The Paradox of a Perfect God

[Moral Orel]

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

I bought a puppy once, but I had to get rid of it almost immediately. The first time I left it alone in my house for the weekend, it tore up my whole place, crapped everywhere, and starved to death.

 

[Occams Barber]

Look, even 'plain English' is largely metaphorical, just a different set that people often don't even realise is. For instance 'understanding' means to 'stand under' something, as to seek cover under a specific idea against the harsh weather of not knowing.

Christians use a specific set of linguistic metaphors. We speak of God, Father, Bride of Christ, Theosis, etc. These are meant to illustrate a fundamentally 'other' idea, through more commonplace ones - like familial relations or such. When going in depth, jargon is inevitable, and hard to avoid without making the discussion interminable. Using more viscerally understood terms like Love or such, facilitates thinking about them, though if you really come to the nitty-gritty, you need to try and define them as closely as you can.

In definition there lies danger though. A definition of a word is not the same as the word itself. Language is protean and definitions often procrustean. As Wittgenstein is often excessively simplified down to, Meaning is Use. We lose meaning here as much as we gain. A concept can only be understood by itself, if broken down into definitions, the Emperor often has no clothes since you have disrobed him by wrenching words from their use, and thus lost their implied meaning. It is related to Wittgenstein's Portrait, that a description of a portrait is not the same thing as the picture itself.

The same is true in any field. If I were to teach you about human respiration, Jargon will result. You will need to learn and understand what is meant by Shunt or Shock or homeostasis or bronchospasm. Science would be the same.

You can't expect to be given in depth answers in superficial language. You need to first learn the linguistic descriptors before joining the conversation. Otherwise all discussions would be babble - utter confusion.

Linguistics was part of my degree. I also have an ongoing interest in the contextual history and prehistory of the English language. I'm only telling you this to make you aware that I'm familiar with the topic.

There's jargon and then there's jargon Quid. If I asked you to explain what a shunt was you wouldn't have much difficulty. If I asked you to explain 'God is love' or 'abundance' or 'salvation' you'd be in trouble. This is because, unlike 'shunt', it isn't backed up by anything concrete. The problem of getting behind it is that there's actually nothing behind it.

Christianity has built up a vast agglomeration of vague terminology over 2000 years. It's vague because there's nothing specific to describe and it isn't questioned because it's become part of the air Christians breath. I'll go further. A deep examination of Christian terminology would probably find there is little in the way of concrete background meaning.

This is what happens when you try to explain something which doesn't exist.
OB

 

[Moral Orel]

If God had no needs or wants prior to Creation then, logically, God would have no reason to create anything

To play the other side for once, I think your problem is in the question right here. There is no "prior" to Creation with an eternal-existing-outside-of-time God. @Shoetoyou touched on this but I think you missed it. It's like asking what's further north than the north pole.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Linguistics was part of my degree. I also have an ongoing interest in the contextual history and prehistory of the English language. I'm only telling you this to make you aware that I'm familiar with the topic.

There's jargon and then there's jargon Quid. If I asked you to explain what a shunt was you wouldn't have much difficulty. If I asked you to explain 'God is love' or 'abundance' or 'salvation' you'd be in trouble. This is because, unlike 'shunt', it isn't backed up by anything concrete. The problem of getting behind it is that there's actually nothing behind it.

Christianity has built up a vast agglomeration of vague terminology over 2000 years. It's vague because there's nothing specific to describe and it isn't questioned because it's become part of the air Christians breath. I'll go further. A deep examination of Christian terminology would probably find there is little in the way of concrete background meaning.

This is what happens when you try to explain something which doesn't exist.
OB

I respectfully disagree. If I try and explain shunt to you, you would grasp the concept in all probability - because you understand what is meant by pressure, accept empiric evidence, have been presumably taught a western scientific outlook, acknowledge causality here, etc. In a sense, we are talking from the same framework.

If I were to get 'behind' these, it is the same, an agglomeration of meaning. For empiric evidence is only accepted as true by circular reasoning from empiric observation, for instance. Or explain pressure without resorting to background ideas like force or such. What is force for instance, but an abstract attribute applied to movement or change? It is just as ephemeral a concept as let's say Sin - an abstract attribute applied to human actions.

