Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

Ayost,

A perfect being is a complete being. It wants nothing. It needs nothing. It has no desires because to desire something entails missing something that would make it better, and it cannot be better. A perfect being wouldn't need to act because the only reason to act is to accomplish a goal but the perfect being can have no goals. A perfect being is perfectly fulfilled.

So when you say that God acted or intended or wanted in the same breath as saying God is perfect, you are contradicting yourself. Your concept is self-contradictory and therefore incoherent. It is statements like this that make atheists shake their heads. How can Christians expect atheists believe in something they can't even coherently describe?

Ok, cool line of reasoning, but it's a strawman.

I am defending the Biblical God. You defined a concept outside the Bible and then measured God inside the Bible with that concept.

I'm sorry, it just doesn't reflect the Biblical picture of God's perfection.

I agree God needs nothing.
If by "want" you mean lack, I agree, He lacks nothing.

But if by want you mean desire, well "desiring nothing" isn't part of the definition of perfect. According to the Bible, God is perfect and has all kinds of desires. But he doesn't desire imperfectly like you or I. He doesn't hope or wish or dream. He isn't lacking something he desires. He's not trying to grow as a being. In the past God was in perfect fellowship as the trinity. His decision to glorify Himself through the redemption of a particular people doesn't impugn the perfect fellowship that He has had for all eternity.

No one ever said God has goals. He has a will and He acts perfectly with perfect intention to do everything according to His will the first time. Maybe you're confusing a will and goals, just a simple category error?

Its statements like this that make me shake my head. It just demonstrates a lack of education about the Biblical God.

---

I suppose it doesn't really matter where they got it from, if one claim being errant means that your god can't exist.

That is correct, sir. If one claim is errant, the God I'm describing doesn't exist.