Thank you for saying it better than I did.

What if God is perfection itself?

If "perfect" means without theoretical improvement, then neutral choices can be perfect. If perfect means the ideal, "better" than all other choices, then neutral choices are not perfect.

In order to qualify the nature of a "perfect" being, the definition of the word requires further elaboration. The definition should be independent of perspective, and agreed upon by all parties before any meaningful discussion can be had. Unless this is the case (which it obviously isn't), you are just throwing linguistic intuitions at each other, and it's been totally unproductive.

Anyway, I don't see every action as a choice between perfect and imperfect while I know I haven't convinced you, you haven't convinced me either. Unless a paradigm shift occurs for either one of us, then I doubt we will ever agree.

Probably not, but logically speaking my position is correct.

What if God is perfection itself? What if God not only possesses love but IS love? What if it is the same with perfection? Then in a certain sense, whatever amount God declares or wants of anything de facto becomes the perfect amount. :P

Anyway, I don't see every action as a choice between perfect and imperfect while I know I haven't convinced you, you haven't convinced me either. Unless a paradigm shift occurs for either one of us, then I doubt we will ever agree.

You are perhaps thinking too broadly.

I disagree. A perfect being would have to think about all the ramifications of all choices in order to be perfect. A desire to have rope would be incomplete unless accompanied by the rationale for having that rope and the circumstances involved in what that rope is to do. Added to that would be all the choices leading up to and resulting from the choice of rope and all the circumstances and consequences of all of those choices, etc. To a perfect being, there would be no single decision of wanting rope and not caring how long it is.

You know... I am wondering if the question (mine) isn't flawed because it is asked from our perspective. Because we can only experience and understand desire (motivation) from the perspective of imperfect beings.

I would agree with that.

For example: If God created from the motivation to display His creativity, then God could have created any number of plants and animals (even those who don't exist) and creation could still have bee 'perfectly the way God wanted it'.

To nitpick just a little bit more, being perfect is not necessarily equal to being "perfectly the way god wanted it."

God didn't have to desire to create a certain number of animals, the creative process is free, therefore God was free to choose in certain neutral matters. There didn't have to be some 'functional' purpose for creation, only the purpose of expressing creativity.

Technically, a perfect being shouldn't have desires, period. A perfect being shouldn't have to create in order to express his creativity. Regardless, you're still looking at things from a limited view-point. It's not so much that god simply wanted to create and it didn't matter what or how much was created, because that would be less than perfect. god, being perfect, is required to think through every single facet and create only perfectly, in perfect proportions, in perfect amounts, etc. You don't seem to understand the extent to which perfection has to go, which is into every single facet of everything!

I would counter that God only had to keep on creating until He expressed His creativity to the degree that He had choosen to.

And, this is why I warned above that perfect to how god wanted it isn't necessarily the same as perfect in an omni-sense. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it would mean to be perfect in all things. We have trouble with this notion, just as we have trouble with the notion of infinity. Perfection is all-encompassing. You can't de-couple choices from each other and still maintain perfection for the being in question.

You are perhaps thinking too broadly. The argument is whether or not a neutral choice can exist. Suppossing that a being simply wants rope to have rope, they could then choose from any number of neutral options of 'how much' rope to have. This creates a situation with a neutral set of possibilites.

"A perfect being would desire a specific length of rope, and only getting that exact length would be perfect."

You know... I am wondering if the question (mine) isn't flawed because it is asked from our perspective. Because we can only experience and understand desire (motivation) from the perspective of imperfect beings. For example: If God created from the motivation to display His creativity, then God could have created any number of plants and animals (even those who don't exist) and creation could still have bee 'perfectly the way God wanted it'. God didn't have to desire to create a certain number of animals, the creative process is free, therefore God was free to choose in certain neutral matters. There didn't have to be some 'functional' purpose for creation, only the purpose of expressing creativity.

I guess you could now argue that God had to keep on creating until His creativity was perfectly expressed? I would counter that God only had to keep on creating until He expressed His creativity to the degree that He had choosen to. God is bound to be God. But that doesn't mean we must project our own base motives and desires upon God when we don't understand an alternative. God is bound only to be God, not to be our perception of what God is.

I'm really tired of this topic of things and we don't seem to be getting anywhere.

Now, karatemack, you said:

While it is true that God does everything perfectly, this does not mean that God cannot [incorporate] imperfect beings into His perfect plan.

Even disregarding the meaning of "omnipotence," I have to dispute this statement. (Or at least my perhaps-too-broad interpretation of it.) When a parent allows a child to make an important choice and the child screws it up, even if the parent predicted the child would screw up it does not mean the parent wished or planned for the child to do so. The parent merely wished for the child to have the choice. This applies similarly to God.

This also builds up my "Problem of Souls" a little bit further. If God gave us free will, then he gave us the choice to go against his wishes for us. The backbone of POE theodicies is that bad choices must have real implications - and this principle is perfectly applicable in this case. So we can infer that effects of bad choices will linger in the world. Rapidly accumulating "errors" in the universe would taint and corrupt the system until the world is beyond comparison with God's wishes for it. Eventually, there will be "illegitimate" people - people who would not have existed if everybody had acted according to God's wishes. God did not personally intend for those people to have existed, but he had foreseen their arrival into the universe and created souls anyway. Isn't that a quirky oddity?

Now I have an interesting Enlightenment value I want to touch upon.

I guess that's an appeal to authority. So what? If someone with authority has spoken, then we should give heavy consideration to the things they have said.

I have my own appeal to religious authority; it is from Siddhārtha Gautama, also known as the Buddha:

Believe nothing because a wise man said it.

Believe nothing because it is generally held.

Believe nothing because it is written.

Believe nothing because it is said to be divine.

Believe nothing because someone else believes it.

But believe only what you yourself know to be true.

Questioning mathematics is one thing. Questioning your political science professor is another. And questioning religious proclaimers of all stripes is a whole other ballfield.

Well, in the examples you give... no. But having a situation where two equal choices exist is not the same as all choices being equal. I realize you were making an analogy, but the length of rope or component in a mixture has to do with the intended length or intended result (a specific length of rope or a certain quality of mix).

Let me try using your rope example. Let's say I wanted some rope. I don't care how much I just want some rope. I could take an inch of rope, or I could take a foot of rope. No matter what quantity of rope I choose to take, I perfectly accomplish my intended purpose (to have rope) all the same. This is all I'm saying. There would be no 'perfect' amount of rope to have as it is besides the point. There is only the having of the rope (in terms of mattering towards perfection in accomplishment of my goal) which can be accomplished by obtaining any infinate number of possible lengths of rope.

Will you argue that one solution makes me possess rope more than another? (IE: If I have an inch of rope instead of a foot will you say that I somehow accomplished "having rope" with the inch and yet failed with the foot?)

If not, why can we not say that since each one is different that it is possible to evaluate each one on a value scale? The one with the highest value would always be the most perfect choice, hence the choice that god must take.

"If god has to select the most perfect choice, doesn't he have to select that most perfect choice based on the value given to the choices?"

Only when one choice is better than another. I still haven't accepted your premise that all choices carry value by virtue of having a choice, nor have I accepted the premise that if a choice does possess value that only one option can be 'perfect'. I still believe some choices have no value, therefore making the results of choosing different the same (both options have a zero value). I also still believe that even when choices do have value, there are times when the value of two different options is equal (if even different but still equal).