The Paradox of a Perfect God

[Occams Barber]

I think you are misunderstanding here. God clearly has desires ('wants') as He sent His only begotten Son to redeem us. "Has no needs or wants" here, means that He is short of nothing He might require to achieve His aims - by whatever means He sees fit. It is 'want' as in having insufficient of. It does not mean He doesn't want certain things from us, such as a relations or such, but conversely He doesn't need such either.

I've bolded the key bit. If God is omni-everything and needs for nothing He logically has no aims. An aim is an objective you work towards. You need to step back and take a broader look at this. A self sufficient entity has no reason/motive to do anything. To me this is blazingly obvious/self evident but it is a very difficult concept to get past the preconceptions held by Christians. You need to forget the God baggage for a moment and pretend we're talking about a non-god entity with similar characteristics.

Perhaps you are confusing Aristotle's Unmoved Mover with the Scholastic Christian reinterpretation of those doctrines? There are some differences there.

I'm not clever enough to confuse these two things.

 

[Occams Barber]

If the key to being a Perfect God is not having to do anything, maybe I'm further along in the process of Theosis than it seems...I did the dishes today and answered some e-mails, but that's about it. I didn't really even need to do either, let alone want to. So...perfect god status, here I come?

Wait, no...that's obviously not right.

I think you may well have achieved a state of divinity
Let me know when you want to start a church. I'd make a mean preacher.
OB

 

[dzheremi]

I'll give you the same reply/reaction I gave the Mormons some 20 years ago: I'm amused but spoken for, thank you!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I've bolded the key bit. If God is omni-everything and needs for nothing He logically has no aims. An aim is an objective you work towards. You need to step back and take a broader look at this. A self sufficient entity has no reason/motive to do anything. To me this is blazingly obvious/self evident but it is a very difficult concept to get past the preconceptions held by Christians. You need to forget the God baggage for a moment and pretend were talking about a non-god entity with similar characteristics.


I'm not clever enough to confuse these two things.

You are asserting the statement as an axiom. I do not agree this is an axiom. So we are at an impasse.

I think the problem is that you are coming from a secular viewpoint, that everything is done for a selfish motive. That we do something only to fulfill a need, be that need to feel good about ourselves, for pleasure or avoiding pain, or whatnot. This is the modern Freudian or Selfish Gene style arguments that deny altruistic action altogether. I do not think that motive necessarily means we have to accrue advantage thereby to ourselves - in fact, the Christian ideal of many mystics and monks has been disinterest in the Self. To empty so that God may fill. If this is approaching God, who is Love as earlier stated, how much more must this be applicable to Him? It is just a matter of perspective perhaps, that depraved man can only look beyond himself with difficulty, if at all.

 

[Occams Barber]

I think the problem is that you are coming from a secular viewpoint, that everything is done for a selfish motive.

Everything is done for a motive otherwise nothing would be done. My argument has nothing to do with whether or not the motive is selfish or altruistic.

But I think you're right about axiom. To me it is patently self evident that an entity which has no needs or wants would have no motive to do anything - it's axiomatic.

Perhaps we should just leave it there.
OB

 

[paul1149]

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

A similar dynamic comes in the book of Hebrews, which tells us:

Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. (5.8)​

Christ was the sinless Son of God, yet He learned obedience through the trials of this fallen Earth. There seems to be a value-added dynamic going on here. Certainly God the Son was already obedient before taking on flesh, but God intended to enter Creation in order to save it, and that brought the necessity of a new kind of obedience, in the face of overwhelming evil. This was an astonishing act, and yes, we are not able to come close to fully comprehending it.

What does God get out of seeing us permanently joyful and secure in heaven's bliss? All I can offer is that God is the original "cheerful giver" we are told of (2Cor 9.7). His nature is love, and love gives of itself.

 

[Occams Barber]

Total aside and off topic,
If God has a sense of humour he kept most of to himself. In my experience Christians are collectively as gloomy as a Glasgow afternoon. They particularly seem to lack the ability to laugh at themselves.

Hi @singpeace

I just reread my earlier reply to you and realised that I may have left the impression that I was criticising you for being off topic.

My 'Total aside and off topic' comment was a preface to the little para on Christians and sense of humour. It was meant to indicate that what I was about to say was off topic not that you were. It was triggered by your comment about God having a sense of humour.

My apologies if I've come across as a little caustic.
OB
PS: I agree that calling myself Occam's Barber was a brilliant idea.

 

[Occams Barber]

A similar dynamic comes in the book of Hebrews, which tells us:

Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. (5.8)​

Christ was the sinless Son of God, yet He learned obedience through the trials of this fallen Earth. There seems to be a value-added dynamic going on here. Certainly God the Son was already obedient before taking on flesh, but God intended to enter Creation in order to save it, and that brought the necessity of a new kind of obedience, in the face of overwhelming evil. This was an astonishing act, and yes, we are not able to come close to fully comprehending it.

