The Paradox of a Perfect God

[Doug Melven]

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.

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 existence 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 be a little worried,
OB

You are only looking at one side of what Christians do.
Many people have been helped.
People who were addicted to various things have had there lives turned around for the good.
Families have been restored.
People who had no access to basic necessities received them because of the Christians doing what they felt God wanted them to do.

Back to topic.
Not needing/wanting anything does not mean that receiving something can't give you pleasure.
God created us so He could have a relationship with us.
It wasn't that God needed to have a relationship, but it is something He chose to do.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

What would god love without anything else in existence?

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.

Except it's without the "fall night", or the campfire, or friends, or "wonderful time", or beer, or room, or language...

Other than those things....it's a dead on analogy lol.

 

[Occams Barber]

You are only looking at one side of what Christians do.

True - but because I'm talking about the problems doesn't automatically mean I'm denying that there are some good things. My concern is with judgements for which the main (sometimes only) justification is 'God said'.

Not needing/wanting anything does not mean that receiving something can't give you pleasure.
God created us so He could have a relationship with us.
It wasn't that God needed to have a relationship, but it is something He chose to do.

I don't see how your receiving comment is relevant to the topic.

If the pre-creation God had no needs or wants He has no reason to do anything. If, as you say, he created us so that he could have a relationship then he obviously wanted a relationship. Wanting a relationship is obviously contradictory to having no needs or wants.
OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What would god love without anything else in existence?



Except it's without the "fall night", or the campfire, or friends, or "wonderful time", or beer, or room, or language...

Other than those things....it's a dead on analogy lol.

Watch out for falling "pies," Ana! I hear they're delicious!

True - but because I'm talking about the problems doesn't automatically mean I'm denying that there are some good things. My concern is with judgements for which the main (sometimes only) justification is 'God said'.


I don't see how your receiving comment is relevant to the topic.

If the pre-creation God had no needs or wants He has no reason to do anything. If, as you say, he created us so that he could have a relationship then he obviously wanted a relationship. Wanting a relationship is obviously contradictory to having no needs or wants.
OB

OB, I hate to be the one to say this and have to be blunt about it, but all you're really doing here, and have been doing thus far in this entire thread of yours, is impose arbitrary meaning onto the term "perfection."

In essence, all you're doing is playing with various words by setting inherent connotations in one qualifier against another. Again, in yet other words, all you're doing is playing with Plato, not with Moses.

 

[zippy2006]

I've coined a new term just for you:

Corny Anthropomorphism ​

OB

Ha, perhaps, but the core of the argument is a fortiori possibility. If humans can manage to act out of abundance I'm pretty sure God can.

I used to dislike analogies because they always limp, but I've come to enjoy that aspect of them. Their efficacy is directly related to the openness of the inquirer. I see that as a fail-safe, despite the fact that some will never accept any analogy. Speaking of which:

Except it's without the "fall night", or the campfire, or friends, or "wonderful time", or beer, or room, or language...

Other than those things....it's a dead on analogy lol.

Right, because the inner life of the Trinity must be a sort of dull, inconspicuous grey. Wait ...what?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ha, perhaps, but the core of the argument is a fortiori possibility. If humans can manage to act out of abundance I'm pretty sure God can.

I used to dislike analogies because they always limp, but I've come to enjoy that aspect of them. Their efficacy is directly related to the openness of the inquirer. I see that as a fail-safe, despite the fact that some will never accept any analogy. Speaking of which:



Right, because the inner life of the Trinity must be a sort of dull, inconspicuous grey. Wait ...what?

I thought the Trinity was 3 in 1?

 

[zippy2006]

I thought the Trinity was 3 in 1?

Hmm... are you thinking of the Three Musketeers? You know, "All for one and one for all"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hmm... are you thinking of the Three Musketeers? You know, "All for one and one for all"?

It's not my concept Zippy. If it sounds stupid...I completely agree. Way back in time though, someone decided Jesus Christ, the Heavenly Father, and the Holy Spirit are all the same god.

If you believe something else...then I'm sorry I asked.

 

[Occams Barber]

OB, I hate to be the one to say this and have to be blunt about it, but all you're really doing here, and have been doing thus far in this entire thread of yours, is impose arbitrary meaning onto the term "perfection."

In essence, all you're doing is playing with various words by setting inherent connotations in one qualifier against another. Again, in yet other words, all you're doing is playing with Plato, not with Moses.

You obviously arrived late to the party. If you go back to the beginning the OP and post#5 (quoted below) you'll see that I've gone to some lengths to define 'perfect'.

If you look at my first line you'll see that I went on to qualify 'perfect' as 'has no needs or wants". This is consistent with my understanding of Christian claims. It's also consistent with the first of several definitions (of 'perfect') in the Oxford dictionary*

OB
*Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

In fact this argument doesn't hang on any definition of perfect. The key is whether or God could be described as an entity with needs, more particularly in the pre-creation state. It lies in the answers to the following questions:​

• Prior to creation did God want for anything? Did He have needs?​
• Is this dictionary definition of 'perfect' an accurate statement about the nature of God?​

Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be
​

If the generic Christian answer to these questions is 'yes' then we have established that God has no needs or wants. We could use "perfect" as a shorthand way of expressing this idea but it isn't a necessary part of the argument.

