Provocative. But meaningful? What is a "tendency"? What does it mean to say that "everything has a tendency to reach an end"? What is an "end"? Are perfection and end the same, in different words? Or are they different? What is the difference? What is motion, in your usage? Who judges what is imperfect? If imperfection exists and God didn't create it, then where did it come from? And, finally, what do you mean by God?

Philosophy, if that is what you're about, is not about being clever. It is about being - trying to be - thoughtful, and engaging others in thoughtful discussion

Provocative. But meaningful? — tim wood

Meaningful?

What is a "tendency"? What does it mean to say that "everything has a tendency to reach an end"? What is an "end"? — tim wood

Sorry, I should have gave some examples: (1) A stone which is rolling down a hill. Tendency means that it is under a force to move in a given direction. The end is the bottom of hill, (2) A person who is looking to reach to a purpose or fulfill a feeling. Tendency is clear in this case clear. The end is the purpose or state of pleasure due to fulfilling a feeling. (3) The capacity that material turns into intellectual beings. Etc.

Are perfection and end the same, in different words? — tim wood

Perfection is the end, no further or lower is allowed.

Or are they different? — tim wood

The end is one instance of an end.

What is the difference? — tim wood

There is a difference. You cannot go further than the end but you can go further than an end. Perfection is the end. The state of pleasure due to fulfilling a feeling is an end. There exist not an further point for the end but there exist another feeling to fulfill for example.

What is motion, in your usage? — tim wood

Change in a stuff, matter for example.

Who judges what is imperfect? — tim wood

Everyone with a simple judgment who can experience change.

If imperfection exists and God didn't create it, then where did it come from? — tim wood

That is a very good question? God's act should be perfect since He is perfect so He cannot create something less than God.

And, finally, what do you mean by God? — tim wood

The creator. The one who is perfect.

Philosophy, if that is what you're about, is not about being clever. It is about being - trying to be - thoughtful, and engaging others in thoughtful discussion — tim wood

I hope that thing is more clear now. I had no intention to look clever. These are questions which come to my mind and I would like to share them to others for solutions. Thanks for you patience. :)

Why does the lack of something need to be created? Imperfection means lack of perfection. If an artist creates a sketch, and then another person comes and erases part of it, did the artist create an imperfect sketch?

Why does the lack of something need to be created? — Lone Wolf

The main questions are why something imperfect should be created or how something imperfect could be created? Is that what you want to ask?

Imperfection means lack of perfection. If an artist creates a sketch, and then another person comes and erases part of it, did the artist create an imperfect sketch? — Lone Wolf

Probably. You need a perfect artist to judge this situation.

The main question is why something imperfect should be created or how something imperfect could be created? Is that what you want to ask? — bahman

No, I meant what I said. Imperfection is lack of perfection, hence it cannot be created.

Probably. You need a perfect artist to judge this situation. — bahman

Perfection must mean to be complete, as even you stated:

Perfection is the end. Therefore there is no motion in perfection. — bahman

There cannot be room for improvements, as improvements would require effort, movement, to change. With the example of the artist, we can only view it with our imperfect human abilities; meaning our ability to detect complete perfection cannot be possible. So, if the sketch was complete, while no improvements could be made, as far as humanly possible, then it would be so to say "perfect". Now, if you or I came across this sketch with an eraser, and erased part of it, the sketch becomes imperfect. The artist did not erase this, and hence he or she did not create an imperfect sketch; you or I caused it to be imperfect, or incomplete, and now it needs improvements and changes.

The problem of evil is what you're asking after. And anyone who says they've figured it out is wrong.

No, I meant what I said. Imperfection is lack of perfection, hence it cannot be created. — Lone Wolf

Why? I cannot understand.

(1) A stone which is rolling down a hill. Tendency means that it is under a force to move in a given direction. The end is the bottom of hill, (2) A person who is looking to reach to a purpose or fulfill a feeling. Tendency is clear in this case clear. The end is the purpose or state of pleasure due to fulfilling a feeling. (3) The capacity that material turns into intellectual beings. — bahman

May I add this: Absent accidental influences, the tendency of a thing is just what will happen or be. This allows for the possibility that it won't happen or be, with a range of possibility from zero to 100%, depending on influences. But this leaves unaccounted - unmentioned - the agent of the tendency. We're in deep waters; let's not swim here, unless we make agency our topic.

