Why would a perfect god create?

[TubbaBlubba]

For the purposes of this thread, I would define "perfect" as completely unlimited, i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal. This is generally the description of God espoused by most monotheists.

It's unfortunately not at all clear what several of those attributes mean. What does "eternal" mean? Time is a property (actually a metric) of our Universe, and God is generally taken to exist outside of it. Defining omnipotence is a classic problem. Omnipresent would mean... Um, I'm not sure, maybe you can make some definition about taking action, and action at a distance. Omniscient seems pretty clear from the P.O.V of human memory, and I don't take issue with that.

I think we need to have more rigorous (perhaps not FULLY rigorous, but MORE rigorous) definitions of God's attributes to have a meaningful discussion.

 

[crimresearch]

The subject of this thread occurred to me after perusing AvalonXQ's thread on omniscience and free will, i.e. the question of whether or not God's omniscience makes free will impossible. My feeling is that it would. However, I didn't bother posting on the thread, because others had pretty well expressed and explained my position.

It then occurred to me that any unlimited deity, perfect in all ways, would not only be incompatible with free will, but with creation as well. If we envision a god with a capitol "G" -- God -- as being perfect in all ways, i.e. omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal; this deity would have no reason to create a universe, since such a creation would destroy the perfection of God alone. Another problem with God being perfect is that such a god would have no desire to create. Indeed, such a deity would have no desire whatsoever, since incompleteness is implicit in desire.

The concept of a less than perfect God - still the only game in town - would greatly simplify not only the issue of free will, but theodicy as well (on this issue pagans have a distinct advantage over monotheists). God's imperfection would also explain His / Her need to create, as well as His / Her love and desire for the salvation of His / Her created intelligences. Monotheists might object that their God would have to be perfect. However, any god who could create a universe would still be awe inspiring (I can't even manage a lousy hydrogen atom, much less a universe).

While I have other reasons for not believing in any god, the imperfection of such a deity would go a long way toward removing at least some barriers to belief. I'm particularly interested in hearing from theists on this subject: Could you believe in and worship a less than perfect God?

The 'transcendent and immanent' part of the press release covers that.

Any apparent contradictions are due to inability to understand the nature of such a deity.

 

[tsig]

What is this thing you call "evil" and claim that it cannot coexist with an omnipotent god?
You're not trying to assign human values to a god, are you?

I thought human values were supposed to come from god. If that's the case then human values are gods' values.

 

[tsig]

Basically what I was going to say.

The OP assumes a definition of perfect but if God is perfect then we just redefine perfect to be whatever God is and problem solved.

Maybe 'the need to create' is a key attribute in perfection? Perfect is a vague human concept which is a useful word in conversation but meaningless for any kind of rigourous analysis

In that case there should be an infinite number of universes.

 

[tsig]

we're using human concepts and words to try and explain a god. It seems possible to me that we don't have quite the right vocabulary / scope of mind / xyz to perfectly describe god, especially since debates similar to this very thread have been going on for no doubt thousands of years.

Someone else might say that if they were a perfect god - omniscient, omnipotent, etc - by definition (omnipotent) they could do anything they wanted, including protecting their perfection while still experimenting / creating / messing around with imperfect things.

The problems / paradoxes might be coming from our limited language trying to force human ideals and definitions on something that is so far out of our league as to be undescribable.

iow gwimw.

 

[tsig]

Well, if God were not perfect (ie, flawed, fallible, etc), why would he be called God?

According to the faithful, there would be no absolute yardstick for any morality if that yardstick had imperfections, so that's an untenable suggestion that I'm guessing no true believer would accept.

And where would a flawed God get off sending people to hell for transgression?

He loves crispy critters.

 

[tsig]

If god is perfect and seeks perfection in his creations then god must allow humankind the perfection of unencumbered choice. Therefore, god must allow humankind, on the path to perfection, to choose between good and evil. Some still choose evil. God is perfect to allow one to suffer that all may become perfect.


