Perfect God? Not so perfect!

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » Perfect God? Not so perfect!

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 03:33 am
I've been thinking about this for the past couple of months and I've discussed this with my not so bright religious friends about the perfectness of God.

So I asked, if God is perfect in every possible way..then what reason did he(not male) have in creating the universe?

If he is perfect then he has no reason to "want" or "need" unless he is not perfect and as a result we must appeal to the "lesser God" definition.

My friends usually reply with, he created the universe and us in order to gain worship..but I find that this particular God had something missing in the first place, for creating us in order to attain worship.

I find that any reason I place on him, make him lesser before. So what are your thoughts?

Is he perfect? What reason did he have in creating the universe?

Perfection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks Very Happy
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 03:38 am
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89;145495 wrote:
I've been thinking about this for the past couple of months and I've discussed this with my not so bright religious friends about the perfectness of God.

So I asked, if God is perfect in every possible way..then what reason did he(not male) have in creating the universe?

If he is perfect then he has no reason to "want" or "need" unless he is not perfect and as a result we must appeal to the "lesser God" definition.

My friends usually reply with, he created the universe and us in order to gain worship..but I find that this particular God had something missing in the first place, for creating us in order to attain worship.

I find that any reason I place on him, make him lesser before. So what are your thoughts?

Is he perfect? What reason did he have in creating the universe?

Perfection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks Very Happy


There is no god. It is just a human invent. That is why the concept can't ever sit well within definitions because it is a flawed theory. Just like you pointed out, if you were perfect and needed nothing, why would you do anything at all? If he make humans for his glory then he really must have needed glory. That makes god imperfect then. You can't have both definitions at the same time.

When most theists give definitions for god they rarely ever check to make sure those definitions are logical. They just stop at the definition and don't bother to do any checking.
 
ikurwa89
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 03:51 am
@Krumple,
That's why i suggested a "lesser God" concept, since reality is not set on one possibility but infinitly many.

Could it be, this is the act of an curious creator?
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 12:02 am
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89;145495 wrote:
I've been thinking about this for the past couple of months and I've discussed this with my not so bright religious friends about the perfectness of God.

So I asked, if God is perfect in every possible way..then what reason did he(not male) have in creating the universe?

If he is perfect then he has no reason to "want" or "need" unless he is not perfect and as a result we must appeal to the "lesser God" definition.

My friends usually reply with, he created the universe and us in order to gain worship..but I find that this particular God had something missing in the first place, for creating us in order to attain worship.

I find that any reason I place on him, make him lesser before. So what are your thoughts?

Is he perfect? What reason did he have in creating the universe?

Perfection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks Very Happy


I would direct you to my thread on the Infinite Supreme. It demonstrates the progression of creation. In short creation is an act of love.
 
ikurwa89
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 05:56 pm
@trismegisto,
@ trismegisto

What do you mean by "act of love"?

In the infinite supreme, do you the argument that attempts to answer who created God via infinite series of contingent being?
 
Rob phil
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 06:05 pm
@ikurwa89,
Man this is a good one. I don't even know where I stand really. I guess I have mixed opinions because I understand your idea but then I think to myself. If I was "perfect" in some way shape or form even though I wouldn't need any gratification. I would still want it. I would probably naturally still be a show off even if I was the best. But yeah like I said I dunno about this one.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 06:05 pm
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89;146379 wrote:
@ trismegisto

What do you mean by "act of love"?

In the infinite supreme, do you the argument that attempts to answer who created God via infinite series of contingent being?


An Act of Love

Every action is taken either for Love of Self or Love of All. In terms of the Infinite Supreme these two types are indistinguishable.

There is but the infinite supreme. Which is everything including nothing. When nothing is separated within the infinite supreme it is then filled with the infinite supreme within the boundaries of nothing. The infinite supreme within is GOD the creator. Within Creation the infinite supreme is Man. Within the universe the soul of Man is combined with the body of God to create men.

Thats the gist of it, at least.
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 06:52 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;146382 wrote:
An Act of Love

Every action is taken either for Love of Self or Love of All. In terms of the Infinite Supreme these two types are indistinguishable.