If God has all that he needs then how can he add to it?
If God has no needs or wants then why would He create the Universe?
OB
​

 

[zippy2006]

It's not my concept Zippy. If it sounds stupid...I completely agree. Way back in time though, someone decided Jesus Christ, the Heavenly Father, and the Holy Spirit are all the same god.

If you believe something else...then I'm sorry I asked.

Sorry; long day. I can explain the punch-line if you want, but this way around never seems to have the same effect.

In the context of the argument the campfire (and everything accompanying it) signifies abundance. An act flows out of that abundance: invitation. So if you want to translate it into the topic of the OP you have to ask whether anything like the campfire exists in God's inner nature (apart from creation). That is, you have to ask whether there is anything correlating to abundance in God's nature. For the Christian there certainly is. The inner life of the Trinity is ...well ...abundant. (Luke 15:22-23)

(But again, the sheer possibility of acting out of abundance seems well-established.)

 

[Occams Barber]

It's not my concept Zippy. If it sounds stupid...I completely agree. Way back in time though, someone decided Jesus Christ, the Heavenly Father, and the Holy Spirit are all the same god.

If you believe something else...then I'm sorry I asked.

If you start with the Trinity, add in a few angels and archangels, Mary and the saints, seraphim, cherubim, along with Satan and assorted devils and demons, it all starts to sound suspiciously pantheistic.
OB

 

[zippy2006]

If you start with the Trinity, add in a few angels and archangels, Mary and the saints, seraphim, cherubim, along with Satan and assorted devils and demons, it all starts to sound suspiciously pantheistic.
OB

Well, if you don't know what pantheism means then pants probably sound suspiciously pantheistic. And this is great news for Dockers.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Watch out for falling "pies," Ana! I hear they're delicious!


OB, I hate to be the one to say this and have to be blunt about it, but all you're really doing here, and have been doing thus far in this entire thread of yours, is impose arbitrary meaning onto the term "perfection."

In essence, all you're doing is playing with various words by setting inherent connotations in one qualifier against another. Again, in yet other words, all you're doing is playing with Plato, not with Moses.

I think I sort of understand what OB is saying...I just don't see the connection to "perfection" that he's making.

Arguably, a god that has desires doesn't quite fit the "omniscient, omnipotent, or all good" descriptors. If he wants a relationship...he could just experience that without the messy process of creating a universe or life. He could simply create an entity that exists apart from the universe like himself. The difficult part is when one tries to imagine "why" he would want a "relationship"....if he knows all, then he knows everything about this relationship before it started. If it was out of desire to share his love....then again, he need not create a universe filled with suffering and pain to achieve it. If it was out of desire for worship/recognition...then he isn't all good.

There's a couple of valid answers I can imagine...but they don't fit with christianity.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you start with the Trinity, add in a few angels and archangels, Mary and the saints, seraphim, cherubim, along with Satan and assorted devils and demons, it all starts to sound suspiciously pantheistic.
OB

Don't you love it when someone says you mischaracterized their god....then make no steps to explain it "correctly"?

I suppose we at least know that neither of us understand it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you start with the Trinity, add in a few angels and archangels, Mary and the saints, seraphim, cherubim, along with Satan and assorted devils and demons, it all starts to sound suspiciously pantheistic.
OB

Isn't Mary just a womb basically?

Or did I forget some part where she comes back for armageddon riding a winged lion and dual wielding golden AK-47s?

"And she blessed thee with magazines that overfloweth and double-taps abound"

 

[zippy2006]

Or did I forget some part where she comes back for armageddon riding a winged lion and dual wielding golden AK-47s?

Hmm... are you thinking of the Russian version of Coco?

The question in the OP is interesting though, and old. Was the act of creation necessary?

 

[Occams Barber]

I think I sort of understand what OB is saying...I just don't see the connection to "perfection" that he's making.

If you look at the second part of post 69 I tried to explain the 'perfect' thing. Basically, as long as you (that is, Christians) agree that God has 'no needs or wants' then there's no need worry about 'perfect'. I've only used 'perfect' as a shorthand way of saying 'has no needs or wants' and because Christians also use the term.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hmm... are you thinking of the Russian version of Coco?

The question in the OP is interesting though, and old. Was the act of creation necessary?

I thought the OP was more about what motivations could possibly exist for a being capable of anything and knowing everything.

 

[zippy2006]

I thought the OP was more about what motivations could possibly exist for a being capable of anything and knowing everything.

Tomato tomato.

(Apparently that doesn't have the same effect in text. )

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you look at the second part of post 69 I tried to explain the 'perfect' thing. Basically, as long as you (that is, Christians) agree that God has 'no needs or wants' then there's no need worry about 'perfect'. I've only used 'perfect' as a shorthand way of saying 'has no needs or wants' and because Christians also use the term.

I just always assumed it was the Merriam Webster definition 1. A....
being entirely without fault or defect- flawless

Which I always took as something that applies to what he does....as in "he makes no mistakes".

It still doesn't fit lol....but that's what I thought christians meant.