Is God Perfect?

[SUM]

The Judea/Christian belief is that God is infallible. A perfect being by definition has no wants, needs, or desires and is incapable of error. If in fact God is infallible we should not exist. By that definition there should not be an existence at all. That is, God in the traditional Judea/Christian sense would have no want, need, nor desire to create anything, let alone something as insignificant as humans. Any thoughts or disagreements?

 

[Penumbra]

The Judea/Christian belief is that God is infallible. A perfect being by definition has no wants, needs, or desires and is incapable of error. If in fact God is infallible we should not exist. By that definition there should not be an existence at all. That is, God in the traditional Judea/Christian sense would have no want, need, nor desire to create anything, let alone something as insignificant as humans. Any thoughts or disagreements?

Firstly, welcome to the forums.

Secondly, onto your question!

I think that one problem is that "perfect" is hard to define. Who decides what is perfect? If a creator deity decides that he is perfect, can he do anything and still define it as perfect? If not, then what measuring stick is applied to an omnipotent creator deity to measure how perfect its actions are? Who decides what "error" is?

If I had to take a stab in the dark, I would say that a perfect being would lack anger (as anger is a sign that things are not working how one would want them to, that he is not in control, that he lacks foresight/omniscience), jealousy (I view it as weakness, petty, small), and vengeance (I view it as petty, low, animal-like).

I do not necessarily think that a perfect being would not create things. A perfect being might not have a need to create things, but might still create anyway, as a way of experiencing its perfection. Who is to say that static/stillness is perfect? Perhaps a perfect deity constantly creates and changes, and that is an inherent part of what makes it perfect?

-Lyn

 

[SUM]

Firstly, welcome to the forums.

Secondly, onto your question!

I think that one problem is that "perfect" is hard to define. Who decides what is perfect? If a creator deity decides that he is perfect, can he do anything and still define it as perfect? If not, then what measuring stick is applied to an omnipotent creator deity to measure how perfect its actions are? Who decides what "error" is?

If I had to take a stab in the dark, I would say that a perfect being would lack anger (as anger is a sign that things are not working how one would want them to, that he is not in control, that he lacks foresight/omniscience), jealousy (I view it as weakness, petty, small), and vengeance (I view it as petty, low, animal-like).

I do not necessarily think that a perfect being would not create things. A perfect being might not have a need to create things, but might still create anyway, as a way of experiencing its perfection. Who is to say that static/stillness is perfect? Perhaps a perfect deity constantly creates and changes, and that is an inherent part of what makes it perfect?

-Lyn

-Lyn

“Perfect” is hard to define, I agree, but anything is hard to define for that matter. We decide what is perfect by our definition of the term. Wants, needs, and desires are all attributes of an imperfect being therefore if we or I’m sorry a deity calls its self perfect then it would not want, need, or desire to do anything whatsoever. Inasmuch as it would be incapable of doing anything, which would create another problem from omnipotence. Who decides what “error” is…we do. That is our society’s culture, laws, mores, and beliefs decide what is and is not error.

Also I agree the deity from the old testament of the Judea/Christian bible does not fit the role of perfectness at all.

-Eric

 

[Penumbra]

-Lyn

“Perfect” is hard to define, I agree, but anything is hard to define for that matter. We decide what is perfect by our definition of the term. Wants, needs, and desires are all attributes of an imperfect being therefore if we or I’m sorry a deity calls its self perfect then it would not want, need, or desire to do anything whatsoever. Inasmuch as it would be incapable of doing anything, which would create another problem from omnipotence. Who decides what “error” is…we do. That is our society’s culture, laws, mores, and beliefs decide what is and is not error.

Also I agree the deity from the old testament of the Judea/Christian bible does not fit the role of perfectness at all.

-Eric

So your argument is that our society should judge what is perfect, and declare then that since we exist, if there is a deity, it must not be perfect, or it would not have created anything?

I feel that perfection is subjective, and that you're giving too much credit to your view of what is perfect, and applying it universally instead of just subjectively. You say that wants, needs, and desires are all attributes of an imperfect being. I agree that having needs would mean imperfection, but I disagree what wants would mean imperfection. What if I say that unchanging permanence is boring to me, and that a deity that does not create and change is boring and therefore imperfect? Well, that deity would have to create to be perfect in my view, which apparently negates your view of perfection.

That's why perfection is hard to define, as it's subjective. I might even go further and say that not only can we not define perfection, but it is probably an imaginary quality that doesn't exist, and if it did, people wouldn't be able to identify it anyway, as they all have different conceptions of what "perfect" should look like.

