Not necessarely.
Its like asking : 'Don't you have to be infinite/wood/rock/unchangeable to understand what infinite/wood/rock/unchangeable is? (just some rondom examples)
Man's greatness lies in his power of thought.
'By space the universe encompasses me and swallows me up like an atom; by thought I comprehend the world.'
These are two quotes of Pascal, the french philosopher and matemathician.
But the argument from perfection that points toward a Supeme being is not even based on understanding or comprehending, but rather by the
innate intuition of every man. It says that every man can intuitively know some things that are better than others.
Maybe if you have patience enough, you can read the whole argumentation
The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
We notice around us things that vary in certain ways. A shade of color, for example, can be lighter or darker than another, a freshly baked apple pie is hotter than one taken out of the oven hours before; the life of a person who gives and receives love is better than the life of one who does not.
So we arrange some things in terms of more and less. And when we do, we naturally think of them on a scale approaching most and least. For example, we think of the lighter as approaching the brightness of pure white, and the darker as approaching the opacity of pitch black. This means that we think of them at various "distances" from the extremes, and as possessing, in degrees of "more" or "less," what the extremes possess in full measure.
Sometimes it is the literal distance from an extreme that makes all the difference between "more" and "less." For example, things are more or less hot when they are more or less distant from a source of heat. The source communicates to those things the quality of heat they possess in greater or lesser measure. This means that the degree of heat they possess is caused by a source outside of them.
Now when we think of the goodness of things, part of what we mean relates to what they are simply as beings. We believe, for example, that a relatively stable and permanent way of being is better than one that is fleeting and precarious. Why?
Because we apprehend at a deep (but not always conscious) level that being is the source and condition of all value; finally and ultimately,
being is better than nonbeing. And so we recognize the inherent superiority of all those ways of being that expand possibilities, free us from the constricting confines of matter, and allow us to share in, enrich and be enriched by, the being of other things.
In other words, we all recognize that intelligent being is better than unintelligent being; that a being able to give and receive love is better than one that cannot; that our way of being is better, richer and fuller than that of a stone, a flower, an earthworm, an ant, or even a baby seal.
But if these degrees of perfection pertain to being and being is caused in finite creatures, then there must exist a "best," a source and real standard of all the perfections that we recognize belong to us as beings.
This absolutely perfect being -- the "Being of all beings," "the Perfection of all perfections" -- is God.
Objection:
The argument assumes a real "better." But aren't all our judgments of comparative value merely subjective?
Reply: The very asking of this question answers it. For the questioner would not have asked it unless he or she thought it really better to do so than not, and really better to find the true answer than not.
You can speak subjectivism but you cannot live it.
