Perfection is [sic] relitive.
I don't think either the theist or the non theist would want to assent to this statement, at least not when trying to define God's qualities. There may be different aspects of perfection, but the concept is still an absolute. It is the absolute perfect nature of God that allows Him to exist independently.
how do you know what perfect is ? and he is
Here are two fairly standard ways of defining this:
1) A property can be perfect if it has not flaws (i.e., a perfect circle)
2) Something can be perfect if it isn't lacking anything
Both 1 and 2 can be combined to get us to a definition of God. But really, we can just focus on specific qualities. The current discussion is on God being able to do anything that is logically possible (omnipotence) and being all-loving (omnibenevolent). If there is something that is logically possible that God cannot do, or if God has a flaw in His capacity to love, then we have a contradiction with how God is defined.
we understand God just as much as you understand science. we know His past deeds, we have a general basis around what His will is. isn't that the same for science? You know past scientists, you know a fraction of what it is telling you (ex/ evolution is apparently the way humans were created, but you don't know what lies beyond our galaxy/solar system/whatever). so before going around saying christians don't fully understand God, look at yourself bc you don't fully understand science, either, Mr. Hypocrit.
First, I would like to point out this is a tu quoque argument. Second, as tu quoque arguments go, this one is just awful. Comparing our understanding of God to our understanding of science is about as bad of an analogy as they come.
Science is a descriptive field of study, meaning it describes the way the world is and how it functions.
God's word is normative, telling us how we
should behave rather than how we
do behave.
Also, what the hell does it even mean to "understand science"? That's like saying that you understand red. Or better yet, it's like saying that you understand math. You can't actually understand math, you can only understand principles and theorems of math. Nobody understands the entirety of the concept of math.
When we say we are trying to understand God, what we mean is that we want to rectify the supposed qualities of God which seem to be at odds with the world around us. So pointless suffering, for example, is something we need to understand with respect to God.
But the simple fact is that science doesn't claim infallibility, nor does it try to tell us how things should be. Science is merely a tool, a means to an end, to understanding the world around us. God is something entirely different.
If the theist wants to say, regarding the problem of evil, that we just can't understand God's ways, that's fine with me. I don't really care to understand God, because I don't believe in Him. But if the theist wants to maintain a coherent set of beliefs and at least
appear rational to the rest of the world, then he or she needs to recognize these problems and at least cognitively interact with them, rather than just tossing them aside.
