I read two posts here that both make a similar fallacious argument, in my opinion. Instead of adressing each, I have made this thread to discuss it separately.
Roughly, God being perfect has no need to create anything as He has no wants, and therefore, without motive to create. Consequently, a perfect God would not do so.
There are a number of fallacious ideas here:
Firstly, is the assumptiom that action are only done to fulfill the selfish need of the person undertaking them. The idea here is that we only do something because we ourselves desire or gain something from them. This is the typical argument from those that discount altruism or charity - who argue that the only reason people do charity is because it makes them feel good or such, not from trying to help others. This merely amounts to a fallacy of appeal to motive; that such a motive can be envisioned, and therefore assuming it always operative.
Decision making is complex, and assuming that motives are readily available for all actions is not a proven statement (even less ascribing it to a presumed supreme being). For example, do you have motive for breathing? No, it is involuntary, though can be voluntarily controlled if need be. It is merely an action undertaken by the very nature of our organic life. We have no psychologic motive for it, though it is done in order to undergo cellular respiration, but describing why something occurs is not necessarily giving motive to it, rather a description of what has in fact occured - which can perhaps be termed Physiologic motive. We have motive to continue to do so if we want to live, or to cease if we want to die, but the action largely takes place without conscious psychologic motive.
Even then, we haven't established that altruism occurs out of any need or want of the undertaker thereof. Many, if not all, examples can be cited of altruism being damaging, of no advantage to the altruist - though a fallacious 'it makes him feel good to do so' can always be assumed. Even more nebulous concepts like duty or honour or faith can be roped in, and discounted as being societal constructs. All of these are still assuming the motives of the altruist on little more than possibly specious grounds.
For God as a perfect being, this makes even less sense. It is a anthropomorphisation of God, for it assumes a Perfect God would have similar psychology to men. A selfish God that only acts for its own gain, would not be a Perfect God per defitionem. Selfishness is not a normal aspect of Perfection. So in essence, to ascribe such an axiomatic proposition to God, in order to disprove Perfection, is a form of circular reasoning or erecting a strawman. A selfish God simply cannot be perfect, so selfishness cannot follow from perfection, and no theist when calling God thus, would accept that such motives would be applicable.
Rather, if we assume a God as a creator, the idea that creation flows from Him out of pure Joy or Love or Plenty, would make more sense from a Christian viewpoint.
This would be the equivalent of a Father sharing what he has with his children, or if you are sitting around a campfire in contentment and then inviting others nearby to join. In either case one can appeal to motive, to a father's genetic interest in his offspring or pleasures, or to looking for company - this is true, but neither imply a lack of something that was present in the sharer, rather a lack elsewhere. Or perhaps Perfection lies in the ability to share, to be altruistic, to love, which we see implied in the relationship within the Trinity between the Persons. For Love implies relation, you must love something, you cannot simply love. God is perfect in that He is completing us imperfect beings, who become perfect-in-Christ eventually.
Anyway, from the perspective of us as Created beings, a being that would not have brought us into existence, cannot be perceived as a perfect one - without assuming that there is lack of worth in our own existence. That would be a very sad philosophy to hold, a philosophy of self-hatred.
Perhaps creation is simply an aspect of being Perfect - a being that fails to create more than itself cannot be perfect, as it is sterile and non-creative, perhaps selfish. A being that cannot share the inherent Good thereof, is not Good, is not Perfect, but rather an example of selfish solipsism. A bit circular the reasoning here, but a perfect being needs to be a Creator to be Perfect. So while in perfection God would have no needs, nothing lacking, it does not mean that creation does not flow naturally as an aspect of that Perfection - akin perhaps to my 'physiologic motive' within the nature of God.
Roughly, God being perfect has no need to create anything as He has no wants, and therefore, without motive to create. Consequently, a perfect God would not do so.
There are a number of fallacious ideas here:
Firstly, is the assumptiom that action are only done to fulfill the selfish need of the person undertaking them. The idea here is that we only do something because we ourselves desire or gain something from them. This is the typical argument from those that discount altruism or charity - who argue that the only reason people do charity is because it makes them feel good or such, not from trying to help others. This merely amounts to a fallacy of appeal to motive; that such a motive can be envisioned, and therefore assuming it always operative.
Decision making is complex, and assuming that motives are readily available for all actions is not a proven statement (even less ascribing it to a presumed supreme being). For example, do you have motive for breathing? No, it is involuntary, though can be voluntarily controlled if need be. It is merely an action undertaken by the very nature of our organic life. We have no psychologic motive for it, though it is done in order to undergo cellular respiration, but describing why something occurs is not necessarily giving motive to it, rather a description of what has in fact occured - which can perhaps be termed Physiologic motive. We have motive to continue to do so if we want to live, or to cease if we want to die, but the action largely takes place without conscious psychologic motive.
Even then, we haven't established that altruism occurs out of any need or want of the undertaker thereof. Many, if not all, examples can be cited of altruism being damaging, of no advantage to the altruist - though a fallacious 'it makes him feel good to do so' can always be assumed. Even more nebulous concepts like duty or honour or faith can be roped in, and discounted as being societal constructs. All of these are still assuming the motives of the altruist on little more than possibly specious grounds.
For God as a perfect being, this makes even less sense. It is a anthropomorphisation of God, for it assumes a Perfect God would have similar psychology to men. A selfish God that only acts for its own gain, would not be a Perfect God per defitionem. Selfishness is not a normal aspect of Perfection. So in essence, to ascribe such an axiomatic proposition to God, in order to disprove Perfection, is a form of circular reasoning or erecting a strawman. A selfish God simply cannot be perfect, so selfishness cannot follow from perfection, and no theist when calling God thus, would accept that such motives would be applicable.
Rather, if we assume a God as a creator, the idea that creation flows from Him out of pure Joy or Love or Plenty, would make more sense from a Christian viewpoint.
This would be the equivalent of a Father sharing what he has with his children, or if you are sitting around a campfire in contentment and then inviting others nearby to join. In either case one can appeal to motive, to a father's genetic interest in his offspring or pleasures, or to looking for company - this is true, but neither imply a lack of something that was present in the sharer, rather a lack elsewhere. Or perhaps Perfection lies in the ability to share, to be altruistic, to love, which we see implied in the relationship within the Trinity between the Persons. For Love implies relation, you must love something, you cannot simply love. God is perfect in that He is completing us imperfect beings, who become perfect-in-Christ eventually.
Anyway, from the perspective of us as Created beings, a being that would not have brought us into existence, cannot be perceived as a perfect one - without assuming that there is lack of worth in our own existence. That would be a very sad philosophy to hold, a philosophy of self-hatred.
Perhaps creation is simply an aspect of being Perfect - a being that fails to create more than itself cannot be perfect, as it is sterile and non-creative, perhaps selfish. A being that cannot share the inherent Good thereof, is not Good, is not Perfect, but rather an example of selfish solipsism. A bit circular the reasoning here, but a perfect being needs to be a Creator to be Perfect. So while in perfection God would have no needs, nothing lacking, it does not mean that creation does not flow naturally as an aspect of that Perfection - akin perhaps to my 'physiologic motive' within the nature of God.
Last edited:
...No?
