I came up with it about a year ago, I no longer follow it, but here it goes. >.>
Summary: The object with no faults has no faults because it is flawless.
Okay, there’s a summary, for those of you that don’t like getting hit by walls of text.
Anyways,
To clear the counterintuivite perfection thing up, here’s another section,
See what you can get from it, the counter-intuitive perfection theory I came up with was just a few minutes ago, but keep in mind that I was a bit tipsy when I wrote this. (It was only an inch of wine. >.>)
I’m Italian, I have an excuse, lol. Although I must say, the taste isn’t my idea of an awesome drink. If it was sweet, then I would have probably tried to sneak another “inch” instead of swallowing half and spitting the rest out.
Wait! If an object has no faults, it has faults, because it is flawless. It has no faults, because it has faults. Therefore, it has no faults, because it has faults. But wait! The object has no faults! So now, it has faults, because it is flawless. But now it has faults again. Therefore, it has no faults, because it has faults. (Continues forever)
Say I create a whole new universe. In that universe, exists only perfect “stuff” which means, things that do what they are intended to do perfectly. In such a world, perfectionism is normal, since everything is perfect in some ways. Therfore, perfectionism can exist.
Now, since everything I imagine will sometime (if not already) be created, there will be/was/is a perfect place somewhere.
And by the way - the concept of “god” is perfect in any possible way, I think.
No…Mew…
If something has no flaws,it has one,it’s abnormal,but when it has the fault,it stays.
Having faults doesn’t turn it to no faults…
It’s not like you’d say"I’m lying".
Twilight…i don’t believe in the perfect,because we have decisions,every moment,we take actions,but i think the only perfection would be a virtual world,like a cartoon,where everything goes exactly as forseen by the script.
Out minds don’t allow us to be perfect…Does that make sense?
I like what you did with your argument, but unfortunately I find it has fallen into the same trap as Anselm did with his Ontological argument, as he tried to use the definition of God (‘God is an entity than which nothing greater can be conceived’) to prove it’s existence.
Because perfection is an abstract thought (i.e. indescribable) it depends on what your definition of it is.
Although there is reason in what you say, you are just manipulating the words
Good effort though! Might have to try some wine…although I’ve never been a fan of it…
I do not see how you get from “The Universe is infinite” to “the possibilities of being are infinite.” If I understand the second statement correctly, it is wrong. You will never have an object with a temperature of absolute 0, mechanical waves will never propagate through a vacuum, etc.
And perfection is largely subjective. Your statements seem to indicate more that part of the definition of perfection cannot include being normal or natural more than that perfection can’t exist.
“We each are perfect, however, because we are us.”
That does not follow, unless you’re using that as your definition. If so, support would be needed.
Well … if we say perfection is something that is true : meaning that something is exctly the way it seems (like a circle is a circle without flaw , a vacuum does not only seem empty but is completly void of anything etc …)… trails off
Im tired atm …
It’s a little difficult to explain. If the universe goes on forever and ever and it does not have boundaries, there has to be a certain point where the laws that we know don’t work the usual way, like they would “bend inward” on themselves. I suppose as I think about this, I’m thinking more about the universe having multiple realities inside itself, if it were endless.
By this I’m a bit confused about, myself. I think what I was thinking was along the lines of its either natural, or man made. And all man made things are faulted in some way, and if something was somehow perfect, then it would be faulted because it isn’t natural. When I think of perfection, I think everything, and nature counts in that collective state of “everything”.
Meaning that, if you took two objects made from the same factory, materials, and model, if you compared the two one would have a scratch while the other wouldn’t, one might have a little dent, etc.
But if we compare ourselves only to us in the now, right now, we’d be “factory perfect” because we would be comparing ourselves to ourselves, and we would be “symmetrical”.
shrugs It was a spontaneous thought I got while waiting for my computer to boot up. I’m not sure exactly what sort of scientific proof (support) would exactly be needed.
You mean man’s idea/belief of a god or the idea of God itself? The idea/belief, methinks, was to help fill in the questions early man had. (As in, Zeus creates storms and throws down lightning bolts, the Fates (Urd, Verdandi, and Skuld) water the world tree and thus, help sustain life, etc) Just the idea of a god in general, however, I don’t think means “perfect”. God, especially in Greek mythology, generally meant a creature/person with great power, usually lording over one force in nature. (Hades was lord of the Underworld, Zeus was the overlord of the sky, Poseidon the sea, etc.)
The idea of God being perfect is the idea of him being perfect. Theirs no arguing with that, its an idea, just as this theory was an idea.
Yes, it’s a family tradition we have.