DescentBB

Duper wrote:

Jeff250 wrote: Some people think that Satan's essence is evil and that this is unchangeable. Would this belief imply that Satan is perfect?

hmm. I would say these people do not understand who Jucifer is. Also, the nature of angels and the nature of man is different. Apples and oranges. He IS called the most beautiful of all angels. He's also called the Father of lies.

I was going to expand on this too but you got it for me.
Jeff, If you want to understand more about the angels look up the book of enoch, It explains alot better about the situation that led up to the events in the bible.

Duper wrote:

Jeff250 wrote: Some people think that Satan's essence is evil and that this is unchangeable. Would this belief imply that Satan is perfect?

hmm. I would say these people do not understand who Jucifer is. Also, the nature of angels and the nature of man is different. Apples and oranges. He IS called the most beautiful of all angels. He's also called the Father of lies.

Jucifer: Now with Apples and Oranges.
http://www.ivarton.com/store/forsale/jucifer102306.jpg

roid wrote:Jucifer: Now with Apples and Oranges.
http://www.ivarton.com/store/forsale/jucifer102306.jpg

I knew this was coming, and I knew it would be you.

Bee

Behemoth wrote:Jeff, If you want to understand more about the angels look up the book of enoch, It explains alot better about the situation that led up to the events in the bible.

I don't. It was a hypothetical example, one that raises an interesting question regardless of if it corresponds to angels as described by your religion.

Using satan as an example is irrelevant then, Because he is not a god.

You obviously don't understand the nature of hypotheticals. Supposing that Satan existed and his essence was unchangeably cruel, would that make him perfect? This is a miniature thought experiment that is intended to test Aquinas's argument. If Satan as previously described existed and Aquinas is correct, then we would expect Satan to be perfect. But is it really the case that Satan as described would be perfect? I submit \"no,\" at least not in a way that would be suitable for the foundation of ethics. Also, since you haven't explicitly stated support for Aquinas's argument, if you don't agree with Aquinas's argument, then this question isn't even for you anyways.

Jeff250 wrote:What I'm saying is that something isn't good or perfect or lacking in defect just because it's metaphysically unchangeable

I'm a lousy summer upper. "Lacking in defect", is perhaps clearer. The point ISN'T just that God's character is unchanging, but that it is perfect because there is nothing defective in it. There is nothing that could even possibly be imagined to be better than it is.

Of course, all of this runs into some philosophical problems because in trying to determine how "Good" God is, to what standard are we comparing Him? But, with language failing us at this point, we have to do the best we can.

Allow me to quote Aquinas directly on this point. Perhaps it will be clearer without coming through my muddy filter: <linky>
That God is Universal Perfection
AS all perfection and nobility is in a thing inasmuch as the thing is, so every defect is in a thing inasmuch as the thing in some manner is not. As then God has being in its totality, so not-being is totally removed from Him, because the measure in which a thing has being is the measure of its removal from not-being. Therefore all defect is absent from God: He is therefore universal perfection.

2. Everything imperfect must proceed from something perfect: therefore the First Being must be most perfect.

3. Everything is perfect inasmuch as it is in actuality; imperfect, inasmuch as it is in potentiality, with privation of actuality. That then which is nowise in potentiality, but is pure actuality, must be most perfect; and such is God.*

4. Nothing acts except inasmuch as it is in actuality: action therefore follows the measure of actuality in the agent. It is impossible therefore for any effect that is brought into being by action to be of a nobler actuality than is the actuality of the agent. It is possible though for the actuality of the effect to be less perfect than the actuality of the acting cause, inasmuch as action may be weakened on the part of the object to which it is terminated, or upon which it is spent. Now in the category of efficient causation everything is reducible ultimately to one cause, which is God, of whom are all things. Everything therefore that actually is in any other thing must be found in God much more eminently than in the thing itself; God then is most perfect.

Hence the answer given to Moses by the Lord, when he sought to see the divine face or glory: I will show thee all good

Jeff250 wrote:Supposing that Satan existed and his essence was unchangeably cruel, would that make him perfect?

The only model I can logically fit this into would be a dualistic one. In a monotheistic model, Satan is a created being. And therefore it is, of course, possible to recognize the flaws in his character. EVEN if he were incapable of changing. Saying "He can't change", and saying "there is no room for improvement and nothing lacking in his character" are not the same thing. U have a difficult time arguing further along these lines since I find the dualistic model to be seriously logically flawed.

Oh, and by the way:

"The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn." -- Luther.
"The devil .. the prowde spirite .. cannot endure to be mocked." -- Thomas More.
I think I'm going to be refering to Satan as "Jucifer" for quite a while.

Kilarin wrote:but that it is perfect because there is nothing defective in it. There is nothing that could even possibly be imagined to be better than it is.

Better in what sense? It seems like you're invoking a value system in the process of demonstrating one. (I made this mistake earlier too--originally, I had set out the hypothetical Satan as unchangeably evil, but the second time I set him out as unchangeably cruel, since "cruel" can be defined without appealing to values and using "evil" felt like I was just begging the question.)

Jeff250 wrote:Better in what sense? It seems like you're invoking a value system in the process of demonstrating one.

And I freely admit that this is a difficulty whenever you try to discuss this topic. What are we supposed to be comparing the prime mover to? There can be no other standard. It's not something that's easy to get around in our language.

The Prime Mover has no defect. If He had a defect, He wouldn't be the prime mover. To be imperfect is to have potentiality, something that is defective, the Prime Mover can have no defect, so the Prime Mover is perfect.

Kilarin wrote:And I freely admit that this is a difficulty whenever you try to discuss this topic. What are we supposed to be comparing the prime mover to? There can be no other standard. It's not something that's easy to get around in our language.

The problem is ultimately a logical one--you cannot invoke that God is the ultimate authority in ethics in order to demonstrate that God is the ultimate standard in ethics. That's the problem whenever you have an argument of the form, "X is an ethical authority because it is so good." Either that, or acknowledge and appeal to a secondary authority, but I assume you don't want to do that.

Kilarin wrote:The Prime Mover has no defect. If He had a defect, He wouldn't be the prime mover.

I really don't understand this "Prime Mover" term. But if assuming that God is this prime mover is something that entails that God is an ethical authority, then my new question is why is God this prime mover. I'm specifically interested in why God is a prime mover insofar as he is free of defect, unless some of the other attributes of being a prime mover are essential to your argument.