There is a difference. You cannot go further than the end but you can go further than an end. Perfection is the end. — bahman

Nice point! Have you thought it through? Our world is governed by time and change. That means that whatever perfection, in whatever degree, in whatever circumstance, realized by anything at all, must pass away into imperfection.

After some thought, and subject to correction, I do not (even) think you can say anything about the status of the perfection - even that it was perfect. The problem lies in the fact of judgment, and the qualifications of the judge. Perfect-for-me is certainly not the same thing as simply perfect.

What is motion, in your usage?
— tim wood
Change in a stuff, matter for example. — bahman

I buy this. Everything is in motion, at some level and in some sense, even if just the vibrations of the atoms in a bar of iron. But what does this say about perfection? If perfection is an end, "no further or lower allowed..., no motion" then perfection in the thing itself is fleeting, to the point of non-existence. All that's left is the idea of a thing, and the person who holds the idea. And it would seem that ideas must be approximations. The idea of this here bar of iron remains static, even as the thing itself is continuously changing.

And, finally, what do you mean by God?
— tim wood
The creator. The one who is perfect. — bahman

Well, if God is the creator, and is the one who is perfect, then do you see any problems with the rest of our topic? In particular, you posit imperfection, which is inconsistent with your idea of God. What are you going to give up?

Putting aside God as irrelevant ....

There is only creation, i.e. experiments with wave forms, that begin in humans when the baby first waves his/her hands and continues throughout life.

Perfection/imperfection is a game people play to amuse/pass their time alive.

We only see an infinitesimal part of all that is and most of that entirety was.

Job 38-40

“Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

This popped up on my feed this morning.

After some thought, and subject to correction, I do not (even) think you can say anything about the status of the perfection - even that it was perfect. The problem lies in the fact of judgment, and the qualifications of the judge. Perfect-for-me is certainly not the same thing as simply perfect. — tim wood

That is true. We cannot judge perfection by which I mean we cannot say that something is perfect or not. But the subject of this thread is not that whether we could not judge perfection or not.

I buy this. Everything is in motion, at some level and in some sense, even if just the vibrations of the atoms in a bar of iron. But what does this say about perfection? If perfection is an end, "no further or lower allowed..., no motion" then perfection in the thing itself is fleeting, to the point of non-existence. All that's left is the idea of a thing, and the person who holds the idea. And it would seem that ideas must be approximations. The idea of this here bar of iron remains static, even as the thing itself is continuously changing. — tim wood

Reaching to state of perfection, if possible, is not equal to state of non-existence.

Well, if God is the creator, and is the one who is perfect, then do you see any problems with the rest of our topic? — tim wood

No.

In particular, you posit imperfection, which is inconsistent with your idea of God. — tim wood

I don't understand you here. I didn't say that God is imperfect.

What are you going to give up? — tim wood

I think my argument sounds and I am not going to give up anything.

No law imposes rationality, especially in matters that touch theology; so go in peace. For us who care about rationality it leaves the question, why are you posting here if your mind is set? It's apparently not for the fruits of discussion - were you looking for approval and applause?

How could God create imperfection? — bahman

What is "God?" I mean... do we really have an answer to this? The creative force?

If "God" brought everything into being maybe the reason for creation was akin to "separating the wheat from the chaff?" So creation, in and of itself, is an evolutionary act.

One thing that seems apparent to me is that creation affords me the ability to see.

If you are asking is there a god, then ask that!
Otherwise you seem to have your question backwards. You cannot understand the universe by imposing a predefined view of god upon it; You have to understand god through your understanding of god's creation.
The argument goes; The universe is...... therefore the creator is .....
You are taking a view of god through the BOOK "of god"; but this is a human creation.
You need to open the book of nature to really see what is going on.

