Is God Perfect?

[ThisYouWillDo]

Is God perfect? Can he be a god if He is not?

Reading the thread on the Holy Tinity reminded me of when I was studying part of Milton's Paradise Lost and I was fascinated by a question put to the class by the teacher.

First, she spoke of the concept of Free Will and how God allowed all beings He created the freedom to do as they wished, even if that was evil or led to failure. Thus, when Satan rebelled, he did so because he was using his free will to choose whether to rule in Hell or serve in Paradise. And when Eve was persuaded by the snake to eat the forbidden fruit, she knew she had been told not to, but did so all the same; she used her free will.

Why did God place the tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden, yet forbid Adam and Eve to eat from it? That's easy, we thought. God wanted to test them. He wanted to see if His new creations could exercise their free will judiciously.

But was it a test? Or was it a trap that Adam and Eve were destined to fail?

First, if God could see into the future, which I am told He can, then He would have seen that they would fail the test. But maybe He could only see outcomes of things that were inevitable or which had already been set in motion - so maybe He did still need to carry out the test.

In that case, did He intend them to fail the test. He knew that the temptation would be too great to resist and, sooner or later, the desire to taste the fruit would be greater than their obedience to Him. Well, if that's the case, God would have deceived Adam and Eve into believing they were perfect creations that were allowed to make their own decisions whatever the consequences. If they were doomed to fail, then they did not really have free will. Deception is not what we would expect of a good God, is it?

The fact that God needed to test them is curious. After all, they were His perfect creations. If they were perfect creations, they would never be able to decide to do wrong or to do evil, despite having free will. But they did decide to disobey. Therefore, they could not have been perfect creations, but flawed in some way. The test, then, was just an excuse to punish. (Where have I heard this before, I can here some subs muttering.)

But this leads to the big question. If God is perfect, He is incapable of imperfection. Perfect means without any faults whatsoever. A perfect God cannot create imperfect beings. Thus He was unable to create Adam and Eve with flaws or imperfections. But as they were flawed or imperfect, it must mean that God Himself is less than perfect too.

Going further, He created Satan. If Satan was perfect, why did he rebel? Surely that was not possible either?

I've not had a religious education, and my RE lessons consisted of a Cook's Tour of Roman Occupied Palestine. There was no discussion of concepts such as this. However, this question has remained with me ever since. I'm also not a particularly deep thinking person, so I have been unable to develop these thoughts on my own. I wonder if anyone here has anything they can contribute on the topic.

TYWD

[Thorne]

I only have one, brief comment regarding any perfections or imperfections of God.

Religion tells us that we are made in God's image. Most hard liners will tell you that means that God looks like a man. Some say that God looks like a woman. The really stupid hard liners will tell you that God resembles a WHITE man.

My belief, however, is that God was made in OUR image. He is imperfect only because we are imperfect. He is a construct of man's fear of the unknown. Everything else is fantasy.

[_ID_]

Could he not create something that wasn't perfect on purpose, thus creation of an imperfect human was perfect because it was conceived perfectly?

There are many arguments to the notion of a perfect god. The easiest being that of outcomes. What about obscurity or confusion? What about creativity in humans that he created? Leaving the unknown for us to discover means that by our own imperfections our discoveries will therefore be imperfect. Thus our conclusions about god and his intentions would never be accurate. So any argument had would be null from the beginning.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Thorne: I disagree with you. How come that doesn't surprise you? Well, the reason I disagree is only to keep this thread alive. LOL


IDCrew: I don't know how to answer you, I can see how your suggestion works, but I would have to answer that logic prohibits a perfect God conceiving an imperfect creation. And this is just a logical game really: a chicken-and-egg conundrum. Trying to work out, on a reasonable basis, what the supernatural is. You could cut through the question by saying God is a creation of Man and is therefore no more perfect than Man is, which is Thorne's position, or you could just say, the ordinary rules of logic don't apply to the supernatural.

That would mean a perfect god can do imperfect things, a good god is also a bad god, god is love and hate. It would also mean that a supernatural Being could also be a natural person. Opposites would be the same: to bless would be the same as to abominate. In other words, everything would be chaos and totally inexplicable. And that would be intellectually unacceptable.

So what do we do? Give in and trust to blind faith, or do we, as rational creatures, carry on trying to understand?

TYWD

In other words, everything would be chaos and totally inexplicable.

... I wonder if there's a Quantum Theory for religion

[Logic1]

Which God?
Is there a God?
What is perfect?
Perfect for whom?
Perfect in relation to what?
Would we want a perfect God?

[ThisYouWillDo]

The one in Paradise Lost; there is in that poem; absolutely without fault; for all; to everything; He is supposed to be perfect whether we want Him to be or not. The question is, is He?

[Guest 91108]

I think it's a flawed concept for an imperfect being as we are .. to think that we can conceive and understand the Divine and any cause and effect reasoning that the Divine would have.
Is very similiar to a worm understanding what I think on metaphysical healing -- Not conceptually possible.

[ThisYouWillDo]

With respect, it's not the same. The worm has no concept of metaphysical healing: we do have a concept of perfection.

