How do you arrive at 7?

I think you are not well informed on the Christian faith.  You assume that because man's current state is "imperfection" that that is also his natural state (how he was created).  This is false, our imperfection is a result of our choices not how we were meant to be origianlly. Jesus' perfection is an example of how man was meant to be.

Welcome, gsaman.

When you get a chance, we'd appreciate it if you'd hop over to the General Conversation, Introductions and Humor forum and introduce yourself.

This doesn't present a problem for you? If this god you believe in is all knowing there is no 'free choice'. Everything is predetermined and knowable therefore omniscience is possible and this negates this free will you think the 'lord' has bestowed upon us. 

Define perfect. To me, this is a meaningless idea. It is some strange , inaccesible abstraction. It is as ill-defined and incomprehensible as omnicient and omnipotent. Applying such an absolute attribute to anything will result iin contradictions and paradoxes.

Very true.  I did kinda skip a step there.  The best I can do is reference aquinas for how I am using the term "perfect".  One of his examples to explain perfection is that one who has poor health (imperfect health) needs "help" (through various means like anti0biotics or even basic excercise) to be healthy.  One with perfect health needs no such "help" to be healthy.  From this (i concede to stretch a bit here), it can be said that for something to be moved to action there must be an imperfection since one with "imperfect" health is moved to excersise and take anti-biotics (hence action) becuase of an imperfection.  One with perfect health however (assuming that one with perfect health does not have to maintain one's health; which, might be what Aquinas was hinting at) is not moved to exercise or take anti0biotics becuase there is no need to do so.

Of course, that it but just one area of perfection.  When (Born Again) Christians say God or Jesus is perfect, they mean he is perfect in everyway possible, thus, going with Aquinas example of perfection, there would be no need to do anything if one is perfect in every way possible. 

Going back to Jesus, he is a possible counter arguement to the claim that one who is perfect in everyway need not do anything since Christians hold that he too is perfect in everyway yet was moved to action (with his various miracles and being crucified).  The reason why he did these things though was to save mankind (mankind, christians hold being imperfect).  So while Jesus was not neccessarily imperfect himself, there was and imperfection elsewhere i.e. mankind that he tried to bring (back) to perfection.  Essentially, what is moving this perfect being, Jesus, is an imperfection of some sort.  This is the only clear example of a basis, within the BIble text, for a perfect being being moved to action.  The genesis story just states God create everything and does not give a reason as to why (if I am incorrect with this statement I apologise), in fact, after creation, the one thing that moved God into action, banishing Adam and Eve from Eden, was man's imperfection again.

So unless a Christian can provide an explanation as to why a perfect being would be moved to action without some sort of imperfection being present, it seems that a perfect being can only be moved to action if there is an imperfection present somewhere.

I tried to be clear and succint but I understand if its hard to follow  

I didn't say it was our natural state.  I meant that state of mankind at the time of Jesus was imperfect.  I'm sorry for being unclear about that.

Forgive me if someone already pointed this out, but I'm feeling very little patience right now, so I didn't read all the replies.

There are multiple errors in your proof.

You're fine through here.

This proves only that a perfect being can be moved by imperfection. It does not prove that only imperfection can move a perfect being. Unless you demonstrate that perfection cannot move a perfect being, 4 is not a valid conclusion.

Therefore, this is an invalid conclusion.

This doesn't follow from 5.

5 says there was god. It does not imply that there was only god.

The whole thing's pretty much shot after that.

Sorry to bust your balls on it, but you know those damned theists are sticklers for detail in other people's arguments.

(Only in other people's arguments, of course... but they are sticklers!)

LOL. The million dollar question. Sort of a pantheistic thingy. I'm content to disallow the existence of the supernatural. Absolute concepts like perfection, omniscient and omnipotent are either incoherent or beyond the capacity of our language to adequately grasp. I am also content with my irrationality. It is part of the human condition and rather than deny its influence on my perceptions of reality, I prefer a more balanced approach. Any deity I conceive of is not necessarily bound by my conceptualizations of right and wrong. For instance, if god decided that the world would be better off without humans, then it is within his/her prerogative to eliminate us. Heaven is simply where god resides. Hell? Maybe where god can cannot be? It's a little zen like - anti-rational if you will.

