Mard U Anasun

[Armen]

Perfect is that which is better than anything else in the "entity" space (i.e. the optimum among all entities according to whatever goodness criteria you pick to quantify things). Typically, if you don't put constraints on your criteria for measuring "goodness", perfection won't exist (or it will not be achievable).

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Again the same dilemma.

Indeed, perfection cannot exist in material world because if it was to exist all the processes would stop because perfection in its essence is an end.

[Twilight Bark]

Because then He wouldn't be any different from us; it would be pointless to distinguish God from the rest of us.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Are you saying that the creatures I simulate in a computer are indistinguishable from me? Surely you don't mean that. There is nothing observable suggesting that the relationship between us critters and the proposed creator, omnipotent God is any different. To the "created" critters the creator is omnipotent, but they have no idea about its nature, they certainly are not indistinguishable from him, and they have no idea if the creator is "perfect", a nice guy, a nerd, a jerk, or simply bored or even dead and gone. The only thing we can know about the creator is by picking through his design. And that is a very limited, imperfect tool to the point of uselessness. Anyway, again, the relationship between a "simulator" and "the simulated" does not in any way require "perfection" on the simulator's part, just the right "capability", even in the eyes of "the simulated". Substitute the verb "create" with "simulate", and you have a "perfect" analogy.

[DominO123]

Are you saying that the creatures I simulate in a computer are indistinguishable from me?  Surely you don't mean that.  There is nothing observable suggesting that the relationship between us critters and the proposed creator, omnipotent God is any different.  To the "created" critters the creator is omnipotent, but they have no idea about its nature, they certainly are not indistinguishable from him, and they have no idea if the creator is "perfect", a nice guy, a nerd, a jerk, or simply bored or even dead and gone.  The only thing we can know about the creator is by picking through his design.  And that is a very limited, imperfect tool to the point of uselessness.  Anyway, again, the relationship between a "simulator" and "the simulated" does not in any way require "perfection" on the simulator's part, just the right "capability", even in the eyes of "the simulated".  Substitute the verb "create" with "simulate", and you have a "perfect" analogy.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Shish, sometimes you think exactly like me.

[Anoushik]

Anoushik, what do you think of this:

 

We, the human beings are the imperfect part of the God. Otherwise he is perfect.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. If we are part of God and we are imperfect then it means that a part of God is not perfect, so God is not perfect... Right now I only see that you say that God is imperfect but then He is perfect. It doesn't make sense.

[Anoushik]

Are you saying that the creatures I simulate in a computer are indistinguishable from me?  Surely you don't mean that.  There is nothing observable suggesting that the relationship between us critters and the proposed creator, omnipotent God is any different.  To the "created" critters the creator is omnipotent, but they have no idea about its nature, they certainly are not indistinguishable from him, and they have no idea if the creator is "perfect", a nice guy, a nerd, a jerk, or simply bored or even dead and gone.  The only thing we can know about the creator is by picking through his design.  And that is a very limited, imperfect tool to the point of uselessness.  Anyway, again, the relationship between a "simulator" and "the simulated" does not in any way require "perfection" on the simulator's part, just the right "capability", even in the eyes of "the simulated".  Substitute the verb "create" with "simulate", and you have a "perfect" analogy.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I view God as something more than simply a creator. The question about whether a creator exists or not is really a hard question to answer, but I'm more inclined to believe that he exists because I exist. But just being a creator doesn't mean that you are God. So if humans create artificial intelligence that is able to know about its own existence would humans become God? To the A.I. probably, but we know that we wouldn't be God.

[Twilight Bark]

I view God as something more than simply a creator. The question about whether a creator exists or not is really a hard question to answer, but I'm more inclined to believe  that he exists because I exist. But just being a creator doesn't mean that you are God. So if humans create artificial intelligence that is able to know about its own existence would humans become God? To the A.I. probably, but we know that we wouldn't be God.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Then your idea of God is not amenable to discussion. You define its nature, and then decide if you believe in its existence. That's fine, you either believe it "blindly", or you don't.

 

On the other hand, more philosophically, the only observable result of "God" is its creation. And that's my point of departure, and my only "constraint" on characterizing such a being. Other embellishments, such as "perfection", "loving", "caring", etc. are not implied by what we know. Furthermore, we also don't know whether the cause of existence is a self-aware being or a simple, fundamental principle.