The Paradox of a Perfect God

[Ana the Ist]

All I'm talking about are the qualities which Christians attribute to their God. Since I'm not a God believer I have no particular opinion of what God might be.

Given the Christian view that God has no needs/wants/desires then the logical extrapolation to Godly behaviour is that it would do nothing. To act requires a stimulus. If I am all there is (God) then there is no external stimulus. If I am fully self sufficient there is no internal stimulus driving me to act.

A fully self sufficient God would simply exist.
OB

Alright, no offense intended...I was just trying to understand what you meant. I personally haven't heard any Christians describe god as not having desires (just the opposite in fact)...but I can't argue with whatever your experience with Christians is....

So good luck with that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Weren't you a Buddhist a while ago? If so, isn't the main goal to do away with desires?

No...you must be thinking about someone else. Buddhism actually strikes me as extremely self centered.

 

[Silmarien]

I can't say much that Quid hasn't already, but I may be able to put it in a slightly different manner. One approach I have seen to the question of why anything exists is an axiological one--that the key to existence isn't omnipotence or Pure Act, but omnibenevolence. If we can attribute goodness to existence, then it would be in the nature of a perfectly good being to be create things that are good, including physical reality. We could expect acts of creation as a result of the divine nature, rather than because of some lack.

This is probably going to sound more Neoplatonic than strictly speaking Christian (not that there's always much of a difference), but I think if you look at Creation as an outpouring of goodness or a result of God's divine inner activity, you'll get a better feel for the more classical way of approaching this question. There is a reason God creates, but that reason is internal and tied into what God is rather than imposed externally. You are perhaps right to point out that in this case, God fails to create far more than he actually creates, but there are two possible answers here: 1) this is one of infinite realities and God actually is engaged in an act of infinite creation, and 2) tied into God's perfection is perfect freedom, and creation was a distinct choice that God was never compelled to make, even by his creative nature. The second is a more Christian answer, and the more mysterious of the two, but that is not necessarily a point against it.

 

[Hieronymus]

If God didn't want anything, we would not exist.
So He does what He wants and lets things play out towards his goals.
And eventually God will be All in all.

Do we understand God?
No. But that is to be expected, isn't it?

 

[eleos1954]

The Paradox of a Perfect God

According to my understanding the Christian God is perfect – He/It has no needs or wants

At the same time Christians also believe that God created the World/Universe, along with life

If God had no needs or wants prior to Creation then, logically, God would have no reason to create anything

This line of reasoning seems to lead to the logical conclusion that either God is not perfect or He/It did not create the Universe.

What am I missing here?
OB

Isaiah 55
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No...you must be thinking about someone else. Buddhism actually strikes me as extremely self centered.

Oh, my mistake.

 

[zippy2006]

If God is omni-everything and needs for nothing He logically has no aims.

I think we can even make a phenomenological case for act flowing from abundance (rather than need). Think of St. Bernard's quote:

The man who is wise, therefore, will see his life as more like a reservoir than a canal. The canal simultaneously pours out what it receives; the reservoir retains the water till it is filled, then discharges the overflow without loss to itself.
​

The most common human instance would be romantic love. The lover is open, magnanimous, overflowing. As Josef Pieper says, "Only the lover sings." I don't think the lover is compelled or has lost his freedom, he has just become some sort of spring of life.

If that can happen with us then I don't see why it can't happen with God. Indeed the Christian conception of God as outpouring love finds a close parallel to the example above. But I think Quid's "Why not?" is an important angle too.

If you really want to focus on the time 'before' creation I would offer an admittedly facile illustration. Suppose it's a beautiful Fall night and you're sitting around the fire with two friends, having a wonderful time, perfectly content. At some point it dawns on you, "Hey, this is really great. Why don't we invite more people? We have plenty of beer and room around the fire." So you do, and out of abundance rather than need. That's my deep 21st century theology for you: the Trinity had some extra beer in the keg. There was no one to invite so they created them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh, my mistake.

No worries! At least you asked first instead of just assuming.

