Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2863
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Burning ghost » August 30th, 2018, 11:40 am

Fool -

My idea was his attitude was due to no one attempting to understand him or come to play alongside him. I attempted and failed. My amiable questions were met with hostility which I found quite, quite strange.

I am still of the opinion that the derision he finds thrown his way has had such an effect as to make almost every (if not every) comment put to him to appear one of venom and offense (eg. calling me a “bigot” from my comments would take a very acute imagination prone to seeing offensive at every opportunity.)

Anyway, I had an interesting exchange with Eduk that I hope can be taken up further with more thought (I’ve some ideas already that may be fruitful for us both I hope), so it wasn’t just about taking a small glimpse at a overly defensive position and a failed attempt to reconcile the discussion.
AKA badgerjelly

Eduk
Posts: 2251
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Eduk » August 30th, 2018, 11:48 am

I think it's wise to be conciliatory even when faced with hostility and nonsense. At the end of the day what people say is often nonsense but what they mean is much less often nonsense. Picking apart what someone means is the trick. DM might be quite awkward to talk to but I don't find that I dislike him.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2863
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Burning ghost » August 30th, 2018, 11:56 am

Sometimes it’s just nonsense because they lack the rigor to attack themselves first and foremost - and it’s never a pretty affair to blungeon your own views to death and rise up without some sense of ire.
AKA badgerjelly

Steve3007
Posts: 5625
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Steve3007 » August 31st, 2018, 9:52 am

viewtopic.php?p=318334#p318334

viewtopic.php?p=296900#p296900
Dark Matter wrote:In short, I’m through with your hypocrisy.

User avatar
JohnHermes
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: July 31st, 2018, 1:07 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by JohnHermes » September 17th, 2018, 10:11 am

God, according to the gnostics is just pure awareness. Perception itself is the core of existence. But however, the individual, is the focal point of that absolute awareness. Here's a profound statement by esoteric mystic, William Walker Atkinson
And yet, while the "I" is not God, the Absolute, it is infinitely greater than we have imagined it to be before the light dawned upon us. It extends itself far beyond what we had conceived to be its limits. It touches the Universe at all its points, and is in the closest union with all of Life. It is in the closest touch with all that has emanated from the Absolute—all the world of Relativity. And while it faces the Relative Universe, it has its roots in the Absolute, and draws nourishment therefrom, just as does the babe in the womb obtain nourishment from the mother. It is verily a manifestation of God, and God's very essence is in it. Surely this is almost as "high" a statement as the "I Am God" of the teachers just mentioned,—and yet how different. Let us consider the teaching in detail in this lesson, and in portions of others to follow.

User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1180
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Newme » November 12th, 2018, 12:12 am

JohnHermes wrote:
September 17th, 2018, 10:11 am
God, according to the gnostics is just pure awareness. Perception itself is the core of existence. But however, the individual, is the focal point of that absolute awareness.
I like that - especially about pure awareness. I AM THAT I AM.

Maybe there are 3 ways of looking at God -( actually many more but mainly these...)
1) Intelligent design
2) Awareness/spirit/desire (and part of that is Tillich’s idea of ultimate concern) &
3) Relationships of action - we answer each other’s prayers.

The 3rd is more conditional than the other 2 - people let one another down which, IMO, is why many turn to the illogical herd mentality of atheism.

Jklint
Posts: 1250
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Jklint » November 13th, 2018, 6:19 pm

That which doesn't exist must by default be perfect since no corruption can cling to a state of non-existence. "God" may be the best metaphor for that kind of perfection.

Dark Matter
Posts: 1342
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Dark Matter » November 16th, 2018, 3:04 am

Spectrum has yet to say what perfection is.

User avatar
Fanman
Posts: 2953
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Fanman » November 16th, 2018, 3:05 pm

Dark Matter wrote:
November 16th, 2018, 3:04 am
Spectrum has yet to say what perfection is.
On the contrary DM. Spectrum has gone to great lengths to describe his perception of perfection, and has even separated perfection into different categories; absolute perfection and perfection. I propounded my view, that because perfection necessarily describes an absolute state, the term absolute perfection is only used for emphasis, but he argued that there was a meaningful difference.

I was thinking about this recently, and I thought, is there any difference between something which is perfect and something which is absolutely perfect? Since both things are perfect, where does one draw distinctions?

