The Paradox of a Perfect God

[Occams Barber]

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.

I rarely get offended by anything;

Besides, I make allowances. I know that the Grumpy Old Fart side of your nature gets off the leash occasionally

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Paradox of a Perfect God

According to my understanding the Christian God is perfect – He/It has no needs or wants

...and, you're understanding is at present deficient and presumptive. In fact, I'm going to have to ask what source you've drawn from that enabled you to conclude that since God is supposedly "perfect," (whatever that really means), then that this conceptually incorporates that He is a being with BOTH no needs AND no wants.

Moreover, there's a problem of your use of amphiboly here with the terms 'need' and 'want.' Can you spot it?

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

And again, as I stated earlier, I denied the antecedent that you're asserting.

This line of reasoning seems to lead to the logical conclusion that either God is not perfect or He/It did not create the Universe.

Right. So, since you realize you just boarded the wrong train, you need to change trains to another line of thought.

What am I missing here?

All of the above.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Silmarien]

OK - you've told me that the Catholics/Orthodox agree with me on the needs/wants issue but the Protestants don't. We're over halfway there.

Now, if I asked lots of Protestants:

Prior to the creation event did God want for anything?​

do you honestly believe I would get a resounding 'Yes'?


I don't need to prove it since it's self evident. For a God, which needs nothing, to then create something, is an inherent contradiction in the nature of the God.

Consider the following statement:

I have everything I need or want. I just want to get a couple of extra things.​

Is it rational?
OB

It's not self-evident. A handful of people here, myself included, are saying that they don't agree with it. You haven't yet demonstrated to us even from a strictly human perspective that everything one does, one does out of lack or need, much less from a divine perspective. You've been presented with a couple of analogies to human behavior about how people can feel moved to share positive experiences with others without actually needing to, but I don't think I've seen you address them. I think you're also framing the question in an unnecessarily possessive fashion, since it would be rational for someone who had everything they want and need to be moved to help others reach their own goals as well.

As for Protestants, I can't speak for them but some do take serious issue with concepts like immutability (or anything that looks too scholastic, really), so they might very well conceive of divine perfection in a different manner. A number of people here of a non-scholastic bent seem to be doing precisely that.

 

[Moral Orel]

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

There's no such thing as "before time existed" though. That's incoherent.

Without time, everything is simultaneous. So God is both a being that created the universe and a being that did not create the universe. He didn't change from one to the other, He's both simultaneously, and there's your contradiction.

 

[Silmarien]

There's no such thing as "before time existed" though. That's incoherent.

Without time, everything is simultaneous. So God is both a being that created the universe and a being that did not create the universe. He didn't change from one to the other, He's both simultaneously, and there's your contradiction.

Well, to the extent to which this is a contradiction, it's not unique to theism. Time is an emergent property of the universe, but "before" it exists, all things must occur simultaneously. So it simultaneously both emerges and has not yet emerged. Paradox. If there is a way around this, it's as available to the theist as it is to the naturalist. If there isn't, then the naturalist is in far deeper trouble, since his stance requires that all of reality can theoretically be explained by physical laws.

Reality is genuinely paradoxical. There's really no getting around that.

 

[zippy2006]

I know you're just the messenger Zippy so please don't take this personally.

(Commence rant...)
Concepts like 'abundance' are essentially meaningless poetical explanations slipped in as post hoc platitudes. In this case it's a way that Christian apologetics tries to explain the sort of paradox I've been trying to describe. It seems to me that these sorts of statements aren't arguments. They are vague assertions used to fill gaps. Given the, at best, vague, and at worst, meaningless nature of these types of assertions they are almost impossible to prove or disprove.

The other one which gets to me is "God is love". What in the name of *&%$#@ does this mean? Love is an abstract concept used to describe a physiological reaction. You can't be love. It seems to me that Christianity can assert anything as long as it's essentially meaningless and sufficiently mysterious. Some would argue 'it's a metaphor' but try getting behind the metaphor and you'll be mired in a mudhole of theobabble.

I could just as easily say God is porridge and justify it by pointing out that God sustains you in times of need.
(Rant over - return to scheduled program)​

OB​

That's all very interesting, and there is a great deal of theology devoted to the question of the use and limits of language in describing God, but it seems rather unnecessary for my argument.

First you complained because of the mundane, simplistic, concrete anthropomorphisms contained in my argument. Now you're complaining about the same argument because it is too poetic, abstract, and ethereal. Call me fat or call me skinny, but not both. When your objections start to contradict one another like that it begins to look like axe grinding.

Romantic love and campfires are plenty concrete and close to human experience. The elephant in the room has been repeated too many times, "If humans can have that kind of abundance then why can't God?" If you want to object you can pick a premise. Perhaps you've never experienced romantic love or a campfire? Is that it? Or do you think they don't count as abundance?