 

[Doug Melven]

Doug

From your post:

• God chose to create
• Loving is a Godly act
• God gets pleasure from creating
• God decided to create beings He could love

Firstly a God who has no needs or wants has no reason to do any of the above.
Secondly you've adopted the usual Christian habit of infusing God with human features.

From my point of view, man makes God in his own image - not the other way around.
OB

You don't believe in God, so you couldn't have another point of view.
You can only believe that man creates God in his own image.

What I can't figure out is why you created this post.
If there were no god as you say, why are you, an atheist, on a Christian forum?
What does it matter that others believe in God?
Think of all the time you have spent on this forum that you could have been enjoying other pursuits.

 

[ananda]

The Paradox of a Perfect God

According to my understanding the Christian God is perfect – He/It has no needs or wants

At the same time Christians also believe that God created the World/Universe, along with life

If God had no needs or wants prior to Creation then, logically, God would have no reason to create anything

This line of reasoning seems to lead to the logical conclusion that either God is not perfect or He/It did not create the Universe.

What am I missing here?
OB

What you describe is one major issue with all theistic religions, especially those with an omnimax deity.

From a Buddhist perspective: literally all actions are done to address or rectify an existing need, imperfection, or discontentment. Contentment brings inaction: aka, nibbana. Therefore, those who act cannot be perfect.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You don't believe in God, so you couldn't have another point of view.
You can only believe that man creates God in his own image.

What I can't figure out is why you created this post.
If there were no god as you say, why are you, an atheist, on a Christian forum?
What does it matter that others believe in God?
Think of all the time you have spent on this forum that you could have been enjoying other pursuits.

None of this is a response to the OP. It's more like what I'd expect from someone who is frustrated and has no answers at all.

As for your unabashedly off-topic question, try putting yourself in our shoes for at least long enough to think it through. The church causes a lot of harm to the world.

First off, churches are eligible for 911 aid and they occupy land that could be, say, a tax-paying McDonald's. Yet churches don't pay taxes and this defrauds the people of billions annually.

Analysis | You give religions more than $82.5 billion a year

Matthew 22:21

Second, the Catholic church has committed crimes against humanity, which the UN considers to be borderline torture. It's clear that had the church not been outed, they'd still be happily accepting large sums of money from citizens while raping their children. They are a criminal organization, and not only are their assets not being seized, but they're not even paying taxes!

Third, the church's "good deeds" are obviously over-hyped. They're clearly taking in far more money than they're redistributing. The Vatican has tons of gold, bishops and cardinals live in million-dollar penthouses and mansions, and let's not forget the billions upon billions that the church spent defending its predator priests in the form of lawyers, settlements, psychologists, and etc. Yeah... the church is giving aid all over the world and just so happens to be sitting on billions of dollars! They didn't have to sell anything or make cutbacks... they literally just had this money laying around.

"But that's the Catholic church. I'm protestant!" Oh, right, protestants. My fourth point. They're the largest distributors of scientific misinformation in the world, trying even to (illegally and unconstitutionally) corrupt children by slipping in "micro-evolution" and "6000 years" into the curriculum. Not to mention the fact that protestant parents brainwash their children with this fake science.


So as you can see there's a fair bit to dislike. There's a fair bit that we atheists, as citizens, should have a problem with.

 

[Occams Barber]

I think we can even make a phenomenological case for act flowing from abundance (rather than need). Think of St. Bernard's quote:

The man who is wise, therefore, will see his life as more like a reservoir than a canal. The canal simultaneously pours out what it receives; the reservoir retains the water till it is filled, then discharges the overflow without loss to itself.
​

The most common human instance would be romantic love. The lover is open, magnanimous, overflowing. As Josef Pieper says, "Only the lover sings." I don't think the lover is compelled or has lost his freedom, he has just become some sort of spring of life.

If that can happen with us then I don't see why it can't happen with God. Indeed the Christian conception of God as outpouring love finds a close parallel to the example above. But I think Quid's "Why not?" is an important angle too.

If you really want to focus on the time 'before' creation I would offer an admittedly facile illustration. Suppose it's a beautiful Fall night and you're sitting around the fire with two friends, having a wonderful time, perfectly content. At some point it dawns on you, "Hey, this is really great. Why don't we invite more people? We have plenty of beer and room around the fire." So you do, and out of abundance rather than need. That's my deep 21st century theology for you: the Trinity had some extra beer in the keg. There was no one to invite so they created them.