If I took an isolated Buddhist monk from Tibet, he certainly would not grasp these ideas without significantly re-educating in western concepts. Are these necessarily able to be shown more valid than the Sunyata-based worldview he knows? Not really. Its just different.

Christian thought is based on a framework of human experience, Western philosophic thought and cultural and historical abstractions made. The same is true for the Sciences or a scientific outlook, with just presumably excluding spiritual qualia from human experience, maybe.

 

[Occams Barber]

I bought a puppy once, but I had to get rid of it almost immediately. The first time I left it alone in my house for the weekend, it tore up my whole place, crapped everywhere, and starved to death.

I'm sorry for your loss Nicholas
Perhaps the mistake you made was leaving your puppy alone for the weekend.

Try goldfish.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

To play the other side for once, I think your problem is in the question right here. There is no "prior" to Creation with an eternal-existing-outside-of-time God. @Shoetoyou touched on this but I think you missed it. It's like asking what's further north than the north pole.

You're right Nicholas. Prior is a time related word and without time it doesn't make a lot of sense.

The problem is that the English language has no way of describing the time (see - I did it again) before time happened. We get around this by using timey type words on the understanding that those we're talking to understand what we mean.

As long as we all understand what we're trying to say it usually works out OK.
OB

 

[Ana the Ist]

I bought a puppy once, but I had to get rid of it almost immediately. The first time I left it alone in my house for the weekend, it tore up my whole place, crapped everywhere, and starved to death.

....did it starve to death or did you get rid of it? Or is that what you meant by get rid of it?

 

[Occams Barber]

I respectfully disagree. If I try and explain shunt to you, you would grasp the concept in all probability - because you understand what is meant by pressure, accept empiric evidence, have been presumably taught a western scientific outlook, acknowledge causality here, etc. In a sense, we are talking from the same framework.

If I were to get 'behind' these, it is the same, an agglomeration of meaning. For empiric evidence is only accepted as true by circular reasoning from empiric observation, for instance. Or explain pressure without resorting to background ideas like force or such. What is force for instance, but an abstract attribute applied to movement or change? It is just as ephemeral a concept as let's say Sin - an abstract attribute applied to human actions.

If I took an isolated Buddhist monk from Tibet, he certainly would not grasp these ideas without significantly re-educating in western concepts. Are these necessarily able to be shown more valid than the Sunyata-based worldview he knows? Not really. Its just different.

Christian thought is based on a framework of human experience, Western philosophic thought and cultural and historical abstractions made. The same is true for the Sciences or a scientific outlook, with just presumably excluding spiritual qualia from human experience, maybe.

You are seriously over complicating (overthinking?) this.

A shunt is:

In medicine, a hole or a small passage which moves, or allows movement of, fluid from one part of the body to another​

If needed you could go on to explain that there are a number of fluid systems within the body and sometimes they get blockages which need to be bypassed. A nice dam-and-river analogy would help.
Concrete concepts, easy to grasp.

OK - your turn.Explain to me "Abundance" . Go!
OB

 

[Ana the Ist]

Right: I don't understand God. Honestly, I don't even require the "fully" adverb, but some would add that.

I appreciate your candor here. I think there's a lot about god that most christians don't understand...but when you press them into that corner, the response I typically get is some version of "I need to go return these movies I rented....but I'll gladly answer once I'm back!" It probably goes without saying that they don't come back.

I tended to attribute this to the idea that they use god as an emotional answer...not a rational one...since they find the "blindspots" in their worldview frustrating. It's better in their mind (perhaps even subconsciously) to have any answer instead of just saying "I don't know...and probably never will".

(Maybe it's misleading to say, "Who knows?," but I think an astrophysicist would be well within his rights to give that answer if you asked about the density of the singularity which generated our universe.

I don't see the connection you're making....so I'm going to make a point about appeals to authority. It's a totally reasonable way to find an answer...as long as that authority you're appealing to is itself valid. For example, you wouldn't appeal to your garbage man for an answer about the wiring in your house.

This problem is multiplied when there is no clear method for attaining a particular kind of knowledge. God is a religious concept...that's obvious...but does that make a religious leader/scholar/teacher an authority on god? It's certainly possible....but I'd need at least a basic understanding of the method by which religious knowledge is attained. One method is through texts...or more precisely, words. This has all the limitations that come with vague generalities and interpretation of any religious text.