 

[zippy2006]

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.

For Catholics it's actually doctrine, but some have grown into it more than others. I'm sure you would laugh incredulously if I quoted the Councils on that issue, for the stance is more extreme than most anticipate.

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".

Sure. That goes for most anyone. Ignorance and the ensuing vulnerability are, at the very least, uncomfortable.

I don't see the connection you're making....so I'm going to make a point about appeals to authority.

I added the paragraph in parentheses after the fact just to try to give some shape to my "Who knows?" remark. It was just meant to point to the fact that there is more to the issue than meets the eye.

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.

I don't think my argument requires revelation or the Bible at all, actually. Nor does it really require an argument from authority (although even Euclidean geometry requires an argument from authority for those unwilling to do their homework).

Honestly, no one has even given an actual objection to my argument. That seems strange to me, but I daresay it is because it is so obvious. I don't even understand what you believe to be irrational. To my mind the only possible candidate is the existence of God, but this thread isn't about the existence of God so much as it is about possibilities regarding His nature. No one believes in a metaphysically needy, non-abundant God. Do people disagree that romantic love or highly enjoyable experiences often give rise to a state of abundance which in turn leads one to act liberally? I highly doubt it. Do people think that there are some possibilities available to humans but not to God? Probably not. The only irrational things I see are the possible objections (which no one has even tried to make).

So maybe you're the one unwilling to admit your ignorance in this case, along with the possibility that the argument is sound?

My argument defeats the OP's categorical conclusion that God must always act out of need. It doesn't do much more than that. You're definitely not going to melt if the argument is valid. I'll even let you retain your atheism. ...for now.

I do apologize for rushing ahead towards the end of this conversation.

Not a problem.

What happened to your edge? The one I remember from past years? I used to be able to end conversations on coy jokes and dismissals; now it seems like I have to actually engage you. It's rather inconvenient.

 

[Chesterton]

I rarely get offended by anything;

You did get easily irritated by me last week. I guess I should feel special.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, to the extent to which this is a contradiction, it's not unique to theism. Time is an emergent property of the universe, but "before" it exists, all things must occur simultaneously. So it simultaneously both emerges and has not yet emerged. Paradox. If there is a way around this, it's as available to the theist as it is to the naturalist. If there isn't, then the naturalist is in far deeper trouble, since his stance requires that all of reality can theoretically be explained by physical laws.

Reality is genuinely paradoxical. There's really no getting around that.

See that bolded part isn't exactly true. The naturalist can conceive of multiple kinds of time. For instance, at a point in Time A, our Time B began ticking away. Like a branch of sorts. Personally, I think an infinite and eternal spacetime makes the most sense, such that our universe is one of many that popped up in a bubble of it all. None of that works for an unchanging God though. A theist could certainly believe that God has his own time that's a separate dimension from ours, but then that would make OB's questions valid again.

 

[Silmarien]

See that bolded part isn't exactly true. The naturalist can conceive of multiple kinds of time. For instance, at a point in Time A, our Time B began ticking away. Like a branch of sorts. Personally, I think an infinite and eternal spacetime makes the most sense, such that our universe is one of many that popped up in a bubble of it all. None of that works for an unchanging God though. A theist could certainly believe that God has his own time that's a separate dimension from ours, but then that would make OB's questions valid again.

How is an infinite and eternal "spacetime" any different than theological timeless existence? If time is eternal, it seems likely to be illusory, since if you try to extend infinity backwards in time, you're going to end up with more paradoxes, given the concerns inherent in extending an infinite sequence backwards sequentially. You've solved one problem but created several more to take its place. At some point it seems that you'll have to accept the fact that the finite mind is ill-equipped to conceptualize eternity, and that paradox will always ensue.

A theist who assumes that God has his own special time has dodged the question of why time exists altogether. If time is a more fundamental aspect of reality than God, then that particular god is just another created being and we need to probe deeper theologically.

 

[Moral Orel]

How is an infinite and eternal "spacetime" any different than theological timeless existence? If time is eternal, it seems likely to be illusory, since if you try to extend infinity backwards in time, you're going to end up with more paradoxes, given the concerns inherent in extending an infinite sequence backwards sequentially. You've solved one problem but created several more to take its place. At some point it seems that you'll have to accept the fact that the finite mind is ill-equipped to conceptualize eternity, and that paradox will always ensue.

How is eternal time different from timelessness? Really? And why is "spacetime" in scare-quotes? That's an established term.

But I'll bite. What paradoxes, specifically, have I created by proposing this?

A theist who assumes that God has his own special time has dodged the question of why time exists altogether. If time is a more fundamental aspect of reality than God, then that particular god is just another created being and we need to probe deeper theologically.