More importantly, why would a perfect god even create to begin with? To be perfect would mean this god is complete, lacking in nothing. It would lack emotions, which would include any desire, and would be void of a personality, which would otherwise require a constant flux. I don't see any way a perfect god could even exist. If it does, it must be static. If there is a god, it would appear it is imperfect.

You are taking a view of god through the BOOK "of god"; but this is a human creation.. — charleton

I don't doubt man had to write the biblical book of "God" but I think we need to question why the bible actually came into being.

You need to open thebook of nature to really see what is going on. — charleton

This is a great point... but are you talking macro, micro or both? I think the term "biodynamics" became popular with Rudolf Steiner.

You need to open the book of nature to really see what is going on.
— charleton
This is a great point... but are you talking macro, micro or both? I think the term "biodynamics" became popular with Rudolf Steiner. — Jon

You have a choice. Either take the word of a bunch of half illiterate post neolithic goat herders and their myths, or look at the world as we know it. The book came about because people wrote down the myths of their culture. The Jewish culture is one amongst many. The books come down to us because of political power, and says nothing about anything I'm interested in.

Macro, micro both.
Biodynamics is a tiny part of nature. No idea why you want to take that route.

Either take the word of a bunch of half illiterate post neolithic goat herders and their myths, or look at the world as we know it. The book came about because people wrote down the myths of their culture — charleton

I really think this a naive view. The Bible is much to deep to be contrasted with goat herders and myth.

Biodynamics is a tiny part of nature. No idea why you want to take that route. — charleton

Biodynamics I think comes down to the interplay in life. It also has to do with social interaction and all it offers.

I really think this a naive view. The Bible is much to deep to be contrasted with goat herders and myth. — Jon

LOL!
How much of it have you even read?

Biodynamics I think comes down to the interplay in life. It also has to do with social interaction and all it offers. — Jon

I'm talking about the universe, not the activities of a few smart monkeys.

How much of it have you even read? — charleton

Well.. if you look at the first two chapters you'll see discussion on creation. What do you think of that?

I'm talking about the universe, not the activities of a few smart monkeys. — charleton

So you reduce everything to the interaction of quarks and leptons? Modern thought is reductionism and I hope and believe will eventually broaden our scope. Ancient thought considered man as "the crown of creation" and that all functions of nature reside within man. In that sense it's believed man can directly interact with the universe. That is the true dimension of the term biodynamic.

Well.. if you look at the first two chapters you'll see discussion on creation. What do you think of that? — Jon

To call that a discussion is an abuse of words. As for what I think of it; it is as misguided and shows as much ignorance as any number of other creation myths, and is about as accurate as turtles (going all the way down).

So you reduce everything to the interaction of quarks and leptons? — Jon

No - I'm talking about the universe. Not just a few particles, or your hopeless anthropomorphic reductionism. Man is the crown of his own imagination.

The problem of evil is what you're asking after. And anyone who says they've figured it out is wrong. — Buxtebuddha

You are correct if you define evil as absence of good.

What is "God?" I mean... do we really have an answer to this? The creative force? — Jon

No, creative person.

If "God" brought everything into being maybe the reason for creation was akin to "separating the wheat from the chaff?" So creation, in and of itself, is an evolutionary act. — Jon

Evolution is directed toward perfection, becoming Godly, which is logically impossible. So the act of creation is imperfect.

One thing that seems apparent to me is that creation affords me the ability to see. — Jon

The main question is where we are heading?

No law imposes rationality, especially in matters that touch theology; so go in peace. For us who care about rationality it leaves the question, why are you posting here if your mind is set? It's apparently not for the fruits of discussion - were you looking for approval and applause? — tim wood

It is about fruit of discussion, learning.

If you are asking is there a god, then ask that!
Otherwise you seem to have your question backwards. You cannot understand the universe by imposing a predefined view of god upon it; You have to understand god through your understanding of god's creation.
The argument goes; The universe is...... therefore the creator is .....
You are taking a view of god through the BOOK "of god"; but this is a human creation.
You need to open the book of nature to really see what is going on. — charleton

What is going on? Why we are here?