So what's the other method? Revelation. What is revelation? Understanding given by god himself. That too though....runs headlong into a massive problem. To put it bluntly, there's no way that I know of for verifying knowledge through revelation. It's literally identical in appearance to "knowledge" that is entirely fabricated/imaginary.

As such, it's an awful method....and one that itself seems to contradict many ideas about god. If god's message is so important...why would he deliver it through revelation? If god cared about you understanding his message...or even spreading his message...why would he use revelation? Clearly, god could deliver some previously unknown knowledge of importance that could be independently verified and completely unexplainable except by revelation....but it appears as if he never does. Instead, people are asked to have faith in revelation...verification is denied in christianity as a means of separating the faithless.

That leaves folks like myself unable to rely upon any authority for interpreting biblical text. It leaves me with more reason to disbelieve in revelation than reason to believe in it.

With this in mind...I hope you'll understand why I'm just dismissing the rest of what you wrote. I don't think you'd be able to demonstrate a rational basis for these beliefs....and as you've already admitted to holding an incomplete conception of god, I'm not sure what more there is to say on the matter.

If I'm mistaken, and you do have a completely rational or logical basis for the description of god you provided....please share. I do apologize for rushing ahead towards the end of this conversation.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You are seriously over complicating (overthinking?) this.

A shunt is:

In medicine, a hole or a small passage which moves, or allows movement of, fluid from one part of the body to another​

If needed you could go on to explain that there are a number of fluid systems within the body and sometimes they get blockages which need to be bypassed. A nice dam-and-river analogy would help.
Concrete concepts, easy to grasp.

OK - your turn.Explain to me "Abundance" . Go!
OB

I said Shunt in Human respiration, though. That was my example. So I was referring to ventilation perfusion mismatch or hypoxaemic Hypoxia via venous blood bypassing oxygenation. This may be through a arterio-venous connections, failure of alveoli to ventilate, acid-base disturbances in oxygen carriers, pressure differrences that favour different zones of the lungs such as with pulmonary hypertension, etc. Look up the Shunt Equation and you can see the variables we are dealing with. Try doing that concretely without referencing force or pressure as concepts. Besides, this misses the point, as you are still assuming a Western Medical viewpoint and empiric reasoning. Why not Ayurvedic or Galenic physiologic understanding, or karma? Many peoples throughout history would understand that much easier than 'fluids circulating in the body'. Blood was only shown to circulate by Harvey in the 17th century after all.

I can easily explain Abundance to you in a concrete way. Having more than needed, so a simple having four people and multiple loaves of bread would suffice. Or an open tap with water flowing out of the sink, as that is where the word comes from: 'overflowing'. This is the equivalent of the facile way you would fallaciously dismiss what I was saying.

You can't expect us to teach high level concepts on child-like levels. Some education is required. This is the equivalent of denying Quantum Theory because it cannot be described in a quotidian manner without being abstruse and self-referential - Schrodinger's Cat being of course the good example here.

 

[Moral Orel]

You're right Nicholas. Prior is a time related word and without time it doesn't make a lot of sense.

The problem is that the English language has no way of describing the time (see - I did it again) before time happened. We get around this by using timey type words on the understanding that those we're talking to understand what we mean.

As long as we all understand what we're trying to say it usually works out OK.
OB

Right, but the only way to even begin thinking about something "outside of time" is that everything is instant and simultaneous. So God always existed as a being that created everything. Even if time traces back to a point that time itself began to exist, God didn't have a different "state of being" or what-have-you where He hadn't yet created yet.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to boil down to God "changing" from a being that hasn't yet created to a being that has created, and that's already flying in the face of traditional Christian views that God doesn't change. God always was, is, and will be a being that created everything, even if jumping around tenses is grammatically incorrect and even if that creates a sort of paradox that time began to exist, and yet was always created. But those are different issues than what you seem to be driving at.

It might be a form of predestination for God that He must be a being that has created, but I don't think it fails to meet the "complete" criteria I think you're talking about. I think it's pretty clear that God doesn't have free will if He's perfect, and I've met several Christians that agree actually, but that's a whole other can of worms.