What does God get out of seeing us permanently joyful and secure in heaven's bliss? All I can offer is that God is the original "cheerful giver" we are told of (2Cor 9.7). His nature is love, and love gives of itself.

Thanks Paul. I'm not sure how to reply since your post doesn't seem to address the topic?
OB

 

[Doug Melven]

Total aside and off topic,
If God has a sense of humour he kept most of to himself. In my experience Christians are collectively as gloomy as a Glasgow afternoon. They particularly seem to lack the ability to laugh at themselves.

What you've described is the relationship between a human parent and his/her kids. God is not a human. According to Christians He has powers and abilities beyond those of mortal men (Look- in the sky!).

Basically you've done what most Christians do - you've anthropomorphised God (given him human characteristics).

My argument is relatively simple - a perfect God would not create - he wouldn't need you or me to make his life complete - and he wouldn't have human characteristics.
OB

Instead of saying we are giving God human characteristics, flip it.
God gave us some of His characteristics, love.
God is love, and when we choose to love others, we are acting in a godly manner.

God didn't need to create, He chose to create.

God doesn't need pleasure, but creating us gave Him pleasure.

Just like with me earlier this evening, I had no need to eat a bowl of ice cream. I wasn't hungry, I didn't crave sweetness or chocolate. I still enjoyed the triple chocolate ice cream though.

God chose to create us, not because He had some unfulfilled desire, but because He decided to create beings He could love.

 

[singpeace]

Total aside and off topic,
If God has a sense of humour he kept most of to himself. In my experience Christians are collectively as gloomy as a Glasgow afternoon. They particularly seem to lack the ability to laugh at themselves.

What you've described is the relationship between a human parent and his/her kids. God is not a human. According to Christians He has powers and abilities beyond those of mortal men (Look- in the sky!).

Basically you've done what most Christians do - you've anthropomorphised God (given him human characteristics).

My argument is relatively simple - a perfect God would not create - he wouldn't need you or me to make his life complete - and he wouldn't have human characteristics.
OB

You certainly have spent time with the wrong people/Christians... gloomy... ugh. I know entire churches where the atmosphere is charged with laughter and conversation; great modern music and in-depth teaching. You should get out more... go where the happy ones are who do laugh at themselves. Non Denominational. Young people. They are everywhere nowadays.

I was just trying to put forth why I believe God the Creator (not human) wanted to create us. And btw, I did not give God human characteristics but gave mankind the characteristics of God; being, triune. Your query was stated very simply; therefore, I put my answer into practical terms. Sorry if my answer was not what you were looking for.

I only offer apologetics if I am confident there will be an honest and open exchange of ideas.

 

[Occams Barber]

Instead of saying we are giving God human characteristics, flip it.
God gave us some of His characteristics, love.
God is love, and when we choose to love others, we are acting in a godly manner.

God didn't need to create, He chose to create.

God doesn't need pleasure, but creating us gave Him pleasure.

Just like with me earlier this evening, I had no need to eat a bowl of ice cream. I wasn't hungry, I didn't crave sweetness or chocolate. I still enjoyed the triple chocolate ice cream though.

God chose to create us, not because He had some unfulfilled desire, but because He decided to create beings He could love.

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

 

[paul1149]

Thanks Paul. I'm not sure how to reply since your post doesn't seem to address the topic?
OB

I believe it does address the topic. The example I cited runs alongside yours. In both cases God goes outside of Himself, outside what He needs to do, outside His comfort zone if you will, to engage with Creation. Why, we can't fully comprehend.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think this is the key sentence in your post but I'm having trouble following you. Can you paraphrase? Ta
OB

Maybe it would help if we used that definition in a sentence not related to god...

"This cat has all the qualities I've ever desired in a cat....it's perfect."

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

Or...

"I tried to feed this cat, but it desires nothing...it's perfect."

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

See how the term perfect in this definition only really makes sense if we're talking about what we desire in a cat? If we're talking about the cat having "no desires".....the definition makes no sense at all.

So when applying that particular definition to "god" we're talking about the qualities that we desire in a "perfect god". We aren't talking about the god's desires at all.

 

[Occams Barber]

They are everywhere nowadays.

In my country practising Christians are few and far between. Only 52% of the population identifies as Christian and only a small proportion of those actually go to church. There are more people who identify as "no religion" (30% of the pop) than there are Catholics (23%). It can even be difficult finding a church. Many of the "no religion" are young people. So, in my case, Christians are not everywhere.

My observations about humourless Christians are mainly based on CF.
OB

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Everything is done for a motive otherwise nothing would be done. My argument has nothing to do with whether or not the motive is selfish or altruistic.

