Phillip Clayton - What is Perfect Being Theology?

A perfect being, as defined by philosophically motivated theologians, is “that which no greater can be conceived”. What does this mean? Is this coherent? Is conceivability different from possibility? What would a ‘perfect being’ be like? What capabilities? What traits? Is there only one way to be ‘perfect’?

Philip Clayton is Ingraham Professor at Claremont School of Theology. His previous teaching posts include Williams College and the California State University.

Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[dvdmon]

This discussion reminds me a little of that old conundrum "Can god make a boulder so heavy that even god can't lift it?"

I've been listening to a lot of non-dual (both spiritual and non-spritual) teachings over the last few months, and essentially the way they seem to look at it is that there is:

1) just one thing
2) that one thing is "perfect"
3) that thing (being essentially everything) holds all, including "good" and "bad" which are essentially just human judgements or "thoughts" and so basically not "real"
4) While we may as humans have preferences for certain forms over others, there is nothing innately better or worse than something else, since everything is still just part of the same whole perfect "thing" (which is not a "thing").
5) Things can be seen from two "perspectives" - the conventional or "relative" - which is how we would normally see things from a Western materialist/dualistic standpoint, or the "absolute" (See 1-4). And while this initially strikes one as a dualistic precept itself, they are quick to point out that the "absolute" (being everything again), even includes the "relative" perspective.

A lot of this starts hurting your brain after a while, but I thought it might be interesting for those who haven't run into non-dualism as a philosophy (or whetever you want to call it - obviously non-dualists wouldn't call it that I don't think!)...

[dismalthoughts]

I mean, Robert wasn't wrong at the end. "Perfect" doesn't necessarily have to fly in the face of infinity if you redefine it, e.g.: _not requiring change_

[itzed]

Feels to me that this is more about language than beliefs.

[jamesruscheinski]

perfection as completion is not necessarily static, rather existence at highest level?

[gene]

This concept of God is infinite and a creator of everything. That is obvious for a conscious existence.

[derektrudelle]

Limitless and immutable do not conflict. Love extends forever and remains itself forever.

[arsalanadil]

This Ultimate Reality is often conceived as ‘transcendent’, or described as ‘He who is above all else’ — not because it is a reality spatially above the human habitat, but because it is above, i.e. goes beyond or transcends, all human categories. Being free from and prior to the dichotomy between subject and object, it is therefore also outside the frame of human discourse.

[kricketflyd]

Geometry shows perfection that is eternal.

[tschorsch]

Is perfection anything but a flawed concept? It has not been demonstrated that infinity requires an infinite god.

[samc]

An infinitely capable creator deity who actually sends you in to test it out and give live reports, and make micro-adjustments on an as needed basis? In between sojourns in various paradises, for as long as you can handle? This arrangement sounds perfect to me. The question ought to be how much perfection can you handle! This God is a non-stop perfection factory. Of course, It makes a game of it. But if you start noticing and collecting all the perfect moments and sights and people etc that you experience, that were just produced by ordinary days on Earth, you might realize it too.

[waldwassermann]

Got is not about perfection but about companionship.

[jamesruscheinski]

perfection indicates a form of completion?

[SRAVALM]

What must be pointed out - the import of such predications as 'Perfect', 'Good', 'ONE', 'Beautiful', 'Omniscient', Infinite( time depends on the Infinite) etc. Is because the progenitor is always greater than the offspring. Because in this realm there is good, perfection, oneness(eco system), beauty, Laws(which implies Primordial Cause Knows all) must then and reveals, the Primordial Cause of such characteristics or attributes, is greater than whatever has beauty, perfection etc. And, our finest predications are applied to GOD, so seeking to grasp such an inconceivable and beyond being, GOD.

Most importantly, such a level of cataphatic and apophatic is the ends of arduous Inquiry and endeavor. People who haven't put the work in themselves, such a ends or means, is not apprehended like the great Philosopher's have.

[osip]

catherine of siena is interesting, destroys any conventional notions about a person being a saint for sure

[SRAVALM]

3:48
Only when you die to your conditioned conception of what is, do you come to live in what always was.

[jamesruscheinski]

God's perfection might have something to do with limiting self in physical creation to allow free will for humanity and nature?

[lauterunvollkommenheit]

Professor Clayton seems to confuse "infinity" with "everything". But something that's infinite doesn't need to encompass everything.

[mellonglass]

Zero was invented and remains violent in clearing the land of life, to show only the lifeless as examples of greatness at our consumer peril.

[williamburts]

You would have to be a supreme being to be a perfect being.

[CharlesDeMar]

This is only a matter of his word definitions, not reality itself.
If you want clear thinking about the Judeo-Christian notion of a perfect and infinite God, try asking a theologian. For example, God cannot contradict His own goodness, but that doesn’t make Him imperfect nor finite.