 

[Moral Orel]

....did it starve to death or did you get rid of it? Or is that what you meant by get rid of it?

I got rid of it because he wasn't happy to see me when I got home. Ingrate!

 

[Occams Barber]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to boil down to God "changing" from a being that hasn't yet created to a being that has created, and that's already flying in the face of traditional Christian views that God doesn't change.

OK - let's try to break this down:

• Before time existed God existed
• Before time existed the Universe did not exist
• God created the Universe
• Time began
• God continued to exist

Therefore God existed in two different states:

• • Without the Universe before time existed
  • With the Universe after time began
• If God is the creator of the Universe He changed from not being a creator to being a creator.

I doubt that traditional Christianity will have a problem with this.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

I got rid of it because he wasn't happy to see me when I got home. Ingrate!

On second thoughts - forget about my goldfish suggestion.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

I said Shunt in Human respiration, though. That was my example. So I was referring to ventilation perfusion mismatch or hypoxaemic Hypoxia via venous blood bypassing oxygenation. This may be through a arterio-venous connections, failure of alveoli to ventilate, acid-base disturbances in oxygen carriers, pressure differrences that favour different zones of the lungs such as with pulmonary hypertension, etc. Look up the Shunt Equation and you can see the variables we are dealing with. Try doing that concretely without referencing force or pressure as concepts. Besides, this misses the point, as you are still assuming a Western Medical viewpoint and empiric reasoning. Why not Ayurvedic or Galenic physiologic understanding, or karma? Many peoples throughout history would understand that much easier than 'fluids circulating in the body'. Blood was only shown to circulate by Harvey in the 17th century after all.

I can easily explain Abundance to you in a concrete way. Having more than needed, so a simple having four people and multiple loaves of bread would suffice. Or an open tap with water flowing out of the sink, as that is where the word comes from: 'overflowing'. This is the equivalent of the facile way you would fallaciously dismiss what I was saying.

You can't expect us to teach high level concepts on child-like levels. Some education is required. This is the equivalent of denying Quantum Theory because it cannot be described in a quotidian manner without being abstruse and self-referential - Schrodinger's Cat being of course the good example here.

I like you Quid (really) but you can be a bit rascally. Over complicating the respiration shunt explanation is a stunning example of your perfidity (is that a word?). If you were ever considering teaching - don't give up your day job, although I'm sure that even you, given a little time, could reduce this to basics.

I gave you the "abundance" explanation on the assumption you'd been following the thread and had seen comments about "abundance" as an explanation for God's creation.
I should have been more specific. Mea culpa. (old, extinct Italian - you may be familiar)

This is the equivalent of the facile way you would fallaciously dismiss what I was saying.

I'm wounded to the core by your slings and arrows although, before I shuffle off this mortal coil, I have to admit I do like the 'facile'/'fallacious alliteration.
(Did I overdo the Shakespeare?)
OB

 

[Hieronymus]

My argument is that if God is perfect and has no needs or wants then he would not create anything.

You underlying assumption is that God actually exists. This ain't necessarily so.
OB

Yes, it is most probably necessary for an original cause(r) to get this effect we call reality.

 

[Occams Barber]

Yes, it is most probably necessary for an original cause(r) to get this effect we call reality.

I think we have to agree to disagree on that one.
OB

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

OK - let's try to break this down:

• Before time existed God existed
• Before time existed the Universe did not exist
• God created the Universe
• Time began
• God continued to exist

Therefore God existed in two different states:

• • Without the Universe before time existed
  • With the Universe after time began
• If God is the creator of the Universe He changed from not being a creator to being a creator.

I doubt that traditional Christianity will have a problem with this.
OB

Well, existence means to "stand forth", to be known. In essence to be differentiable from something else makes something exist. Before creation there was only God, so nothing He could be differentiated from. So the concept of existence only comes into play when creation occured. So "before the universe existed, God existed" can only be made as an historical statement differentiating then from now. So God only existed in one state, with the universe or in reference to it. You cannot say God existed in isolation, as the term is inapplicable.

I like you Quid (really) but you can be a bit rascally. Over complicating the respiration shunt explanation is a stunning example of your perfidity (is that a word?). If you were ever considering teaching - don't give up your day job, although I'm sure that even you, given a little time, could reduce this to basics.

