The act of creation (whatever its motives) is an act of adding to or modifying what already is. If what there already is is 'perfect' then an act of creation is not only illogical it is impossible. Secondly I would question whether a perfect entity can have 'motive'.
Well, not necessarily. If we are thinking in terms of a Berkeleyan Idealism, Creation is neither adding to nor modifying anything. Everything already existed within God therefore.
But please justify your claims: Why if something is perfect, is an act of creation illogical? Why would it be impossible?
Why can't a perfect entity have motive?
I would hold the opposite, that a non-creative entity is by nature imperfect - especially from the viewpoint of creatures so created or not. Without a juxtaposition between what is perfect and imperfect, the former does not exist. To exist is to be differentiated from something else (which is what the word means, to 'stand-forth'), so the Perfect does not exist without the imperfect. So an entity that doesn't create, who is conceived as being the sum-total of all at that stage, cannot logically be termed Perfect at all. So God is only perfect because He had created.
As to motive, this is merely the fact that people have difficulty articulating the thought outside of potentially fulfilling wants or correcting what is not ideal. But a Perfect motive need not be self-serving, in fact ought not to be. Why is this imperfect at all? Why would a motive to make more than itself be deemed so? Again, that seems laudatory to me.
This is a silly argument. God is constantly 'not creating'. 'Not creating' is what happens when a creative act is unneeded. It has nothing to do with apathy. The list of things God has 'not created' is infinite.
How do you know this? Why must there be 'need' for creation to occur? Besides, the universe is an ongoing act of Creation, as God is traditionally seen as the ground of Being. The silly argument would be to assume that everything in potential must therefore exist in actuality, for something to be termed 'creative'. A Being without discernment, would be imperfect after all.
If God has not brought 10 legged, orange skinned lizard people into existence has he then 'denied them existence'? There is no logical basis for your assumption that a God who didn't create us is either imperfect or apathetic. To prove this you would need to show that our creation was a necessary act. Since God is the only entity who could define the act as necessary you would end up with a circular argument.
OB
I need not show creation a necessary act. I need merely assert that we exist, so from the human perspective, any being we can conceive that would not have granted us existence if the sole thing there were, would by nature be an imperfect being to us. So it is not that we needed to exist, but by the fact that we do, we cannot assert a non-creator to be perfect as such.
