Concept Clarifier in
separate window


I contend that there is no epistemological basis for:
1.  the concept of perfection as ultimate greatness.
2.  the idea that the Supreme Being must be perfect.

If perfection is defined as conformity to a given standard,
then it is a meaningful, measurable, and useful term.

If perfection is defined as:
that greater than which nothing exists,
or that greater than which nothing is possible,
or that greater than which nothing can be imagined,
then its meaning is dependent on the definition of "greater".
"Greater" is a meaningful term when talking about something measurable, but is completely arbitrary when talking about values.
e.g.  The "greater good" cannot be shown to be other than purely subjective.

Given the presupposition that a necessary Supreme Being exists, why must that Being be perfect?  If by definition, then what definition of "perfect" do you propose?
If conformity to a given standard,
then what standard?
If He is the standard,
then you are saying nothing but that He is what He is.
If some ultimate greatness,
then greatness of what quality?

Having proposed a definition, how do you justify it?

Given your definition and its justification, can you show that it has other than arbitrary meaning?

Given the presuppositions that the Supreme Being exists, and is perfect in some meaningful way, why must that Being be identical to the God who intervenes in human affairs, with whom we have to deal?

The Supreme Being may be as far removed from the Creator of this universe as the president of the U.S. is removed from a child with an ant farm.  And that Creator may be equally far removed from the God of our experience, and/or the God to whom we are accountable.