Is Existence a Form of Perfection?

I disagree that it is so cut and dry. On what grounds can you say that their body is not perfect? Because it is not like the majority of people's bodies?


Conversly, there is nothing I can say to you to convince you that it is perfect.

This is kind of what this thread is getting at. Something is either imperfect or perfect, but how do we know which? Or is that up to the discretion of the perceiver?

 

So, according to this, how do we know that existence is a form of perfection, since we cannot conceive of non-existence?[/quote]

We can conceive of non existent entities all the time such as unicorns and ghosts with out worrying about it to much.

 

Well, define "progress". But no, I'd say the problem here is that we're working with an ill-defined understanding of "perfection". Something is perfect for a purpose. The notion of something being perfect regardless of its purpose is a bit old-fashioned these days, isn't it?

But yeah, this is basically my argument: what's being said is that the universe is perfect, and that if it seems like it isn't, it's because we are unable to see its purpose. So I say, if that's the case, then all things must be perfect for their purpose in order for them to be perfect, not just the things that seem imperfect to us. But someone who claims that the universe is perfect must, presumably, know that purpose, otherwise their diagnosis would be baseless. So they should, for example, be able to tell us the purpose of a rock. What is a rock perfect for? We use them to build with, but how are we able to state that that's what they were intended for? It's not like Man isn't generally considered capable of misusing things by most religions and a fair chunk of philosophy.

Possibly you misread me: I was saying exactly that. The world seems like it was created for us to live in because, if it was NOT the kind of world we need to live on, we wouldn't be able to live in it. ID fans like to think that the world must have been created for us, but why? There's a hell of a lot of the world that is a massive pain in the arse. And what about the rest of the universe? If it's been designed for us, why would there be so much vacuum in it? Man can't breathe in a vacuum, so why would God make it?

And we're far from perfectly suited to our world. Man is not in a stable, tenable relationship with his environment, so unless someone supposes that God made a shit ton of species with the specific intention that we'd drive them into extinction, I'd hardly see it as a reason to abandon my belief that we are just a happy (?) accident (felix culpa).

 

We can conceive of non existent entities all the time such as unicorns and ghosts with out worrying about it to much.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, but we are (usually) aware that we are conceiving a mental picture, not the being itself. So a mental picture of a unicorn exists, but doesn't prove the existence of a unicorn, any more than the existence of a nose proves the existence of spectacles.

 

Substitute the word unicorn for God. Mental pictures ah.

 

Well yeah. I wouldn't ever argue that there was a god.

Then again, substitute unicorn for "King George III". I personally have no idea what he looks like. From a description I might form a mental picture. But this does not mean that only the mental picture of King George exists; his body can easily be found, albeit in a less than recognisable state

 

This is illogical. There is no way for you to assert that unicorns and ghosts are non existent entities.

At the same time, as soon as you think of a unicorn or ghost, you have automatically brought the idea of one into existence. Perhaps they don't exist on our level of reality (which we will never know), but they definatly exist inside a lesser level of reality (inside your head)

 

I believe that's a fallacy. The notion that anything we can imagine is real relies on a very anthropocentric view of the universe - the same kind that gives us infinite parallel universes based on different (human) decisions - that isn't really borne out by how downright indifferent to life the laws of physics appear to be.

 

Rather than saying it's a fallacy, I think it just really boils down to what you consider reality to be.

 

Neodude, within most ontologies that posit a supreme being a principle is assumed which holds that there must be at least as much reality in the cause of an idea as there is in the effect of an idea.

 

A different tack, then: if everything that exists is perfect, how can we have a concept of imperfection to compare it to? [/derrida]

 

Duality.

But how do we know we even have a concept of imperfection? Perhaps the concept is perfection is and of itself?

I know it's tedious, but that's really how I think of it. If everything that exists is perfection, then I would say that you aren't really thinking of imperfection when you think you are.

I'm not asserting that existence is perfection. I'm just trying to see what people think perfection/imperfection is, and what sort of things meets their requirements.

 

Yes, it's known as Aristotelian causality. Descartes has a seperate argument for God's existence that depends on that idea, however, this argument is not based on causality.

 

Scientifically, rationally and logically we know the earth/solar system/galaxy is imperfect fragile, and finite.

For the creationist mind, we know the earth is imperfect because there is a promise of heaven. By heavens popular definition we have means of comparison to show that the physical world is imperfect.

Now explain to me why a God, who must be perfect by popular definition, would consist of imperfections such as this physical planet? Would a PERFECT woman have an ugly mole on her face?

God can not possibly be perfect! God has no power to end suffering. God has no power to save earth from destruction. Why? Because God is an imaginary creature!

 

So what do you think about this? Not that you haven't thought of it before.

Look at existence as an object or any one single object as you define it. An object is what it is in and of itself. That's it. When the human mind experiences the object, consciousness does its thing, abstracting, categorizing, etc., and then you have abstract concepts such as shape, color, size, etc. Then higher concepts are built and so on up the conceptual hierachy. Anything such as concepts or ideas or understandings that are produced by the functions that the human consciousness performs concerning an object are denizens of the metaphysical.

Perfection is an abstract concept. There's a perfect bowling score, but there's not a perfect circle. The kind of perfection that has to do with the latter is like God and infinite. God, infinite, perfect are sort of pretend concepts. They really cannot be grasped. Not to suggest Orwellian word reduction, but we could just take concepts like infinite, perfect, God and refer to all of them as "go figure" because there's really no concept there.

If you're looking for proof of God in the metaphysical its not there.

 

You only have to look at the sky and you're seeing infinity.
It doesn't only exist as a concept.

 

i dont know might be imperfect for freedom of freestyling what you want to put in your life to make it perfect in your own definition

 

I see what you mean, but as I was suggisting, the universe may be infinite, but when I look at the sky, I see the sky. I was suggesting that infinity does exist, but not as a concept. Shape, color, the U.S. Congress--in spite of being about the best example of a co-dependent relationship that there is--are all concepts because they are understood, with the possible exception of the U.S. Congress whose rationality is suspect.

 

I'd like to take a closer look at the word "existence". Hume attacked the ontological argument in this way, saying existence isn't really a property something can have, because no possible thing can lack it.

If we say "that thing does not exist", what we really mean is "there is no such thing". The phrase "that thing does not exist" is actually nonsensical, because there is no "thing" to talk about in the first place!

Likewise, it makes no sense to talk of something "having existence". Its a redunant phrase, you're saying "this thing is a thing". If there IS a thing to even discuss, of course it exists!

Therefore, you can't say that existence is a property something has, or even a state of being: existence IS being, and not a state thereof.

So, we can't really say that God would be less perfect if he/she/it did not exist, since existence and nonexistence are not states that something can be said to have or not have.

Also, its easier to feel that something is wrong with the ontological argument than to actually nail down what it is. I hope that was at least a little bit clear.

 

Hardly. There are limits to what we can perceive from a fixed point in space and we know it. What we see in the sky is not necessarily infinite, just distant.