Meh. If God is exactly as old as his special time is, who's to say which is more fundamental?

 

[Silmarien]

How is eternal time different from timelessness? Really? And why is "spacetime" in scare-quotes? That's an established term.

But I'll bite. What paradoxes, specifically, have I created by proposing this?


Meh. If God is exactly as old as his special time is, who's to say which is more fundamental?

I put it in quotes because it's not clear that the concept of spacetime makes sense outside of the physical universe, since both space and time are properties of our universe (and are tricky even within the universe, see general relativity). If the naturalist is going to posit an eternal sequence of temporal universes creating new universes, then when did it start? If it never starts, how can we get an ordered sequence at all? I'm sure you're familiar with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which tries to prove that a backwards temporal sequence is impossible. I would not say that it is impossible, but the idea of a temporal sequence that never began but simply stretches back infinitely certainly strikes me as paradoxical, unless perhaps you're working under a model in which time is circular. But then everything that will happen has happened, so it's still looking fairly eternal and timeless.

As for God being as old as his time, if time is more fundamental than God, then God is not God. Perhaps Time is God, but that's a little too pagan for my tastes. I mostly just see no reason to view time as anything more than an emergent property of a physical universe.

 

[Halbhh]

I suspect that God is more than just 'love' however, if you're right, then you have just accepted that God/Love needs someone to love or else God is something other than love.

Therefore God is not perfect.
(I think we may owe Queen royalties for pinching their lyrics)
OB

Why is wanting love imperfect in your view?

That would be a tragic view, and one you could escape from, but perhaps you've a different view?

Here's something to try: go and meet a neighbor (in any area you are consistently around), whom you don't know yet, and truly try to get to know them in a friendly, loving way...with assuming that you two are starting a long term friendship.... Try it and find out what happens. Who is the One Who said, "Love your neighbor as yourself"? (One instance can be found in Leviticus chapter 19)

 

[bling]

The Paradox of a Perfect God

According to my understanding the Christian God is perfect – He/It has no needs or wants

At the same time Christians also believe that God created the World/Universe, along with life

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 or He/It did not create the Universe.

What am I missing here?
OB

I will address your question:

Since God can create beings who He can gift with all the greatest gifts possible to be like He is (an unselfish Lover) in that they will Love like He Loves; God’s own Love would compel Him to make humans.

The “problem” is God cannot preprogram these beings with Godly type Love, since that would make their Love robotic (instinctive) and not like His Love out of an autonomous free will choice to Love.

God cannot make clones of Christ, since Christ is not a created being, but each man can be given enough free will to obtain Godly type Love through the choice to humbly “accept” God’s pure charity as charity.

Everything God does is out of an unselfish Love for those who will accept His Love. God is very sacrificial in doing what He did and gets nothing personally from it except lots of caring work and sacrifice.

 

[Moral Orel]

If the naturalist is going to posit an eternal sequence of temporal universes creating new universes, then when did it start? If it never starts, how can we get an ordered sequence at all?

First, the idea isn't that universes birth new universes, really. It's more like a big enough, empty enough space allows universes to pop into existence. So there would be a sequence of first this universe, then that universe, but it isn't a causality chain between universes, really. It sort of seems that way since our universe towards the end is going to be a big enough, empty enough space that another universe is going to pop in there.

Second, why wouldn't we get an ordered sequence? If it's infinite, it would never be complete, but ordered, sure. Think about irrational numbers. They go on forever, but we can calculate what each digit is going to be for as long as we're capable of continuing to calculate things. That's an ordered sequence, it's just never complete. So what?

I'm sure you're familiar with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which tries to prove that a backwards temporal sequence is impossible. I would not say that it is impossible, but the idea of a temporal sequence that never began but simply stretches back infinitely certainly strikes me as paradoxical, unless perhaps you're working under a model in which time is circular. But then everything that will happen has happened, so it's still looking fairly eternal and timeless.

Yes, I'm familiar with Kalam. It doesn't try to prove that an infinite regress is impossible, it asserts that as a premise. I guess I'm asking you to explain why it's a problem. It may be very unsatisfactory if you really, really want there to be a point that everything traces back to, but I don't see any reason that has to be the case. What's paradoxical about it? Where's the contradiction where two things can't both be true?

As for God being as old as his time, if time is more fundamental than God, then God is not God. Perhaps Time is God, but that's a little too pagan for my tastes. I mostly just see no reason to view time as anything more than an emergent property of a physical universe.

Yes, you keep saying, "If time is more fundamental than God" but I'm asking why it would be. If time didn't create God, then why would you think it's more fundamental than Him?

 

[Silmarien]

First, the idea isn't that universes birth new universes, really. It's more like a big enough, empty enough space allows universes to pop into existence. So there would be a sequence of first this universe, then that universe, but it isn't a causality chain between universes, really. It sort of seems that way since our universe towards the end is going to be a big enough, empty enough space that another universe is going to pop in there.

