Why would a perfect god create?

[TimCallahan]

The subject of this thread occurred to me after perusing AvalonXQ's thread on omniscience and free will, i.e. the question of whether or not God's omniscience makes free will impossible. My feeling is that it would. However, I didn't bother posting on the thread, because others had pretty well expressed and explained my position.

It then occurred to me that any unlimited deity, perfect in all ways, would not only be incompatible with free will, but with creation as well. If we envision a god with a capitol "G" -- God -- as being perfect in all ways, i.e. omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal; this deity would have no reason to create a universe, since such a creation would destroy the perfection of God alone. Another problem with God being perfect is that such a god would have no desire to create. Indeed, such a deity would have no desire whatsoever, since incompleteness is implicit in desire.

The concept of a less than perfect God - still the only game in town - would greatly simplify not only the issue of free will, but theodicy as well (on this issue pagans have a distinct advantage over monotheists). God's imperfection would also explain His / Her need to create, as well as His / Her love and desire for the salvation of His / Her created intelligences. Monotheists might object that their God would have to be perfect. However, any god who could create a universe would still be awe inspiring (I can't even manage a lousy hydrogen atom, much less a universe).

While I have other reasons for not believing in any god, the imperfection of such a deity would go a long way toward removing at least some barriers to belief. I'm particularly interested in hearing from theists on this subject: Could you believe in and worship a less than perfect God?

 

[Good Lt]

Well, if God were not perfect (ie, flawed, fallible, etc), why would he be called God?

According to the faithful, there would be no absolute yardstick for any morality if that yardstick had imperfections, so that's an untenable suggestion that I'm guessing no true believer would accept.

And where would a flawed God get off sending people to hell for transgression?

 

[Dog Breakfast]

I guess this thread isn't really aimed at me, since I'm with the OP God-wise, but I've pondered the exact same thing on numerous occasions. The problem of evil comes to mind,

#1. God can stop evil but won't - he's malevolent
#2. God can't stop evil but wishes he could - he's not omnipotent
#3. God can stop evil and will - can't be since there's evil
#4. God can't stop evil, and wouldn't even if he could - he's not worth worshipping

Obviously the easiest answer is that God can't stop evil because he's not there, but if one really does believe in God, isn't the most comfortable answer to the problem of evil #2, that he really, really wishes he could stop evil, but just can't do it?

This notion is described here: http://dailydoofus.com/azbe.html

(By the way, just to avoid any accusations of a conflict of interest, that's my website.)

 

[TimCallahan]

I guess this thread isn't really aimed at me, since I'm with the OP God-wise, but I've pondered the exact same thing on numerous occasions. The problem of evil comes to mind,

#1. God can stop evil but won't - he's malevolent
#2. God can't stop evil but wishes he could - he's not omnipotent
#3. God can stop evil and will - can't be since there's evil
#4. God can't stop evil, and wouldn't even if he could - he's not worth worshipping

Obviously the easiest answer is that God can't stop evil because he's not there, but if one really does believe in God, isn't the most comfortable answer to the problem of evil #2, that he really, really wishes he could stop evil, but just can't do it?

This notion is described here: http://dailydoofus.com/azbe.html

(By the way, just to avoid any accusations of a conflict of interest, that's my website.)

While I'm pretty much with you on this, pagan deities, themselves (most often, but not always) rising out of the original chaos, themselves being a mix of good and evil, could create a universe. As to whether they should be worshipped, should they exist, or even if they would really care about such an issue, that's another story.

Of course, a God who would either demand or expect to be worshipped really couldn't be perfect, based on his ego-drivin desire. In the OT, Yahweh evolves by degrees from a very imperfect, henotheistic deity, one who is jealous and vindictive, to a universal God. I'm reminded, thinking about such deity, of the sequence in Monty Python and the Holy Grail when God appears to King Arthur and his knights and becomes irritable with Arthur when the later averts his eyes. A God who is perfect, or nearly so, wouldn't have to have everyone groveling befor Him / Her.

