Originally posted by TrashMan
Math isn't perfect...)
Care to back that up with logical argument?
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
You misunderstand me. What I am saying is that "perfection" by itself is an empty concept, just like "better". In any and every case where someone says "X is perfect", it is legitimate to ask "X is perfectly what?" Usually the "what" is implied in the context, but not always.
Perfection by itself is meaningless. It requires imperfection to have meaning (as I explained to Trashman).
This is my essential point about the question "Why would a perfect God make imperfect pets?" To answer that question, I have to grant that human were made were imperfect. I will not grant that, and so I cannot answer the question. Instead, I can only say that there is a difference between our respective understandings of what counts as imperfection or not in this case.
You see the ability to choose one's actions freely to be an imperfection, I disagree. The difference lies in what we are valuing in this situation.
Actually, I don't see free will as imperfection. Your following statements are predicated on your misunderstanding of my understanding. We are actually in accord here: free will is not imperfection. I will address your statements in this light.
From the Christian perspective, humanity's God-given purpose is to be in true, loving communion with God. This entails that humans be able to freely choose whether to be in said communion. Thus, lack of free will would be an imperfection in human beings. (And indeed, it is common Christian teaching to say that our will is no longer free the way it once was, now that we are sinful). That humanity is now imperfect (i.e. is no longer fulfilling its purpose properly) is a change.
For one's will to be free, one's decisions must be informed. A thought experiment: assume that there are two ways to do some task. The task must be done. We decide that the simple straightforward process to perform this task is 'wrong' (we'll assign it a value of 0) and the slightly obtuse, more roundabout way is 'right' (we'll assign it a value of 1). Now, we put a reasonably rational person into the experiment and tell them to perform the task and accumlate the highest score. We don't tell them any of the scoring rules. Which method do you think the person will take to perform the task? Obviously, the person will take the simple, straightforward way, and end up with a score of 0.
The subject of this little experiment does not really have 'free will', only an illusion of it. We've set up a situation in which we can be reasonably assured that, from ignorance, the person will 'choose' the path that leads to the lowest score.
From an atheist perspective, it only makes sense that God, who is all-powerful, would design his creation in such a way that there would never, ever, ever be a possibility that it would not do what he wanted. If that is our assumption, then of course free will is an imperfection.
You are mistaken. The refutation of your point is found in the thought experiment above, if only by implication. From the non-theist perspective (not 'atheist'. One does not have to be an atheist to disagree with the dogma you are defending), there's another course. To countervail their basic nature, all God has to do is give his pets an understanding of the consequences of their actions ahead of time. Assuming a perfect and all powerful God, it is not unreasonably to assume that He could instill within His pets enough knowledge to provide a balance to temptation. In that manner, free would truly would be free: the possibility of choosing the wrong choice still exists, but the participant knows the rules of the game.
But if this is the case, the operative assumption in your argument (i.e. "God is Perfect," "Man is not Perfect," and "God made Man" are incompatible statements) is undermined.
My prior statements show that your assertion about my assumptions are incorrect. My statement stands.
Poll