But I think you're right about axiom. To me it is patently self evident that an entity which has no needs or wants would have no motive to do anything - it's axiomatic.

Perhaps we should just leave it there.
OB

For completeness sake:

God is atemporal, as time is an aspect of creation, that can only be seen via change of some sort. So God having an aim, that aim and its conclusion would occur concurrently, though from the perspective of us within creation, it would appear in the process thereof.

To assert a self-sufficient entity has no aim, or motive, asserts that such things are only done for ends merely for itself - so selfishly. Otherwise the adjective 'self-sufficient' would not be the operative term here. Again 'no need or wants' implies that God has sufficient for whatever He chooses to do - to assert He therefore would do nothing, implies that motives are merely to fulfill a need or a want lacking within God. So your axiom necessarily asserts God is a selfish entity, assuming the same motivation as secular psychology often applies to dismiss higher ideals. To assert God has no motivation is not Christian, for that asserts a Person who literally loves His creation and incarnated to save it.

But yes, we are at an impasse perhaps.

 

[Occams Barber]

Maybe it would help if we used that definition in a sentence not related to god...

"This cat has all the qualities I've ever desired in a cat....it's perfect."

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

Or...

"I tried to feed this cat, but it desires nothing...it's perfect."

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

See how the term perfect in this definition only really makes sense if we're talking about what we desire in a cat? If we're talking about the cat having "no desires".....the definition makes no sense at all.

So when applying that particular definition to "god" we're talking about the qualities that we desire in a "perfect god". We aren't talking about the god's desires at all.

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

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

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

To once again butt in, as a Christian, I can assert this is a Strawman fallacy. The central act of Christianity is God incarnating as a man, because He desired to save us. No Christian says God does not desire us to choose Him or do good. You are still assuming an 'internal stimulus' has to address a lack within God, which per defitionem is not there. Your stated "axiom" which amounts to saying that God must be selfish, can in no way be ascribed to Christianity.

 

[Occams Barber]

I can assert this is a Strawman fallacy.

You can assert what you like. It don't make it true.

The central act of Christianity is God incarnating as a man, because He desired to save us. No Christian says God does not desire us to choose Him or do good.

This has nothing to do with the topic which revolves around the act of creation.

You are still assuming an 'internal stimulus' has to address a lack within God, which per defitionem is not there.

I'm assuming that God requires a reason to act. If God has everything He needs then he has no reason to act. In this context words like reason, motive, need, want, desire, stimulus are all more or less interchangeable.

The axiomatic assumption you are making that God must be selfish, can in no way be ascribed to Christianity.

You keep talking about selfish and I'm not sure if you're using the word in the pejorative sense or in the broader non-judgemental sense of "of self". Either way I am not imputing any moral value to God's motives. I am saying that a motive must exist otherwise God would not act. If God wishes to do something then He has an inclination to change what is and make it somehow different. He cannot possess all he wants and needs while simultaneously acting to change what He has. The two concepts are contradictory.
OB

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In the context of god, I never took "perfect" to mean "complete" in a way that leaves god without any desires or wants. I am curious how you got to that conclusion.

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

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You can assert what you like. It don't make it true.


This has nothing to do with the topic which revolves around the act of creation.

It does have relevance when you keep stating the Christian position is that God has no desires, yet a desire of God is the central act of Christianity.

I'm assuming that God requires a reason to act. If God has everything He needs then he has no reason to act. In this context words like reason, motive, need, want, desire, stimulus are all more or less interchangeable.

This is assuming God would only act for his own advantage, ie axiomatically asserting God only acts out of self-interest. The Christian position is the opposite, that God is a being of selfless Love. Just because modern psychology and society assumes man is a wholly self-centred creature, does not mean God must be as well.

You keep talking about selfish and I'm not sure if you're using the word in the pejorative sense or in the broader non-judgemental sense of "of self". Either way I am not imputing any moral value to God's motives. I am saying that a motive must exist otherwise God would not act. If God wishes to do something then He has an inclination to change what is and make it somehow different. He cannot possess all he wants and needs while simultaneously acting to change what He has. The two concepts are contradictory.
OB

They are only contradictory if you assert that God would only act out of self-interest. We have already stated that God is Love from the Christian viewpoint, so this is a strawman fallacy to Christian doctrines. In essence, how can we assert God must change for creation to occur? The position is a bit incoherent, since change requires before and after, ie time, which of course does not apply till creation actually occurs. God being atemporal though, time does not apply. Per defitionem, even if God did bring creation into being, He couldn't change thereby anyway. Why He brought creation into being, there is no reason to assert this is from a lack within Himself, rather than an outpouring of His Goodness say - Creation might be fot the sake of the Created rather than for God.

There is no reason to say, and every reason not to, that the Christian God would only act from motives of His own self-interest. That is what I meant by selfish.