 

[Bikewer]

I have held this opinion as well for some time now. A God with the attributes normally assigned by Christians... Why would it create anything?
Seems pointless.
Being omnipotent, it can instantly bring into existence anything it can imagine, in all perfection.
Being omniscient, it can imagine essentially anything, and also know it's ultimate resolution through eternity.
Being "perfect", it would have no wants or desires (kind of the ultimate Buddhist) and thus couldn't "need" to create anything anyway.

Of course, we can envision other sorts of gods.....

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I guess this thread isn't really aimed at me, since I'm with the OP God-wise, but I've pondered the exact same thing on numerous occasions. The problem of evil comes to mind,

#1. God can stop evil but won't - he's malevolent
#2. God can't stop evil but wishes he could - he's not omnipotent
#3. God can stop evil and will - can't be since there's evil
#4. God can't stop evil, and wouldn't even if he could - he's not worth worshipping

Obviously the easiest answer is that God can't stop evil because he's not there, but if one really does believe in God, isn't the most comfortable answer to the problem of evil #2, that he really, really wishes he could stop evil, but just can't do it?

This notion is described here: http://dailydoofus.com/azbe.html

(By the way, just to avoid any accusations of a conflict of interest, that's my website.)

What is this thing you call "evil" and claim that it cannot coexist with an omnipotent god?
You're not trying to assign human values to a god, are you?

 

[TimCallahan]

What is this thing you call "evil" and claim that it cannot coexist with an omnipotent god?
You're not trying to assign human values to a god, are you?

Supposedly, our ideas of what is good and what is evil were bequeathed to us by this omnipotent god. Supposedly, this god abhors that which is evil, such things as rape, murder, stealing, lying etc. So, if this god abhors these things, why would He / She, being omnipotent, allow them?

Also, getting back to the OP, why would a perfect god create anything or desire anything (such as hat we live in accordance with the deity's dictates)?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

This discussion has the same problem as the free will debate - what exactly does "perfect" mean? What does having the attribute "perfect" mean?

 

[arthwollipot]

The Norse and Greek gods were far from perfect, as described. They had very human flaws.

 

[Belz...]

I've been saying this for years. A perfect god has no need or will, therefore it wouldn't create a universe unless it was just a cosmic universe-creating machine. Not the kind of god a theist would like to worship.

 

[arthwollipot]

A perfect god has no need or will...

Just for the sake of argument, how do you know this?

 

[Belz...]

Need is when something's missing. Will is when you decide you need to do something.

Perfection doesn't miss anything.

Unless I get my definitions wrong.

 

[arthwollipot]

Need is when something's missing. Will is when you decide you need to do something.

Perfection doesn't miss anything.

Unless I get my definitions wrong.

Okay, I get it. Thanks.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

This discussion has the same problem as the free will debate - what exactly does "perfect" mean? What does having the attribute "perfect" mean?

Basically what I was going to say.

The OP assumes a definition of perfect but if God is perfect then we just redefine perfect to be whatever God is and problem solved.

Maybe 'the need to create' is a key attribute in perfection?

Perfect is a vague human concept which is a useful word in conversation but meaningless for any kind of rigourous analysis

 

[PiedPiper]

We're using human concepts and words to try and explain a God. It seems possible to me that we don't have quite the right vocabulary / scope of mind / xyz to perfectly describe God, especially since debates similar to this very thread have been going on for no doubt thousands of years.

Someone else might say that if they were a perfect God - omniscient, omnipotent, etc - by definition (omnipotent) they could do anything they wanted, including protecting their perfection while still experimenting / creating / messing around with imperfect things.

The problems / paradoxes might be coming from our limited language trying to force human ideals and definitions on something that is so far out of our league as to be undescribable.

 

[dafydd]

We're using human concepts and words to try and explain a God. It seems possible to me that we don't have quite the right vocabulary / scope of mind / xyz to perfectly describe God, especially since debates similar to this very thread have been going on for no doubt thousands of years.

Someone else might say that if they were a perfect God - omniscient, omnipotent, etc - by definition (omnipotent) they could do anything they wanted, including protecting their perfection while still experimenting / creating / messing around with imperfect things.