There is but the infinite supreme. Which is everything including nothing. When nothing is separated within the infinite supreme it is then filled with the infinite supreme within the boundaries of nothing. The infinite supreme within is GOD the creator. Within Creation the infinite supreme is Man. Within the universe the soul of Man is combined with the body of God to create men.

Thats the gist of it, at least.

I guess I have a couple of questions for you; they are probably easy to answer.
1. What is love? (Please don't start quoting "Night at the Roxbury") Smile
2. Why are humans supreme? (What, other than our soul, makes us better than other animals?) God did, after all, create them as well.
3. Why did god create animals? (Please don't just say for us to have dominion over them)
4. Why does God love us?
5. Why did God make other animals with a lower intelligence than humans?
6. Why does God not place his spirit into other animals as well?

If you do not know the answer to a question, I understand, but I just want to know what you think.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 07:37 pm
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;146401 wrote:
I guess I have a couple of questions for you; they are probably easy to answer.


Probably, wink.

Theologikos;146401 wrote:

1. What is love? (Please don't start quoting "Night at the Roxbury") Smile


Love is the primal and driving force behind all action. As related to the infinite supreme there is only Love of All which is equivalent to love of Self.
However, in Ideas and Objects, Thoughts and Things, and Souls and Bodies. Love of Self is distinguished from Love of All.
Love of self is required for survival but often leads to greed. Love of All is is innate but is often ill conceived.

Theologikos;146401 wrote:
2. Why are humans supreme? (What, other than our soul, makes us better than other animals?) God did, after all, create them as well.


Every animal has a soul and a body including men. Men can be considered equal to animals. However, what makes men different than other animals is Humanity. Humanity is the Sapience bestowed upon men by Man. Man is tyhe Infinite supreme within creation, not the animal.

What I find interesting is that men do not necessarily corner the market on Humanity. Any animal with sapience is Human. There could be humans on other planets that have no animal relationship to men. Perhaps dolphins, elephants, crows, and pigs are on the verge of sapience? Right now, at this time and on this planet the only humans we are aware of are men.

Theologikos;146401 wrote:
3. Why did god create animals? (Please don't just say for us to have dominion over them)


God did not create animals. God creation are the eternal ideas and objects. When these ideas and objects combine they create the thoughts things of the universe. From the thoughts and things come souls and bodies.

Theologikos;146401 wrote:
4. Why does God love us?


the Infinite supreme whose will is the cause of every thing including God, loves us because for the infinite supreme Love of self is no different than love of All

Theologikos;146401 wrote:
5. Why did God make other animals with a lower intelligence than humans?


It is not that other animals are lower in intelligence it is simply that they are representative or their Kind. Every kind of animal shares the same soul. When the soul is combined with a body we have individuals each being recognizable by their kind. While men have unique bodies they are all recognizable by their soul and as such their kind. Each individual is part body and part soul, the body is part idea(s) and part object(s) combined according to its parts. the combination of the body determines the strength of that part which shares the same sould as the kind.

Theologikos;146401 wrote:
6. Why does God not place his spirit into other animals as well?
Theologikos;146401 wrote:


Everything within the universe is moved only by the spirit of the infinite supreme.

Theologikos;146401 wrote:
If you do not know the answer to a question, I understand, but I just want to know what you think.


I am always happy to answer questions, thats how we learn. thanks.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 07:51 pm
@trismegisto,
I think the crux of this discussion is the ideal, not the definition of perfection. At some point someone determined that the best possible X is perfect as a definition, which is fine. The ideal of the best possible X however has been subjectified much further than the actual definition. We assume that (x) is the best possible X because we can. This very possible is sublimated idealized fiction, much like the proverbial unicorn is an idealized fiction based from several idealized archetypes. In short just because we imagine it to be so doesn't make it so, or better yet just because we imagine that it SHOULD be so doesn't make it so.
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:03 pm
@trismegisto,
@trismegisto,

You have a beautiful world-view. I'm used to really trite and simple answers, but you actually think out your own beliefs and I found them very interesting. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 01:34 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;146421 wrote:
I think the crux of this discussion is the ideal, not the definition of perfection. At some point someone determined that the best possible X is perfect as a definition, which is fine. The ideal of the best possible X however has been subjectified much further than the actual definition. We assume that (x) is the best possible X because we can. This very possible is sublimated idealized fiction, much like the proverbial unicorn is an idealized fiction based from several idealized archetypes. In short just because we imagine it to be so doesn't make it so, or better yet just because we imagine that it SHOULD be so doesn't make it so.