That is my point though. I cannot take my hypothetical isolated Buddhist monk and teach him about respiratory shunt, without also teaching him substantial western scientific and medical concepts, probably utilising the jargon required.

Likewise, I cannot take an atheist with only the vaguest knowledge of Christianity, and then teach him about concepts for well-catechized adults without skipping steps. Some of the terms give an inkling of their meaning though, almost viscerally, and therein lie their utility - such as saying God is Love or the Father, thus helping conceptualise concepts that are quite frankly often incomprehensible. We are anyway dealing with the metaphysical. So if I told my Buddhist monk about blood, what he would understand, and I would mean thereby, would likely be radically different - though related.

I gave you the "abundance" explanation on the assumption you'd been following the thread and had seen comments about "abundance" as an explanation for God's creation.
I should have been more specific. Mea culpa. (old, extinct Italian - you may be familiar)

More than Latin, a positively Christian expression.

I'm wounded to the core by your slings and arrows although, before I shuffle off this mortal coil, I have to admit I do like the 'facile'/'fallacious alliteration.
(Did I overdo the Shakespeare?)
OB

Thank you, I was quite proud of it myself. Quoting Shakespeare loses you street cred though.

So you were talking about the business of the beach party calling in more people? We would still be running into axiom issues, as you are assuming God would only be motivated to do so if there was an advantage to Him, to fulfill a want or need. No, I think you and I have reached a fundamental disagreement there, so my explanations would be pointless gobbledygook to you, as our axioms are too different.

 

[Occams Barber]

Likewise, I cannot take an atheist with only the vaguest knowledge of Christianity, and then teach him about concepts for well-catechized adults without skipping steps

Not fair. I once spent months being catechised by a Catholic priest (it was a marriage condition). The priest later left the church - coincidence? - I don't think so.

More than Latin, a positively Christian expression.

I know. I'm practically a Catholic but without the guilt:

• • My (long gone) grandparents are Catholic
  • My old man is Catholic (at 96 we think God forgot to call him - I have sent reminders)
  • My ex-wife is Catholic
  • I was married in a Catholic church
    
  • My kids are Catholic
  • My grandkids are Catholic
  • I was once a member of a Catholic youth group (the things you do for love)
  • I was once the Catholic rep on an Ecumenical council (I toyed with the idea of telling them that the Catholics were about to declare war on the Proddys but thought better of it - pity)
  • As mentioned above I did Catholic lessons including How-Not-To-Have-Babies-the-Catholic-Way (not recommended - involves serious leg crossings)
  • Despite not being Catholic, the Catholic Church is the only one I've attended for something other than a birth, death or marriage
• 
  
• I'm still waiting for my honorary membership card.

Thank you, I was quite proud of it myself. Quoting Shakespeare loses you streed cred though.

Thanks for the warning. I'll have to go back to the usual crass humour and devastating-but-tasteless insults.
OB

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Not fair. I once spent months being catechised by a Catholic priest (it was a marriage condition). The priest later left the church - coincidence? - I don't think so.

I know. I'm practically a Catholic but without the guilt:

• • My (long gone) grandparents are Catholic
  • My old man is Catholic (at 96 we think God forgot to call him - I have sent reminders)
  • My ex-wife is Catholic
  • I was married in a Catholic church
    
  • My kids are Catholic
  • My grandkids are Catholic
  • I was once a member of a Catholic youth group (the things you do for love)
  • I was once the Catholic rep on an Ecumenical council (I toyed with the idea of telling them that the Catholics were about to declare war on the Proddys but thought better of it - pity)
  • As mentioned above I did Catholic lessons including How-Not-To-Have-Babies-the-Catholic-Way (not recommended - involves serious leg crossings)
  • Despite not being Catholic, the Catholic Church is the only one I've attended for something other than a birth, death or marriage
• 
  
• I'm still waiting for my honorary membership card.

Thanks for the warning. I'll have to go back to the usual crass humour and devastating-but-tasteless insults.
OB

Hey, no offence meant. I was speaking in general.

Not surprised by the Catholicism though, making lists in the thread of propositions concerning God and all. Seems downright Scholastic.