It may be that there is a "higher" logic than we are aware of which enables what we perceive to be flaws to be perfections, and by examining questions such as these we may be able to catch a glimpse of divine reasoning. Such revelations or discoveries could have profound and far-reaching effects on one's faith or lack of it.

Or it could just be fun to pick over logical inconsitencies such as these and to consider how people accomodate them in their arguments about the nature of the divine.

[Guest 91108]

hrm I think the worm does have it's own concepts. I always root for the underdog.
Besides.. the worm wins in the end much like the cockroach.

[ThisYouWillDo]

?

[Logic1]

?

he means that the worms (and cockroaches) will outlive us all.

[TomOfSweden]

This is totally based on the western tradition of interpreting Aristotle's the "unmoved mover" theory of god. ie, god as omnipotent.

The Pagan god Balder, (alt Baldr), what could he do that was so special? As far as I know it was nothing. He had ordinary human powers, he was just good at them. Like Batman. God is an extremely wide and I'd dare say has a limitless scope. It doesn't even need people worshipping him. Loki's the prime example of that one.

Pantheists believe god is the naturalist and very much un-supernatural known universe. It's the worlds fastest growing religion today.

Hindu's don't share this world view at all.

This is all philosophic and theological theories from two centuries ago. I would have thought/hoped we, (as in humanity) should have moved on by now. It's a very ethno-centric way to see philosophic thought.

I'm not saying we shouldn't believe this god theory. But it's far from the only one.

There's also the issue with mysticism. It's only one part of Christianity that believes the nature of God can be reasoned about. Mystics argue it is impossible to understand God and to reason about it is heresy. Which was pretty much the all pervasive attitude until the Gnostics broke the tradition.

And this idea is still around. The ancient mystic phrase, "God works in mysterious ways" is still used today.

religion doesn't have to make sense or be logical. Not on any level. We cannot demand this of believers.

[ThisYouWillDo]

-Deleted-

[ThisYouWillDo]

Now this is very interesting, Tom. Thanks for your thoughts.

I agree we are discussing a western concept of an omnipotent god, and whether that concept stands up to scrutiny according to its own terms. I did not anticipate we would also review other religions' concepts of godhead too ~is godhead the perfect blow-job?~, but if it helps, it is certainly worthwhile doing so.

I wonder if Milton was trying to deal with the question of gnosticism; but I don't think so. I don't believe that anywhere in the poem is there any reference to a Monad or that God is a demiurge. And Milton would certainly not thank Satan for freeing Mankind from the control of a being who was either evil or only of limited goodness. Although Milton has been described as a heretic, that was not because he held gnostic beliefs, but rather because he was a monist and believed that all things, animal, vegetable, mineral and divine were the same. He was also anti-episcopal and a republican, which would have made him very unpopular in England before and after the interregnum and would have increased the antipathy the Establishment held for his religious views. I'm sure he believed God to be absolutely perfect.

Furthermore, I'm not sure we're considering what moves the prime mover. Only the notion of divine perfection. Is that different?


I don't think any modern religion - even fundamentalist ones - thinks that reasoning about the nature of God is heretical, although it might be concerned that heretical ideas could result from "incorrect" reasoning. But I don't think we should let that stop us. Do you?

TYWD

[TomOfSweden]

Furthermore, I'm not sure we're considering what moves the prime mover. Only the notion of divine perfection. Is that different?

Aristotle has this all covered. It hinges on the assumption that a pot can never make a potter. According to the prime mover has by necessity be perfect since the harmony of nature is in such perfect balance. Thomas Aquinas explored this extensively. Darwin cracked it, so now Aristotle's theory isn't necessarily the only logical way to go. Philosophy is still exploring where Darwin's new paradigm of thought will take us.

I don't think any modern religion - even fundamentalist ones - thinks that reasoning about the nature of God is heretical, although it might be concerned that heretical ideas could result from "incorrect" reasoning. But I don't think we should let that stop us. Do you?

TYWD

If you read various histories of monotheism you'd be surprised. Thinking it's morally okay to reason about the nature of god is fairly modern. It's historically been frowned upon. Karen Armstrong's "History of God" is a good one to read about that. In Islam, I forget his name. But the main Islamic philosopher in the Wahabist branch of Islamic thought did extensively argue that it was heretical. It was/is fanatically anti-science.

I don't believe in heresy or hell so I'm not bound by any constrictions to argue about anything.

[Beatrice]

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has." -Martin Luther

[TomOfSweden]

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has." -Martin Luther

But Martin Luther's whole point was to question religious authorities and make up your own mind...and since he's a religious authority then....I think you can see where I'm going with this.

[rce]

Aristotle has this all covered. It hinges on the assumption that a pot can never make a potter. According to the prime mover has by necessity be perfect since the harmony of nature is in such perfect balance. Thomas Aquinas explored this extensively. Darwin cracked it, so now Aristotle's theory isn't necessarily the only logical way to go. Philosophy is still exploring where Darwin's new paradigm of thought will take us.
...

I believe you are wrong on the importance of Darwin. The "Copernican" change of views from Aristotle to modern day science and philosophy was Immanuel Kant's Kritik der reinen Fernuft.

