And yet just a few sentences further on you can not actually imagine an action that fulfils the criteria of not fulfilling a need... but you can imagine a god that can do such an action?
god can't be fully captured by our imagination?:shrug:
I have bolded the parts of your sentence that seem to demonstrate my point above.
If god needs company then, yes, it means that god needs company.
gee man, if you need money and you have all the money in the world, do you still say that you need money?
if so,
is the need of money an imperfection in you?
isn't perfection = all imperfections fulfilled?
in order to have a perfection, doesn't it have to be a fulfilled imperfection?
perfect sight is the opposite of the imperfectness of blindness..and so on.
i ask you to give me one way to be perfect without imperfections.
one way one can perfect without actually having all imperfections in him, then fulfilling them all..
so if the need for company (along other things) are imperfections in god, yet he fulfilled them all, can you say he's not perfect?
and mind you, this is under the restriction of our world's logic;
-unfortunately sarkus...knowing the limits of your brain makes your brain limitless..-
in our human world, every word, in order to have a meaning, has to be the opposite of another word or somewhere in between.
good can't be defined without bad..
if in a world everybody was good, would the word good even have a meaning?
would the word comfort have any meaning in a world without pain?
and so, how can i explain the existence of the meaning of the word perfect to you, in a world (dimension) without imperfections?using our logic?
according to your logic, a perfect being has to be null
.
does he have a body? yes? why? what does he need it for? doesn't he need nothing?
does he have eyes?
does he have intelligence? why? to solve problems?that means he's prone to problems and so needs intelligence to solve them? and so a perfect being shouldn't have intelligence?
so......?
what do you propose your perfect being do sarkus? have only a name? lol but doesn't also that reflect the imperfection of needing one?
at today's lecture, i put the facts forward, this is what they seemed like:
A:us
actions ---towards---> perfection
{{{{{{{ as opposed to }}}}}}}
imperfection upon no action(we're naturally created flawed)
or
no action ---keeps---> imperfection
B:god
no action ---keeps---> perfection
{{{{{{{ as opposed to }}}}}}}?
action ---towards---> ?????????
source: P
anything clearer??
You think it's a simple concept because unfortunately you aren't appreciating the logic (or lack thereof) of what you are conceiving.
Your entire line of argument is "God can do what he wants. He's a god."
Which at it's heart is an utterly pointless and meaningless concept.
And when facing a flaw in your line of thinking you revert to "God can do what he wants. He's a god."
i don't revert to it, that is my definition of god; complete, missing nothing, including the ability of doing what he wants, i don't see the need for nothing contradicting the doing of something, i can see many ways it could happen, i can't give an example, because what we're discussing it in gods, and not humans, so what kind of example did you expect me to provide? huh?
so just because i can't give an example then i can't imagine it?
You want god to be one thing - but then can't seem to accept the implications.
no, we're arguing your understanding of the implications, which i see are in total sync with the "one thing", but you can't see how the implications fit, and are using that to deny the "one thing"..
a shame really.
PS,
this post of mine might be really messed up, but not only am i lazy to tidy it up, i kinda like the confusion within it: D