The problems / paradoxes might be coming from our limited language trying to force human ideals and definitions on something that is so far out of our league as to be undescribable.

There is only one word to describe gods. Imaginary.

 

[badnewsBH]

We're using human concepts and words to try and explain a God. It seems possible to me that we don't have quite the right vocabulary / scope of mind / xyz to perfectly describe God, especially since debates similar to this very thread have been going on for no doubt thousands of years.

Someone else might say that if they were a perfect God - omniscient, omnipotent, etc - by definition (omnipotent) they could do anything they wanted, including protecting their perfection while still experimenting / creating / messing around with imperfect things.

The problems / paradoxes might be coming from our limited language trying to force human ideals and definitions on something that is so far out of our league as to be undescribable.

There is only one word to describe gods. Imaginary.

I would agree with you, dafydd. However, I'd also like to point out on PiedPiper's post that people claim to understand what God is and what God wants all the time. I'm talking about believers here. Many of them will state with absolute certainty that this ("this" being whatever the believer happens to believe personally) is the undeniable, unchanging position of God, and we'd all better get in line to follow it or else!

I'm okay with the idea that "we can't know God" because of God's supposed perfection, but if that's the case, it has to apply across the board. This would have to mean that organized religions really wouldn't have a basis for claiming any message from God, since our imperfect minds would be unable to comprehend the messages even if they were coming from God and so we couldn't be sure we got any of it right. Even assuming the perfect God could perfectly communicate the messages, there's no guarantee that us flawed human beings wouldn't misunderstand, mistranslate (as has been the case in the past, I'm told), or intentionally alter those messages for our own purposes (which has also apparently happened).

Really, though, when I hear believers using the "God works in mysterious ways" ploy, I just think it's a cop-out. They use it to try to hand-wave away any of the contradictions their particular belief systems may contain, or that may occur between what they believe and how reality appears to work. Tim's question stands, in my mind, and I'm going with dafydd's answer.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Supposedly, our ideas of what is good and what is evil were bequeathed to us by this omnipotent god. Supposedly, this god abhors that which is evil, such things as rape, murder, stealing, lying etc. So, if this god abhors these things, why would He / She, being omnipotent, allow them?

If god is perfect and seeks perfection in his creations then god must allow humankind the perfection of unencumbered choice. Therefore, god must allow humankind, on the path to perfection, to choose between good and evil. Some still choose evil. God is perfect to allow one to suffer that all may become perfect.

Also, getting back to the OP, why would a perfect god create anything or desire anything (such as hat we live in accordance with the deity's dictates)?

Joy is a measure of perfection. God takes joy in creation. God takes joy in giving the choice to seek perfection to humankind.

 

[Lanzy]

An imperfect god is the only kind I could believe in. Doesn't mean I'd worship it in any way but belief would come easier.

 

[TimCallahan]

This discussion has the same problem as the free will debate - what exactly does "perfect" mean? What does having the attribute "perfect" mean?

For the purposes of this thread, I would define "perfect" as completely unlimited, i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal. This is generally the description of God espoused by most monotheists.

Since the universe is full of inconsistencies, flaws, imperfections and limitations, it seems unlikely the unlimited God would create it. Why would such a God go out of HIs / Her way to deliberately introduce such a complicated, messed-up caprice into an existence up until then uncluttered and unlimited?

Also, to create, such a God would have to have the desire to create. I'm assuming here a willful, active creation, as opposed to a deity who passively, spontaneously and automatically creates. Such a God would have to desire to create something that hadn't previously existed. Yet, why would a God without limitations, whose omniscience would foretell exactly how such a universe might come about and what its fate would be, bother? He would foreknow exactly how such a universe would turn out.

Such a God could just float in the ether and dream dreams. IIRC, such a picture of a creator God is how HIndus often portray Vishnu. He sleeps on the coils of Ananta, the cosmic serpent, dreaming universes into existence. Of course, this is the spontaneous, passive type of creator I referred to earlier, as opposed to an intentional creator.