-Lyn

 

[SUM]

So your argument is that our society should judge what is perfect, and declare then that since we exist, if there is a deity, it must not be perfect, or it would not have created anything?

I feel that perfection is subjective, and that you're giving too much credit to your view of what is perfect, and applying it universally instead of just subjectively. You say that wants, needs, and desires are all attributes of an imperfect being. I agree that having needs would mean imperfection, but I disagree what wants would mean imperfection. What if I say that unchanging permanence is boring to me, and that a deity that does not create and change is boring and therefore imperfect? Well, that deity would have to create to be perfect in my view, which apparently negates your view of perfection.

That's why perfection is hard to define, as it's subjective. I might even go further and say that not only can we not define perfection, but it is probably an imaginary quality that doesn't exist, and if it did, people wouldn't be able to identify it anyway, as they all have different conceptions of what "perfect" should look like.

-Lyn

No my argument is much simpler than that. If God (any deity that claims to be perfect) is fallible then God does not exist. I expected defining “perfect” would be a problem. So needs are an attribute of imperfection, we can agree on that, but you disagree about wants. Lets, for the sake of argument, put desires and wants into the same category here. Now you stated that a being that does not create would be “bored” in your view and that that would be a fallacy as an infallible deity could not be bored by any definition of the word subjective or not right? It may be boring not to create in your view but that’s only because we can’t fathom absolute nothingness. Want is something that a perfect being could not posses as to want would create feelings of need. I know wants and needs are not the same but do you see where I’m going with this? We may have different ways of viewing perfectness but we can agree that there are some common attributes to the term.

 

[Infernalfist]

i have often wondered the same thing, what purpose would a perfect creator have for creating something so imperfect and destructive. if it knew the future then it knew what would be done by our hands, especially in its name.

 

[SUM]

i have often wondered the same thing, what purpose would a perfect creator have for creating something so imperfect and destructive. if it knew the future then it knew what would be done by our hands, especially in its name.

Right. That poses another question…How could a perfect being create fallible beings? It does not follow that an infallible deity could create imperfect beings. Furthermore if in fact that deity could not create something then that deity would cease to be omnipotent.

 

[Infernalfist]

i would wager that the people who choose to label a creator as infallible aren't really thinking about the meaning of the word. most people flock to a particular religion is because of the fact that it is an easy answer. you ask questions like this to lazy minded masses and it causes them to turtle back into their easy to handle unreason(mind you i am referring to people in general and not a stab at the majority on this site).

 

[Dark_Lite]

The Judea/Christian belief is that God is infallible. A perfect being by definition has no wants, needs, or desires and is incapable of error. If in fact God is infallible we should not exist. By that definition there should not be an existence at all. That is, God in the traditional Judea/Christian sense would have no want, need, nor desire to create anything, let alone something as insignificant as humans. Any thoughts or disagreements?

Since when does a perfect being not have wants, needs, or desires?

 

[The Nihilist]

Since when does a perfect being not have wants, needs, or desires?

To be perfect, it must not be able to be better. If it needs something, then it could be better, and so is not perfect. QED.

 

[Penumbra]

No my argument is much simpler than that. If God (any deity that claims to be perfect) is fallible then God does not exist.

Well, it could still exist, it just would be a fallible god. Tons of religions believe in fallible gods.

I expected defining “perfect” would be a problem. So needs are an attribute of imperfection, we can agree on that, but you disagree about wants. Lets, for the sake of argument, put desires and wants into the same category here.

Wants and desires have different degrees. Keep that in mind as I'll bring that up below.

Now you stated that a being that does not create would be “bored” in your view and that that would be a fallacy as an infallible deity could not be bored by any definition of the word subjective or not right? It may be boring not to create in your view but that’s only because we can’t fathom absolute nothingness.

No, I said that the deity that does not change or create would be boring to me. I didn't say that it would be bored.

My point was that we have different subjective understandings of what perfection is. In your view, you seem to feel that a perfect deity has no need to change or create, as doing so means that the state it was in before was not perfect. My point is that, hypothetically, a person such as myself might say that the characteristics of perfection that you describe are flawed, in this case boring. What you view as perfect, I view as potentially boring, and to me, something that is boring is not perfect.

Want is something that a perfect being could not posses as to want would create feelings of need. I know wants and needs are not the same but do you see where I’m going with this? We may have different ways of viewing perfectness but we can agree that there are some common attributes to the term.

Wants do not necessarily create feelings of need. A being could have a preference for one thing without the need for that thing. For instance, a deity could wish to be in a constant state of change, of creation, and then do so.

