've, and I might've missed something, so feel free to point things out to me that I missed.

That was just all manner of confusing.

Could things have really been done better? You seem to think so but without being omniscient you can't make that claim and without that claim the Christian claim that God is perfect remains intact and perpetually unchallenged.