Obviously Not Clear on the Concept of Perfection

A few days ago, I had a theist tell me:

My belief in God is simple. I look around the world and the cosmos (what we can see of it) and the perfection of the system that governs this universe and I simply cannot believe that it wasn’t planned and made. That to me is more than enough evidence of God.

Okay, that seems straight forward enough so I challenged him to present just one thing in the universe that was perfect.  After all, if he can’t produce a single thing with which we can find no fault, his claim fails.  Just one thing, it should be a very simple way to prove his argument and thus, his faith, worthwhile.

He comes back with:

If you look at just one little thing you will of course see only flaws.

Now hold on a minute.  You’re saying that this perfect thing, of the many perfect things that make up a perfect universe, has flaws?  I point this out, thinking he had to be making a mistake, the flaw in this line of thinking is too absurd for anyone with half a clue to miss.

But no, that’s what I get instead.

Actually nope I’m not admitting that. Because what most people consider flaws really are not flaws in the long run and in the big picture. Like I said, “Look at the whole picture and it is entirely different.”

I’m sorry, did someone take a left turn at reality here?  Okay, you say the world, and indeed the universe, is perfect.  This leads you to believe that God must exist.  Yet you’re afraid that I will find flaws in your perfect universe?  News flash for you, Einstein, but if there are flaws, it’s not perfect!  If you’re claiming the whole is perfect, then by definition, the parts must also be perfect as the whole is simply the sum of it’s parts.  Flawed parts cannot result in a perfect whole, it’s logically impossible.

It’s no wonder why so many of these theist arguments just leave me shaking my head.

7 thoughts on “Obviously Not Clear on the Concept of Perfection

    1. God's mysterious ways tend to simply redefine existing definitions to something more palatable to the theist. If "perfection" as it exists in the dictionary doesn't work out, make it mean something else, then declare victory based on your new definition.

  1. Akin to nailing jello to the wall, the escape roads from the course of logic have long been used. How can one reason with irrationality?

    1. It's not possible to reason with irrationality, the whole point is to demonstrate said irrationality and make the believer acknowledge they believe a load of nonsense. Unfortunately, most just don't care.

  2. ANY reasoning to say that a supernatural power exists only ever terminates saying: There MUST be a God BECAUSE…
    Simply no evidence.

  3. The thing is, perfection is a human construct of the mind. There’s no such thing as perfect to begin with, so the whole thing is garbage. Why don’t they just say, “I believe in God for no real reason. I just feel that way.” That would make a lot more sense.

    1. That's been pointed out to them, in reality, they only want to rationalize their irrational beliefs. I think on some level they understand that what they believe is entirely ridiculous, they seek out any conceivable means to justify believing the ridiculous which is where you get all the silly apologetics that any of us can poke dozens of holes through in moments. But point out to them how silly they are and they get immediately defensive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)