Theists: What do you mean when you say that God is 'perfect'?

[KevinM1]

Good topic, Jor. I would have to refer back to Question 3 of the Summa Theologica, but as I recall Divine Perfection has more to do with completeness than anything else. God is perfect in the sense that He is complete in Himself in need of nothing outside Himself.

So why did god create anything?

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

[SteveII]

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.

If you want to have someone respond to the post that you obviously took time to write, you should stop telling them in every other sentence that their beliefs are nonsense.

In your conclusion "that a truly perfect being would be completely self-satisfied and wouldn't need or want anything" is obviously wrong.  The experience of a relationship with creatures of free would seem to add something of value that was not there before.

[Edwardo Piet]

If you want to have someone respond to the post that you obviously took time to write, you should stop telling them in every other sentence that their beliefs are nonsense.

That makes zero sense. But it's no surprise you're unable to compartmentalize because if you could you'd be more capable of telling the difference between valid and invalid arguments for God. There's absolutely no reason at all I can't keep the question open and still give my own opinion that belief in God is indeed nonsense at the same time. My whole point was that regards of what I think we can still talk about it even if in my opinion is that it really is a waste of time because I understand that to some people it isn't. Obviously I still don't recommend doing so, as I've said before, arguing about theists about their imaginary friends is about as pointless as debating the existence of Santa Claus, but here I am. I'm bored. And I gave my thoughts, and you can address them without thinking my own opinions undermine the other questions I had. If you don't like my opinion you can ignore it, you can focus on my questions and arguments. It simply does not matter why I'm posting or if it's merely out of boredom or what my own opinions on God's existence are. The whole point is we can still ask the questions and make the arguments anyway. The fact you're terrible at compartmentalization is not my problem.

---

In your conclusion "that a truly perfect being would be completely self-satisfied and wouldn't need or want anything" is obviously wrong.

No it isn't. How is it "obviously wrong"? It makes sense.

  The experience of a relationship with creatures of free would seem to add something of value that was not there before.

That makes no sense at all. You're basically admitting there that BEFORE God created creatures to have a relationship with he was lacking something and therefore imperfect. If God has always been perfect then there would be no possible further value to add.

Kind of ridiculous that you say what I say is obviously wrong and then your attempted explanation is to say something that is not only very obviously wrong but it seems to only further support my own position lol.

And as for my taking time to write the post: Hardly.

[SteveII]

If you want to have someone respond to the post that you obviously took time to write, you should stop telling them in every other sentence that their beliefs are nonsense.

That makes zero sense. But it's no surprise you're unable to compartmentalize.

---

In your conclusion "that a truly perfect being would be completely self-satisfied and wouldn't need or want anything" is obviously wrong.

No it isn't. How is it "obviously wrong"? It makes sense.

  The experience of a relationship with creatures of free would seem to add something of value that was not there before.

That makes no sense at all. You're basically admitting there that BEFORE God created creatures to have a relationship he was lacking something and therefore imperfect. If God has always been perfect then there would be no possible further value to add.

Kind of ridiculous that you say what I say is obviously wrong and then you say something that is not only very obviously wrong but it seems to only further support my own position lol.

Yes, before God created creatures to have a relationship with he was lacking something...relationships. 

'Perfect' in NO WAY means cannot be added to--especially experiences. For you proposition to be true, God would have to be pretty much a machine--not a person.

[Edwardo Piet]

That makes zero sense. But it's no surprise you're unable to compartmentalize.

---

No it isn't. How is it "obviously wrong"? It makes sense.


That makes no sense at all. You're basically admitting there that BEFORE God created creatures to have a relationship he was lacking something and therefore imperfect. If God has always been perfect then there would be no possible further value to add.

Kind of ridiculous that you say what I say is obviously wrong and then you say something that is not only very obviously wrong but it seems to only further support my own position lol.

Yes, before God created creatures to have a relationship with he was lacking something...relationships. 

'Perfect' in NO WAY means cannot be added to--especially experiences. For you proposition to be true, God would have to be pretty much a machine--not a person.

So you believe God wasn't always perfect? He only became perfect after making creatures to have a relationship with?

[The Grand Nudger]

The notion that god's perfection includes the kind of crippling loneliness that leads to the creation of animated dolls, and that it then loses it's shit over what the dolls do, in it's perfection... belittles both notions.

That's the plot of a bad b-movie....not a thoughtful commentary on the nature of god or it's perfection, or what it means to have all the marbles. Frankly, such a creature is missing more than a few.

[Edwardo Piet]

For you proposition to be true, God would have to be pretty much a machine--not a person.

Isn't it absurd to call God a person if he's supposed to be perfect?

---

Lol yes. Steve seems to have a very bizarre version of Christianity that I've never heard anyone else have before. Christians do generally believe that God created humans to have a relationship with them but they don't generally believe he was imperfect and lacking beforehand lol. God is normally supposed to be eternally perfect, not perfect in every way except missing companionship and then making himself perfect. God is supposed to be incapable mistakes and every action he takes and every state of being he is in is supposed to be perfect . . . so for him to have to become perfect just makes no sense if he's supposed to be perfect.

You're basically completely refuting yourself Steve, you're saying that God had to become perfect which just admits that he isn't eternally perfect and he did at least used to be imperfect. Which even puts into question whether he is still perfect, since his original state of being wasn't good enough, we can't really trust that he's reached perfection thereafter.

You're basically proving my point that if God was truly perfect he wouldn't have created humanity.

[Ravenshire]

All this back and forth about if and how the christer gawd is perfect... What the hell people? Of course it's perfect.























Perfectly imaginary.

[SteveII]

For you proposition to be true, God would have to be pretty much a machine--not a person.

Isn't it absurd to call God a person if he's supposed to be perfect?

---

Lol yes. Steve seems to have a very bizarre version of Christianity that I've never heard anyone else have before. Christians do generally believe that God created humans to have a relationship with them but they don't generally believe he was imperfect and lacking beforehand lol. God is normally supposed to be eternally perfect, not perfect in every way except missing companionship and then making himself perfect. God is supposed to be incapable mistakes and every action he takes and every state of being he is in is supposed to be perfect . . . so for him to have to become perfect just makes no sense if he's supposed to be perfect.

You're  basically completely refuting yourself Steve, you're saying that God had to become perfect which just admits that he isn't eternally perfect and he did at least used to be imperfect. Which even puts into question whether he is still perfect, since his original state of being wasn't good enough, we can't really trust that he's reached perfection thereafter.

You're basically proving my point that if God was truly perfect he wouldn't have created humanity.

No, no no. You are putting words in my mouth to fit your stupid premise. Where did I say God was imperfect? You are the one that thinks/asserts lacking an experience is an imperfection. There is no basis at all for making that leap. In fact, you have just made the definition of 'perfect' meaningless, because there is no conceivable entity that could experience everything (and therefore always be lacking something).