Kant described why you could not look at the world in the way Aristotle did. Th science in Aristotle's tradition was about explaining everything as a cause of the "first immovable mover". Kant, however, claimed that logic and mathematics where the only two areas where we can know what is right, thus the only two areas open for real science.

Later on, scolars of other sciences managed to save science and developed the way we look at science now, where something is scientifically proved if it is by far the most probable answer to a question, for instance through statistical measurements and empirical tests.

[rce]

With respect, it's not the same. The worm has no concept of metaphysical healing: we do have a concept of perfection.
...

Still, there could be concepts which are so advanced that the human cannot even understand that they may exist.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I'll own up to being baffled by some of the above. But I have a question for Tom and an observation for rce:

Tom: If Aristotle's potter must, by necessity, be perfect, how did imperfections come into being?

Rce: I did allow for a form of logic that was beyond human comprehension and I wondered if it was possible, by examining what appear to us to be logical flaws regarding the supernatural, that we might discover something of it.

TYWD

[Domination King]

Is God perfect?

Rhetorical Question. No need for an answer.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Most definitely not.

[TomOfSweden]

I believe you are wrong on the importance of Darwin. The "Copernican" change of views from Aristotle to modern day science and philosophy was Immanuel Kant's Kritik der reinen Fernuft.

Kant described why you could not look at the world in the way Aristotle did. Th science in Aristotle's tradition was about explaining everything as a cause of the "first immovable mover". Kant, however, claimed that logic and mathematics where the only two areas where we can know what is right, thus the only two areas open for real science.

Later on, scolars of other sciences managed to save science and developed the way we look at science now, where something is scientifically proved if it is by far the most probable answer to a question, for instance through statistical measurements and empirical tests.

I think you are right in down playing the importance of Darwin in a strictly scientific/rational sense. But almost nobody got it back then. What I mean is that it wasn't until Darwin came with his theory people in general started putting two and two together. It wasn't until then the religious community reacted.

This is still today the major issue. The laws governing the universe are so distant that it's hard to see how they aply to us directly. So what if we don't any longer need 13 angels correcting the orbits of planets, (which where required for the earth in the middle thoery). But when it comes down to me and my body and my origins, it gets personal. I think the reason why the focus is on Darwin and creationism rather than the Kopernican revolution is 100% emotional. I'm pretty certian that if you ask any devout to-the-letter Christian who belives in creationism, they'll have no problem with Kopernicus or Kant.

Anyhoo. Let's replace "Darwin" with "new science" and I've said the same thing. But it's a lot less clear what I mean.

[TomOfSweden]

Tom: If Aristotle's potter must, by necessity, be perfect, how did imperfections come into being?

According to the theory there are none. The world is perfect and just like god intended it to be. An important feature in the theory is that the goal was to explain why the world is perfect, or rather in perfect balance. If you don't think the world is perfect then this theory isn't for you.

Don't forget that this is way before the Theodicy paradox and the myrriad other problems with it's basic assumption were formulated.

Aristotle didn't actually have faith in this theory. It was just a theory. He also formulated the theory of abiogenesis, which is pretty much its oposite. He didn't have faith in that one either.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Tom said: Aristotle didn't actually have faith in this theory. It was just a theory. He also formulated the theory of abiogenesis, which is pretty much its oposite. He didn't have faith in that one either.

ROFLMAO ... I'm a fan!

[TomOfSweden]

ROFLMAO ... I'm a fan!

You and the whole western world. He's famous for a reason.

edit: The first guy who had faith in the "unmoved mover" theory in the religious sense was Sophia of Alexandria. He was the one who incorporated the theory into Judaism and laid the foundation for Christianity. Everything attributed to Jesus having said is all stuff first penned by Sophia. How Sophia has managed to become less of an important figure to Christians than Jesus himself, is just one of life's little mysteries.

[Kevin100]

Aristotle could not account for infinity. I think this is a problem for him, and us today in explaining non cause and effect. In short: if you accept that time is infinite you do not need a first mover. Language does not accommodate infinity terribly easily. (If it took an infinite amount of time to get to here today, we would no be here today.) Children have no problem with "it has always been, and it will go on forever", some philosophers consider this to be immature thinking. I am not sure that it is. I think that the older we become the more thought is controlled by language. We cannot think that which we cannot express, or is simpler terms thought is language driven. I think children do not think in this way. They solve problems by imagination rather than by thought.
P.S. I do think the god of the Genesis story is a real sadist. Who in god's name would put juicy fruit in the middle of a playground and insist that it not be eaten. But then again, he did put a playground next to a sewerage works on the human body.

Kevin

[ThisYouWillDo]

Who in god's name would put juicy fruit in the middle of a playground and insist that it not be eaten.

Bringing us nicely back to my original question.

[Thorne]

P.S. I do think the god of the Genesis story is a real sadist.

The Old Testament God is a petulant child with infinite power. Very reminiscent of the character Anthony Fremont in Jerome Bixby's story, "It's a Good Life." (It was made into a Twilight Zone episode in the '60s, starring Billy Mumy.)

[_ID_]

Sadist, don't know. Mean spirited bully, and practical jokester most definitly.