Consider this: If a deity has a perfect form and does not change, then it may be perfect. If a creative perfect deity is not only perfect in one form, but can change to an infinite number of different forms, and go through an infinite number of cycles of creation, yet remain perfect, then this is a more impressive and perfect deity than the first. Would the first one really still be "perfect" then, in its static, unchanging state? It's like comparing an musician with a one-hit-wonder compared to a musician that can produce amazing records for decades.

i have often wondered the same thing, what purpose would a perfect creator have for creating something so imperfect and destructive. if it knew the future then it knew what would be done by our hands, especially in its name.

Right. That poses another question…How could a perfect being create fallible beings? It does not follow that an infallible deity could create imperfect beings. Furthermore if in fact that deity could not create something then that deity would cease to be omnipotent.

Think about your favorite book or movie, or think of a story that has been popular for decades or even centuries.

Were all the characters in that story perfect? Did it lack conflict and antagonists, because everything was perfect? Did all characters lack any challenge or obstacles?

How would you rate such a story, where everyone and everything is perfect, and sit around being perfect? Would that be a good book?

In my opinion, if a perfect deity set out to create infallible beings, but those beings ended up fallible, then yes, the deity is inherently imperfect.

If, however, the perfect deity set out to create purposely fallible beings, then I would not necessarily say that the deity is imperfect, as it performed what it set out to do.

To be perfect, it must not be able to be better. If it needs something, then it could be better, and so is not perfect. QED.

I agree with that, but there is another possibility. It could change or create, and become different, yet neither better or worse. Perfection changing into a different form of perfection.

-Lyn

 

[SUM]

Well, it could still exist, it just would be a fallible god. Tons of religions believe in fallible gods.

No it could not exist if the God was the traditional Judea/Christian God. That was my point.

My point was that we have different subjective understandings of what perfection is. In your view, you seem to feel that a perfect deity has no need to change or create, as doing so means that the state it was in before was not perfect. My point is that, hypothetically, a person such as myself might say that the characteristics of perfection that you describe are flawed, in this case boring. What you view as perfect, I view as potentially boring, and to me, something that is boring is not perfect.

It is irrelevant how you and I perceive perfection whether it’s boring or not boring that’s a moot point. Since we can not agree on wants and perfection lets just use needs. Okay a deity that claims infallibility would not need to create anything and therefore would not create anything because creating something would mean that it had some sort of need.

Consider this: If a deity has a perfect form and does not change, then it may be perfect. If a creative perfect deity is not only perfect in one form, but can change to an infinite number of different forms, and go through an infinite number of cycles of creation, yet remain perfect, then this is a more impressive and perfect deity than the first. Would the first one really still be "perfect" then, in its static, unchanging state? It's like comparing an musician with a one-hit-wonder compared to a musician that can produce amazing records for decades.

This is an infinate regress and therefore could not be.

Think about your favorite book or movie, or think of a story that has been popular for decades or even centuries.

Were all the characters in that story perfect? Did it lack conflict and antagonists, because everything was perfect? Did all characters lack any challenge or obstacles?

Again it is irrelevant how we perceive perfection.

[SIZE=+0]In my opinion, if a perfect deity set out to create infallible beings, but those beings ended up fallible, then yes, the deity is inherently imperfect.

If, however, the perfect deity set out to create purposely fallible beings, then I would not necessarily say that the deity is imperfect, as it performed what it set out to do. [/SIZE]

My point is that a God that is infallible is incapable of creating anything fallible if in fact this deity did create fallible beings it would become infallible by creating beings that were less that perfect whether it meant to our not.

 

[Penumbra]

No it could not exist if the God was the traditional Judea/Christian God. That was my point.

It is irrelevant how you and I perceive perfection whether it’s boring or not boring that’s a moot point. Since we can not agree on wants and perfection lets just use needs. Okay a deity that claims infallibility would not need to create anything and therefore would not create anything because creating something would mean that it had some sort of need.

I do lots of things that I don't need to do.

Who says that what a perfect deity does, it needs to be doing? Perhaps it just does it?

And I don't think boring is a moot point, as it can be a perceived element of perfection or imperfection.

This is an infinate regress and therefore could not be.

How so?

Again it is irrelevant how we perceive perfection.

Well that goes back to my original point- perfection is in the eye of the beholder. That is, unless you want to prove the existence of an objective, complete collection of traits necessary for perfection, which I believe would be impossible. So, perceiving perfection is not irrelevant, but instead is everything.

My point is that a God that is infallible is incapable of creating anything fallible if in fact this deity did create fallible beings it would become infallible by creating beings that were less that perfect whether it meant to our not.

Why is that?