I've coined a new term just for you:

Corny Anthropomorphism ​

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

There is a reason God creates, but that reason is internal and tied into what God is rather than imposed externally.

I picked out the one sentence in your post which seems to address the OP..

I've never suggested that God's motives are imposed externally. In the pre creation state there is obviously no "external'. My argument is simple and relates to the pre creation state:

If God has no needs or wants then He/She/It would not do anything. He would not do anything because there is nothing to be done.​

Christians have created a God of contradictions. A God who needs nothing but creates something. A God who has no needs but demands to be worshipped. A God who needs nothing but is strangely anthropomorphic with his need to be loved, his anger, revenge and general messing about with the things he apparently created.

These contradictions within the nature of God strongly suggest the probability that He's a human construction. In other words - He doesn't exist.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

If God didn't want anything, we would not exist.

My argument is that if God is perfect and has no needs or wants then he would not create anything.

You underlying assumption is that God actually exists. This ain't necessarily so.
OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Paradox of a Perfect God

According to my understanding the Christian God is perfect – He/It has no needs or wants

At the same time Christians also believe that God created the World/Universe, along with life

If God had no needs or wants prior to Creation then, logically, God would have no reason to create anything

This line of reasoning seems to lead to the logical conclusion that either God is not perfect or He/It did not create the Universe.

What am I missing here?
OB

This is like saying that men and women only have children because they NEED children...

...and I think we all know that ain't necessarily the case.

 

[Occams Barber]

If there were no god as you say, why are you, an atheist, on a Christian forum?

I joined CF to get a better understanding of Christians. That is; what you believe and why you believe it. Remember that Christians tend to be in the majority therefore their beliefs have a significant impact on society.

What does it matter that others believe in God?

Put basically, Christians believe in something which to me probably doesn't exist. They then proceed to make judgements based on their understanding of the wishes of this non existent entity. These decisions sometimes lack justification from a secular point of view and can be damaging to the broader society. Examples include attitudes to homosexuality, same sex marriage, evolution, the age of the earth, women, contraception, sexuality in general, abortion, voluntary euthanasia and transgender issues. Christian attitudes can also influence how a society relates to public participation, climate change, vaccination, abortion, voluntary euthanasia and science in general.

If I were to tell you that society must act in certain ways because Thor said so, you are likely to be a little worried,
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

This is like saying that men and women only have children because they NEED children...

...and I think we all know that ain't necessarily the case.

Humans aren't God Phil - even I know that. Stop anthropomorphising the problem.

Besides, I'm not sure about 'needs' but I'm pretty sure we mostly have kids because we 'want' them (apart from the occasional accident )
OB

 

[Ana the Ist]

Contentment brings inaction: aka, nibbana.

I used to listen to Nibbana back in the early 90s. Nevermind was one of the first CDs I bought.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Humans aren't God Phil - even I know that. Stop anthropomorphising the problem.

Besides, I'm not sure about 'needs' but I'm pretty sure we mostly have kids because we 'want' them (apart from the occasional accident )
OB

I see the problem here...............you have a different perception of this than I do. I wonder why this is the case? Maybe it's because you can't really define "want" here in a way that applies to each and every case?

Moreover, just face it. No one has actually met up with "perfection," so I'm confident that neither you nor I know or fully understand what such a concept could really be.

 

[“Paisios”]

I'm having trouble parsing this sentence but the bolded bit is all I need. If 'fulfilling his desires makes him perfect' then he was obviously not perfect prior to 'fulfilling his desires'.

I'm also struggling with the idea of a God who has no needs or wants having 'desires'. The two ideas are contradictory.
OB

My problem is trying to express ideas that are outside of time, since we are within it. It seems to me that God has needs and desires but is also the fulfillment of those needs and desires...and all, outside of time. So the concept of “prior” has little meaning when it comes to God.

Forgive me for not being clearer. I know what I mean, but cannot express it well.