Second, why wouldn't we get an ordered sequence? If it's infinite, it would never be complete, but ordered, sure. Think about irrational numbers. They go on forever, but we can calculate what each digit is going to be for as long as we're capable of continuing to calculate things. That's an ordered sequence, it's just never complete. So what?


Yes, I'm familiar with Kalam. It doesn't try to prove that an infinite regress is impossible, it asserts that as a premise. I guess I'm asking you to explain why it's a problem. It may be very unsatisfactory if you really, really want there to be a point that everything traces back to, but I don't see any reason that has to be the case. What's paradoxical about it? Where's the contradiction where two things can't both be true?


Yes, you keep saying, "If time is more fundamental than God" but I'm asking why it would be. If time didn't create God, then why would you think it's more fundamental than Him?

Have you actually ever read a genuine, professional attempt at a Kalam Cosmological Argument? The whole point of the argument is to demonstrate the alleged impossibility of an infinite temporal sequence that stretches backwards, so it's not the case that they merely assert it as true and move on. I am not a fan of William Craig, but in this one case I would recommend looking at his actual philosophical work, since the Kalam is his major project. Or go back to the Muslim theologians who first developed it.

I think you're incorrect to compare temporal sequences to rational numbers, since there is a debate in mathematics about whether numbers are actually real or not. If they are not, then it does not matter that they can stretch to infinity in any direction, since they are nothing more than a human invention. If they are real in a more robust sense, then they are an eternal reality. They are not coming in and out of existence in a temporal sequence of events.

This is what you need to look at when it comes to time: what is it beside a measuring of how one event follows another? If there are no events, then everything is happening simultaneously because nothing is happening at all. If you take time to be a sort of entity to itself, then one moment following another can be considered an event as well. If events are always happening, then when did the first one occur? When was the first "now"? You would need to eliminate the present as a discrete point in time to approach a conception of infinite negative time that makes any sense, but then we're back at eternalism. If there is no real "now" as a moving point, then time is in a certain sense illusory.

I cannot really explain it any better than this, so I would suggest looking at the actual Kalam arguments. Or into eternalism and the denial that time exists at all.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

@Nicholas Deka and @Silmarien , to hopefully add something to your conversation:

As Silmarien mentioned, God as Time seems pagan - but more than that, it is Zoroastrian, at least in its Zurvanism form. This was a tradition within Zoroastrianism that competed with orthodox Mazdaism, intermittently even likely the official form during the Sassanian era.

Zurvan was the primordial First Principle, conceived as Eternal Time, but also Space. Essentially ancient Persians invented Space/Time long before us moderns.

The idea was that Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, the 'twin brothers' of the Truth and Lie, of Good and Evil, both issued forth from the eternal neutral Zurvan. It was an attempt to explain the origin of dualism. Ultimately Zurvanism came to hold an absolute materialist position, became fatalistic, even monistic. For if Time is the ultimate principle, but is also matter ie describes Space, then Creation is merely an aspect of this monistic eternity. If conceived as a deity, any other being is also beholden to it, so is in essence given what ability it has to exist from the time allotted to it - as time is required to make any change. So Zurvan, unchanging eternity, negated Free Will, by the fact of being Time. The material universe was thus necessarily preordained by the movement of the matter that constituted it, from its first instant - sound familiar? God though, was no longer distinctly good or evil, either. It was vaguely in accordance with Aristotle, in that the universe in essence always existed, being merely an aspect of an Eternal Time, even if change was perceived in a way, but actually only a monistic ultimate unity.

I think a lot of modern cosmogonic speculation is just reinventing the wheel here.

 

[Moral Orel]

This is what you need to look at when it comes to time: what is it beside a measuring of how one event follows another? If there are no events, then everything is happening simultaneously because nothing is happening at all. If you take time to be a sort of entity to itself, then one moment following another can be considered an event as well. If events are always happening, then when did the first one occur? When was the first "now"? You would need to eliminate the present as a discrete point in time to approach a conception of infinite negative time that makes any sense, but then we're back at eternalism. If there is no real "now" as a moving point, then time is in a certain sense illusory.

Where is the problem? Where is the paradox? Why does there have to be a "first"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

God is love.
While God needs nothing, what is love if it doesn't have someone to love?

You're going to have to elaborate on that, because I don't think you meant to say that God is an "emotion"...

 

[DogmaHunter]

I always thought of "perfect" as meaning "without error" as a result of god's supposed omnipotent/omniscient nature. He knows all, he does all, therefore he is perfect and does not have/make errors.

Yet according to his biblical story, his creation gets messed up several times causing him to wash it clean and start over.