Joy is a measure of perfection. God takes joy in creation. God takes joy in giving the choice to seek perfection to humankind.

What is this thing you call "evil" and claim that it cannot coexist with an omnipotent god?
You're not trying to assign human values to a god, are you?

Joy is a human emotion.

 

[tsig]

It's unfortunately not at all clear what several of those attributes mean. What does "eternal" mean? Time is a property (actually a metric) of our Universe, and God is generally taken to exist outside of it. Defining omnipotence is a classic problem. Omnipresent would mean... Um, I'm not sure, maybe you can make some definition about taking action, and action at a distance. Omniscient seems pretty clear from the P.O.V of human memory, and I don't take issue with that.

I think we need to have more rigorous (perhaps not FULLY rigorous, but MORE rigorous) definitions of God's attributes to have a meaningful discussion.

Make up what ever you want, it's what all the believers do.

 

[NightStar76]

I'm sorry if this came up, but I'm not sure how lack of action is malevolent. Malevolence, at least to me, seems to imply a certain level of activity. If God can stop evil, but doesn't, he's at most apathetic. Not that that makes it any less terrible for us people down here who need to deal with evil, but it does mean he's not being actively out for our blood.

Of course, if you believe in the Evangelical 'Worship Me or Be Damned' god, or if you're applying this statement to said God, then yeah, he's pretty damned malevolent. But most monotheistic religions, and most of Christianity, seem to think that as far as good vs evil on a human scale goes, he's pretty hands off.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Joy is a human emotion.

What common definition of god are you using that says god cannot experience joy?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

In that case there should be an infinite number of universes.

Maybe there is?

Or maybe just creating 1 universe is perfect?

Or maybe creating 7 universes is perfect?

Or maybe perfection is creating 2 universes and then destroying the one with the most pink in it while wearing a floppy hat?

How the hell would we know?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Before we even get into this thread is there any possible thing anyone can say that can't be countered with some variation of "Well since we're not perfect like God we can't know for sure if what he's doing make sense or not?"

 

[westprog]

Okay, I get it. Thanks.

But God doesn't have a need to create the universe. The universe is created. There's no longer a need. And since God exists out of time, there's no time when the unfullfilled need existed.

Most of the supposed logical arguments against God fall apart pretty much like the logical arguments for God.

Cue the "where's your evidence for this so-called god" bit.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

But God doesn't have a need to create the universe. The universe is created. There's no longer a need. And since God exists out of time, there's no time when the unfullfilled need existed.

Most of the supposed logical arguments against God fall apart pretty much like the logical arguments for God.

Cue the "where's your evidence for this so-called god" bit.

So the concept of God is so illogical it's meaningless to even discuss it?

 

[tsig]

What common definition of god are you using that says god cannot experience joy?

Does god also experience sadness, hope, fear or any other human emotion?

 

[tsig]

So the concept of God is so illogical it's meaningless to even discuss it?

Perfect.

 

[Mashuna]

So the concept of God is so illogical it's meaningless to even discuss it?

Ignosticism - it's the way forward.

 

[Halfcentaur]

If god is perfect and seeks perfection in his creations then god must allow humankind the perfection of unencumbered choice.

Presupposed arbitrary assertion based on a false attribution.

But God doesn't have a need to create the universe. The universe is created. There's no longer a need. And since God exists out of time, there's no time when the unfullfilled need existed.

Most of the supposed logical arguments against God fall apart pretty much like the logical arguments for God.

Cue the "where's your evidence for this so-called god" bit.

Baseless assertions. You are preaching and pretending to be engaged in a discussion.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Does god also experience sadness, hope, fear or any other human emotion?

Is there a common definition that would not allow god to have emotion?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Presupposed arbitrary assertion based on a false attribution.
Baseless assertions. You are preaching and pretending to be engaged in a discussion.

Your points have neither substance nor specifics.
They are so meaningless that they cannot be rebutted.
I assume then that you are announcing your entry into the thread as a troll.