I don't think that if God exists it "imperatively" has to be perfect, it just needs to be powerful. I think that it is difficult to quantify perfection in terms of objectivity, because perfection is so closely related to perception, which varies from person to person. From my perspective, the only way God can be objectively perfect, is if it is maximally great in every aspect of it's being, but then if such a being has no limitations, how could it ever achieve maximal greatness? Even if such a being exists, there's no meaningful difference in claiming that such a being is perfect or absolutely perfect, because they both mean exactly the same thing.
Once a theist, now agnostic.

Dark Matter
Posts: 1342
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Dark Matter » November 17th, 2018, 3:15 pm

Fanman wrote:
November 16th, 2018, 3:05 pm
Dark Matter wrote:
November 16th, 2018, 3:04 am
Spectrum has yet to say what perfection is.
On the contrary DM. Spectrum has gone to great lengths to describe his perception of perfection, and has even separated perfection into different categories; absolute perfection and perfection. I propounded my view, that because perfection necessarily describes an absolute state, the term absolute perfection is only used for emphasis, but he argued that there was a meaningful difference.

I was thinking about this recently, and I thought, is there any difference between something which is perfect and something which is absolutely perfect? Since both things are perfect, where does one draw distinctions?

I don't think that if God exists it "imperatively" has to be perfect, it just needs to be powerful. I think that it is difficult to quantify perfection in terms of objectivity, because perfection is so closely related to perception, which varies from person to person. From my perspective, the only way God can be objectively perfect, is if it is maximally great in every aspect of it's being, but then if such a being has no limitations, how could it ever achieve maximal greatness? Even if such a being exists, there's no meaningful difference in claiming that such a being is perfect or absolutely perfect, because they both mean exactly the same thing.
Redundancy aside, Spectrum doesn't know what "perfection" is or what it entails any more than I or any other finite creature. Nor does God need to be "powerful" in the usual sense of the word. (Read The Weakness of God by John D. Caputo)

Dark Matter
Posts: 1342
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Dark Matter » November 17th, 2018, 3:39 pm

If there is a felt need to categorize the levels of perfection, there seven conceivable types:
1. Absolute perfection in all aspects.
2. Absolute perfection in some phases and relative perfection in all other aspects.
3. Absolute, relative, and imperfect aspects in varied association.
4. Absolute perfection in some respects, imperfection in all others.
5. Absolute perfection in no direction, relative perfection in all manifestations.
6. Absolute perfection in no phase, relative in some, imperfect in others.
7. Absolute perfection in no attribute, imperfection in all.
Human beings are at the bottom of the list with some overlapping (maybe).

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3484
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Fooloso4 » November 17th, 2018, 7:05 pm

DM:
Read The Weakness of God by John D. Caputo
Interesting that you are now recommending Caputo. What do you find there? Do you think it squares with Thomistic philosophy?

I was just flipping though my copy of “More Radical Hermeneutics: On Not Knowing Who We Are” in order to refresh my memory and found a $20 bill tucked in the pages. What I had read in not the only thing I seem to have forgotten. What I do remember may be from “Modernity and Its Discontents”, but is based on the same theme of aporia and undecidability. These are not faults to be overcome but the conditions for the possibility of faith.

His "radical hermeneutics" may be helpful for those who feel the desire to seek God but are put off by the claims of the theological tradition. It may also be of use to those who wish to interpret and see the New Testament in a new and different way. As an engagement it is not passive seeing but active being, a new and different way of being in the world here and now.

From "The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event"
The desire for God—that is the root of the trouble I have bought for myself. I have taken God, the name of God, what is happening in the name of God, as my subject matter. With or without religion, with or without what ordinarily passes for theology, the name of God is too important to leave in the hands of the special interest groups. That is why I freely own up here to a certain theological gesture, to a theological desire and a “desiring theology,” as Charles Winquist would have put it, which is undeniably a desire for God, for something astir in the name of God, a desire for something I know not what, for which I pray night and day. I am praying for an event.

Dark Matter
Posts: 1342
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Dark Matter » November 17th, 2018, 8:20 pm

Fooloso4 wrote:
November 17th, 2018, 7:05 pm
DM:
Read The Weakness of God by John D. Caputo
Interesting that you are now recommending Caputo. What do you find there? Do you think it squares with Thomistic philosophy?
(1) I find something that comports with my understanding of divine simplicity.
(2) I don’t know (though “in the High Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas would treat the suggestion that God could alter the past, good or bad, as a flat-out contradiction in terms and would deny, on those grounds, that it was possible.”)

Post Reply