Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
Ah, I think I see the disagreement. See, I think perfection means just one thing. People might disagree about what perfection is, but some of those people are wrong and some of those people are right. That is, perfection is an objective property. You happen to disagree. Is that right?
|
Exactly. In response to willravel, perfection in this sense is not merely an "excellence," but the ultimate state of ontological self-sufficiency. A perfect being is one which wants for nothing, needs nothing, is contingent upon nothing.
You say God is not proven, and therefore he is not perfect, but I don't follow your reasoning. We
do have an existent concept of perfect perfection. How then can I even conceive of such a concept without a prototype for my thoughts? The world we inhabit and perceive in our daily experience is utterly contingent—governed, (or rather
described), as it is by the laws of scientific materialism.
As for God becoming like the potato chip, the chip has innumerable accidental properties and is reducible to more fundamental parts. I can imagine the potato paste, the potatoes, the plants, the oils, etc. used to create the chip. God, however, is fundamentally simple. His simplicity goes hand in hand with his non-contingency.