If a perfect being cannot create fallible creatures, then it lacks the ability to do something, and is not perfect.

Can a perfect storyteller create interesting and flawed characters for the sake of a good story?

-Lyn

 

[SUM]

I do lots of things that I don't need to do.

You may not think you need to do it but there is some hidden need that perhaps you’re not aware of. Everything that is done is done out of necessity, there is nothing that is done without some sort of need. For example giving my seem like an altruistic act but there is a self-serving agenda behind it it may be as simple as a good felling but at the time it was a need, a need to feel good.

Who says that what a perfect deity does, it needs to be doing? Perhaps it just does it?

Well we have said what a perfect deity does…the God of Christianity lets not forget my original point (It is written in their bible).

And I don't think boring is a moot point, as it can be a perceived element of perfection or imperfection.

What does it matter if a deity is boring to us? That may be an imperfection to us but if a perfect deity exist it would not matter.

Consider this: If a deity has a perfect form and does not change, then it may be perfect. If a creative perfect deity is not only perfect in one form, but can change to an infinite number of different forms, and go through an infinite number of cycles of creation, yet remain perfect, then this is a more impressive and perfect deity than the first. Would the first one really still be "perfect" then, in its static, unchanging state? It's like comparing an musician with a one-hit-wonder compared to a musician that can produce amazing records for decades.

Mabey i'm reading this wrong but your saying that an infinite number of prefect Gods is better that one infinite God. So the first God would have to create the next and so on hence an infinite regress.

Well that goes back to my original point- perfection is in the eye of the beholder. That is, unless you want to prove the existence of an objective, complete collection of traits necessary for perfection, which I believe would be impossible. So, perceiving perfection is not irrelevant, but instead is everything.

We don’t need to prove an objective perfection to prove my point here. We can focus on the relevant attributes of perfection and all we need is one right?

If a perfect being cannot create fallible creatures, then it lacks the ability to do something, and is not perfect.

That's my point. A perfect God can not exist.

Can a perfect storyteller create interesting and flawed characters for the sake of a good story?

How many story tellers do you know that are perfect?

 

[Penumbra]

You may not think you need to do it but there is some hidden need that perhaps you’re not aware of. Everything that is done is done out of necessity, there is nothing that is done without some sort of need. For example giving my seem like an altruistic act but there is a self-serving agenda behind it it may be as simple as a good felling but at the time it was a need, a need to feel good.

But I think you're mixing up want and need. If I do something good and get a good feeling, it's not because I needed that feeling, but perhaps I wanted it. Or say I paint a picture. Maybe I wasn't craving to paint a picture, but I had a good idea for something to paint, and decided to paint it.

Some Buddhists I've talked to here on the forums have described in detail better than I can the different types of desire or need. A key aspect of Buddhism is eliminating all craving desire, but as some of them have told me, eliminating all craving desire can still leave preferences, reasons for doing things. The logic is sound to me.

If your stance is that all actions are truly out of need, then I feel that requires pretty strong proof on your part.

Well we have said what a perfect deity does…the God of Christianity lets not forget my original point (It is written in their bible).

Well I don't view the Jewish, Christian, or Islamic deities as perfect. Far from it, actually. My point of disagreement is that creation is in itself inherently imperfect, as only an imperfect deity would "need" to create. I argue that this is an unfounded claim.

What does it matter if a deity is boring to us? That may be an imperfection to us but if a perfect deity exist it would not matter.

If that logic is followed, then all other parameters of perfection are null and void as well. If only a perfect god exists, it can define anything as perfect, even if it has qualities that you consider imperfect, like wanting, desiring, or needing. This premise of yours is rooted in the belief that a perfect deity would have no need of creation, which I still find disagreement with.

Mabey i'm reading this wrong but your saying that an infinite number of prefect Gods is better that one infinite God. So the first God would have to create the next and so on hence an infinite regress.

Not quite. I'm merely hypothesizing that change and creation may be an element of so-called perfection. I'm not talking about an infinite number of gods- but instead one god that changes or creates at will an infinite number of times. (You can disregard the concept of time if you wish, as time is an element to our universe. Instead, you could potentially think of it as a deity having an unlimited number of forms or creations at once, but I try to avoid complexity when possible for the sake of streamlined discussion.)

Like I said before, an artist with a one-hit wonder is generally less impressive than an artist that can produce amazing songs over and over and over again. Would a god with an infinite number of perfect forms be superior to a god with one perfect form? If so, would the first god still be considered "perfect", if something can be thought of that's better?

