Does perfection imply existence?

Answer 1

The idea that perfection implies existence is the basis of the so-called "ontological argument for the existence of God." The argument states that the concept of God is the concept of a being that is perfect in every way, and that therefore, because what exists is more truly said to be perfect than what does not exist, God necessarily exists. (The best-known version of the ontological argument that uses this terminology is due to Descartes, and may be found in his Meditations on First Philosophy. A perhaps more famous version is due to an earlier philosopher known as St Anselm of Canterbury, but Anselm's version does not use the idea of perfection per se; rather it proceeds according to the idea that the idea of God is the idea of a being than which no greater can be conceived.) The argument should seem reasonable to one who comprehends it. Consider, is the concept of God the concept of a being who is or is not the creator of the world? Surely, of one who is the creator of the world, because to be the creator is a perfection. Again, does the concept of God allow for God to be a deceiver? Surely not, for the concept of one who deceives is the concept of one who is less than perfect. And so, the concept seems to require that God exists. The best-known rebuttal to the argument is due to Kant, who said that existence is not a property, or, put another way, that "to exist" is not a predicate. That is, when we attribute a property to something, or we ascribe a predicate to it, we are describing it in some way, we are saying something about it. Thus, redness is a property, and "red" is a predicate, so when we say "The ball is red," we are describing the ball. However, when we say "The ball exists," we aren't describing it. Rather, we are giving a precondition for any description of it to be true; if it doesn't exist, then it isn't red or anything else. Similarly, then, to say "God exists" doesn't say anything about God, and so it cannot be a part of the concept of God. I think Kant's analysis is correct, and I think that the ontological argument is a fallacy for that reason, and so I believe that because existence is not a property, perfection does not imply existence. The concept of a being that is perfect in every way is not necessarily the concept of a being that actually exists, and whether or not it does exist cannot be determined just by examining the concept.

Answer 2

Perfection implies the existance of imperfection, as it's obvious nothing is perfect, so having a perfect something would be logically imperfect.

Answer 3

Perfection implies intolerance.

Answer 4

Perfection implies nonexistance in my opinion, but I argue that in terms of the logic of life, people cannot know perfection. If perfection implied existance, wouldn't we know (or have witnessed) it?

Answer 5

perfection is soly based on ones bias on another persons stability. Perfection can never be achieved by ANYTHING (Unless your Christ or God). Your own existence is based on what YOU make of it. It matters not what someone else tells you. In fact WHY should it matter what someone 6 miles from you thinks of you. As long as you are proud of yourself and who you are than your existence matters. :D

Answer 6

Existence is perfection, it can't help but be.

Love and blessings Don

Answer 7

life its self is not perfect therefore perfection means non-existence, you cant exist in a non-perfect world if your perfect

Answer 8

Thanks for the answers!