NOTE TO THEISTS:

Please don't argue with what I just wrote.  I don't believe in your silly little book, and I don't argue biblical errancy.  I don't care to argue it.  I loathe arguing it.  I am of the opinion that if you think the bible is inerrant, the only thing that will help you is some lithium -- definitely not arguing with me about whether or not the bible is errant.

I wrote the above post to help the OP understand the flaws in his argument so that next time he runs into one of you theists, he can whomp all over your silly theories.

Clear?

Which is why I am going off Christian, mainly Born Agains, interepretations of the Bible.  That is where the majority of my premises come from.  Every Born agian I have talked to agree that Jesus is perfect, man is imperfect (or at least man in the time of Jesus was imperfect), and that before there was the universe and time (i admit that saying God was before time is a little weird to me as is saying he was there when there was nothing) there was God and God created the world.  Of course, the only explanation they give as to what they mean by "perfect" is that God/Jesus is "sinless" which is not really applicable to anything since sin itself is a cloudy issue, which is probably why I should specify that when I use "perfect" I am referring to Aquinas' conception of what perfect is which is simplicity.  Since you don't have the patience to read previous posts I will explain his conception of perfection.  Aquinas uses the example of health.  One with imperfect health needs "help" in order to get healthy.  For example, if someone has a broken leg, first they need pain killers (unless they are really tough bastards), but they also need to make sure their bones will heal correctly with the use of a cast and then they need to take anti-biotics in order to keep inffection from occuring.  Clearly, this complicates dramtically in order to regain health (heal the leg).  ONe who does not have a broken leg does not need any of those things since, the leg is in perfect health, thus no complication.  If want to apply this notion of perfection as simplicity, an all-perfect being creating an entire universe would needlessly complicate things menaing it would make mroe sense for an all-perfect being to not create anything at all since that is not only simpler but maintian the simplicity.

So did I paraphrase him pretty well or kinda got the idea but what was a little off? 

Yeah.  Thats why I am trying to use premises they adhere to so they can't say "No, that is not what I am saying."

Like skipping to perfection is only moved to action by imperfection? 

If it can get them to explain what the hell they mean by an "All-perfect" being, I would be happy.

The type of Christian THiests this arguement applies to also hold that Catholics are not Christians, that the more commonly used Commandments (from the movie Ten COmmandments) are the true commandments, and that Jesus "reinterpretated" the jewish law rather than changed it.  They also hold that the original Ten COmmandments, and possibly the other commandments, were only to be applied to the Jewish Tribes and are not to be applied to Modern Day Christians.  As far as BUddhists go, they hold that they are going to hell becuase they do not worship God, thus, they do not put much value in what BUddha has to say.  Also,

I so have no idea what you are talking about man.  HOnestly.  I only clicked "post comment" once.    

Any suggestions on making it prosequitur?

So let me ask you this then.  If Adam maintained his sinlessness by not eating from the tree would Jesus even be neccessary?

Exactly.  Perfection would have remained, thus no need to fix what was not broken.  So the example you give of Perfection "acting out of love" also relies on there being an imperfection i.e. "sin of one man".  And, feel free to correct me, this is the only part of the Bible that actually gives a full explanation of the motives of God's actions and what led to God's actions in regards to what moves God, a perfect being, into action.  TO my reccolection, no such thoroughness of motives was presented in Genesis as to why God created the world (or universe).  It just stated that God did and "all was good".  Now, if the best example, within the text, that explains how and why God acts involves both love and an imperfection, it strongly suggests that perfection, even when acting out of love, is also acting to eliminate an imperfection or at least provide a way for that imperfection to dissappear.  Now how can this not apply to God before creation?

1) Comparing sandwich making to creating the universe from nothing is a really poor anology.  There are two reasons why someone would make a sandiwch: a) one is hungry b) one is bored.  a) cannot be applied to God since he does not have human drives such as hunger that would guide his action.  b) would imply that God really had nothing better to do than to create the universe which makes the creation event less meaningful. 2) Creation was not always fallen.  The time between the creation of life and the eating of the apple, creation was in perfect harmony.  As many Christians like saying "God did not create sin, man chose sin".  Furthermore, to maintain that creation was always fallen would mean that God intentionally created an imperfect universe which would make one wonder if the act was out of love.