If a deity is perfect, then it is perfect at everything. One could deductively argue it's perfect at creating things. If I have a perfect flashlight, but never turn it on, then what's the point? What's the point of a perfect god, if it does not use its perfection in all its forms and abilities? If I'm good at painting, but never paint, then that's illogical. If I decide to paint something, it may not be because I need to, or crave to, but simply feel that it is right to do so.

A perfect god could conceivably create life to share perfection with it. The deity would have no need to do this, is not lonely, but merely uses its creation abilities, as it is perfect in doing so.

We don’t need to prove an objective perfection to prove my point here. We can focus on the relevant attributes of perfection and all we need is one right?

Yes, but one would have to prove that this one attribute is violated by a claimed god, which I have not seen yet.

You say the Christian deity is imperfect, and I agree, because the character of it in the Bible displays jealousy and vengeance. But I am pinpointing your original argument that an act of creation itself leads to an inherently imperfect deity.

That's my point. A perfect God can not exist.

Well, I don't disagree, but I look at it more as that the concept of "perfection" itself is inherently flawed. The word has been thrown around too much, and has no actual applications.

It's kind of like saying an omnipotent god cannot exist, because it couldn't do anything, including simultaneously exist and not exist, couldn't make a rock larger than it could lift, couldn't make a square circle, and so forth. But the issue with that claim is that the concept of "omnipotence", or the ability to "do anything" is vague, unhelpful, and has no actual applications.

My point of disagreement, again, is not that a perfect deity exists or even can exist, but is instead with your claim that an act of creation itself is inherently imperfect because a perfect deity wouldn't create.

How many story tellers do you know that are perfect?

None, because to tell a story, one needs imperfection, or at least perceived perfection.

My favorite stories are ones that involve challenge, conflict, and growth. Just about any story has one or more of those elements, otherwise it's not really a story. You claim that a deity cannot create imperfect beings even if it wanted to, which I find to be unfounded. My counter example is that a story teller, a really good storyteller, automatically starts by figuring out what flawed characters she is going to include in her story. I disagree that a "perfect" being couldn't create imperfect beings even if it choose to.

-Lyn

 

[SUM]

If your stance is that all actions are truly out of need, then I feel that requires pretty strong proof on your part.

Well we would have to start by defining need but that’s another animal all together.

My point of disagreement, again, is not that a perfect deity exists or even can exist, but is instead with your claim that an act of creation itself is inherently imperfect because a perfect deity wouldn't create.

I don't think our views are that far off on this topic. However in my mind it makes perfect sense that an infallible being would not create and the burden of proof is not with me but with those who believe in this deity.

None, because to tell a story, one needs imperfection, or at least perceived perfection.

The point I was trying to make here is that a good story teller is imperfect and that a story teller that may be perfect…well that’s just not possible.

You have made some good points and this discussion has been rather interesting not to mention fun but I think we may be at an impasse as I believe wholly that a perfect God would not need or want to create and therefore does not exist. We agree on the same thing we just take different roads to get there.

 

[Penumbra]

Well we would have to start by defining need but that’s another animal all together.



I don't think our views are that far off on this topic. However in my mind it makes perfect sense that an infallible being would not create and the burden of proof is not with me but with those who believe in this deity.



The point I was trying to make here is that a good story teller is imperfect and that a story teller that may be perfect…well that’s just not possible.

You have made some good points and this discussion has been rather interesting not to mention fun but I think we may be at an impasse as I believe wholly that a perfect God would not need or want to create and therefore does not exist. We agree on the same thing we just take different roads to get there.

Ok I guess we'll just agree to disagree about the topic of a perfect being and the act of creation.

Welcome again to the forums.

-Lyn

 

[The Nihilist]

I agree with that, but there is another possibility. It could change or create, and become different, yet neither better or worse. Perfection changing into a different form of perfection.

-Lyn

Perfect is an improper attribute to apply to God. Minor things are perfect. God is that which none greater (or more perfect) can be conceived. This precludes the possibility of any sort of change.

 

[Penumbra]

Perfect is an improper attribute to apply to God. Minor things are perfect. God is that which none greater (or more perfect) can be conceived. This precludes the possibility of any sort of change.

Unless, again, that change is parallel instead of vertical.

I agree that something "perfect" cannot change into something better, but I feel it is false to say that something that is perfect cannot change into something else, equally perfect. (That is, if something perfect could exist in the first place.)

The best way to do something is not necessarily singular- there can be multiple "best" but different ways of doing something.

-Lyn

 

[Bushido216]

Before we argue the question it might be worth it to argue the definition.

You've offered a definition of perfect that precludes wants or desires. I'm curious as to why that is, and how you defend such a claim.