I would argue that if we can imagine something, then it exists. Perhaps it does not exist within the universe. But the idea and or object exists within creation. The universe is just one portion of creation, the portion where ideas and objects combine into thoughts and things.

---------- Post added 03-31-2010 at 12:37 PM ----------

Theologikos;146423 wrote:
@trismegisto,

You have a beautiful world-view. I'm used to really trite and simple answers, but you actually think out your own beliefs and I found them very interesting. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.



Well thank you, I am happy to share what I have gleaned. The trick is conscious contemplation. Knowledge is not learned it is remembered. We all just need to actively make time in our lives every day for a little conscious contemplation. Everybody has equal access to all of life's secrets, we just have to put in the time.

Good luck and may the force be with you.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 01:54 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;146789 wrote:
I would argue that if we can imagine something, then it exists. Perhaps it does not exist within the universe. But the idea and or object exists within creation. The universe is just one portion of creation, the portion where ideas and objects combine into thoughts and things.


Mine was commentary, not on the extance of a God but commentary on the subjective idealization of that' god's qualities. How can one say God is this or God is that, or God should be this or God should be that? All of that is ethical/moral idealization of a concept that by its nature, and limitations in ours can never be fully defined.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 02:35 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;146795 wrote:
Mine was commentary, not on the extance of a God but commentary on the subjective idealization of that' god's qualities. How can one say God is this or God is that, or God should be this or God should be that? All of that is ethical/moral idealization of a concept that by its nature, and limitations in ours can never be fully defined.


I tink more in God-image. To many traditions we are a little like gog, so god must be a little like me. I try to learn as many goda as possible, but the numbre is limited like human population.

My personal favourite is Bes, an african god who drfted down the Nile as became patron of the Phoenician sailers. And prostitutes of Astarte. So it spread the Mare Nostrum. I love spreading Cults, or was it Celts.

No god is perfect. It is non-sense word.
Perfect I mean.

Pepijn Sweep
Magister ud Ox-vill
:bigsmile:
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 07:09 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;146795 wrote:
How can one say God is this or God is that, or God should be this or God should be that? All of that is ethical/moral idealization of a concept that by its nature, and limitations in ours can never be fully defined.


We do not need to be able to define to be able to know. We don't even need to be able to communicate what we know to know what we know.

Knowledge is useless if it is simply a belief in what others say. Only through our own understanding do we distinguish between knowing and believing.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 12:11 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;146940 wrote:
We do not need to be able to define to be able to know. We don't even need to be able to communicate what we know to know what we know.

Knowledge is useless if it is simply a belief in what others say. Only through our own understanding do we distinguish between knowing and believing.


[CENTER]Some people trust the Sun to come up;
Some people believe it.

Some people see the Sun coming up;
Some people know it.

Non of them can explain U why;
Why is the Sun so nice ?

Pepijn Sweep
Magister ud Ox:bigsmile:
[/CENTER]
 
ikurwa89
 
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 02:29 am
@ikurwa89,
So if he created us because of the act of love, does he(not male) want us to love him back or what?

Also, why love? isn't that a human experience?

lol where is this discussion going?
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 06:43 am
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89;147014 wrote:
So if he created us because of the act of love, does he(not male) want us to love him back or what?

Also, why love? isn't that a human experience?

lol where is this discussion going?


I am a student of Hermes.

I am a lover of Sophia.

About God I can tell U not much.

Ask the Pope of Rome; he still thinks he knows...
Bisse Sehr, glauben Sie ?

Happy Eastern; enjoy U;R Eggs and chocolate Bunnies !

Pepijn Sweep
Humanistic Magister
 
amist
 
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 08:00 am
@ikurwa89,
I'm not sure that any honest philosopher would say that the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible fits the description of Supremely perfect, it simply refers to itself as that on occasion.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 01:42 pm
@amist,
amist;147068 wrote:
I'm not sure that any honest philosopher would say that the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible fits the description of Supremely perfect, it simply refers to itself as that on occasion.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » Perfect God? Not so perfect!
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/23/2019 at 04:09:27