(November 30, 2017 at 2:14 pm)Hammy Wrote: Because he was flawed and lacking and therefore imperfect?
(or nonexistent)
Just a thought!
I guess that depends if you consider wanting more out of life when you're a 'perfect' being to be a flaw, deficit or lack of some kind. Did God want more or did God need more? (if we pretend he exists for sec) And if God merely wanted more . . . is having a desire necessarily a flaw of some kind? Would God be more perfect if he had no desires?
See, that's why I find theology utterly pointless. It's like pretending Superman is real for a second and then having a super serious conversation about how important it is to know exactly how his powers work. And then you wake up like "Oh yeah it doesn't matter because he's not real."
Personally I think that a truly perfect being would be completely self-satisfied and wouldn't need or want anything. There would be no point in creating a universe. Him would be all that existed and that would be perfect. Nothing more necessary. And no more "better" to move towards, so it's not just that he doesn't need more . . . there's no point in wanting more because you already have it all. It's as good as it gets. It's perfect.
I guess one objection could be "he can do whatever he wants and he's still perfect." But my point would be that . . . what's stopping anything from being perfect then? Can't God do things that are imperfect? I guess the answer would be "He could but he wouldn't". So then the question is "Are all the actions that God takes flawless? Has God even made a mistake?", etc. Round and round we go.
Theology: Study of an imaginary being.
It's just funny to me, because every time I bring it up, and every time I point out that a perfect being - one that is complete and self-sustaining - would never have reason to create anything, I get a bunch of non-answers about this perfect being's sheer amount of love and whatnot.
The mere act of creation points to this being's deficiency. Because a want implies incompleteness. And a being that's utterly complete wouldn't want for anything.
It's pretty simple logic, and I've never seen a theist handle it in a way that doesn't simply push it off to the side to be ignored. Of course, if this being isn't perfect, then it's open to criticism. It can no longer be presented as the paragon of any virtue. So, it definitely makes sense as to why it's tap danced around.
