If God is perfect this suggests that 'He' lacks for nothing and this may at least appear to suggest that 'His' creation is superfluous...in other words 'what's the point?' ...on the other hand the universe and perhaps God with it may be evolving towards perfection (whatever that looks like). So if people would like to discuss these matters, feel free, and perhaps the thread will evolve to the perfect conclusion...
If God is perfect his creation is also perfecta. Is God answerable for imperfection particularly when I see people suffering, famished and dying very painful deaths? The huge gap we see among ourselves, the ratio of the 1 percent to the 99 percent. The countries that are undergoing a continuum of wars and great many diseases, undernourishments and mindless conducts of the brutal forces and the recurring violent activities and the disfiguring of the mother earth. Division, split-up, growing cases of family separations, prostitutions, both manmade or nature- caused disasters and devastations and massacres and the like speak amply of imperfection of this creation. And does God not account for all these tragic events? I cannot side with either that supports the justification of God’s creation and blames God for this.
Going philosophically, can I be happy if I have never been unhappy in my life? Can we celebrate good health if we have never been sick? If everyone is well-off can we have a sense of charity? If death never comes do we sing the song of immortality? If we never know the pain of separation can we rejoice the moment of meeting, loving, and lovemaking?
Life is full of enigmas and we cannot make any inferences. And we cannot point the finger at God for imperfection. If everything is perfect and if there is no scantiness we will be dull and stupid. Contraries have their own values and imperfection demand of us our perfections.
According to an Open University text book, Social Science in Question, René Descartes proved God's existence thus: It is assumed that God is by definition perfect and that human beings are imperfect. This is tied to the idea of existence: human beings are mortal creatures whereas God is not subject to the laws of the life cycle. Therefore, a God which did exist was somewhat more perfect than a God which did not. The book proceeds to state that "By logic alone, it could be demonstrated that God did exist!"
I have a feeling this is somehow begging the question (i.e. a circular argument: A implies B, but B implies A). I have noticed that it is often difficult to pinpoint how a question is being begged, but you can sometimes tell by the feeling that someone is pulling a fast one.
According to Aldous Huxley, D.H. Lawrence once said that Balzac was 'a gigantic dwarf', and in a sense the same is true of Dickens.
Charles Dickens, by George Orwell
Coming from a Roman Catholic perspective, I've always understood it to be that God did not need to create the universe--as, by definition, he could not be lacking anything--but that he did so out of his love and his wish to promulgate it, even to the point of superfluity (speaking metaphorically, of course).
I'm fairly certain that Aquinas treats of this question somewhere, in a more complete way than my answer--I'm not very well-schooled in theology.
I'm curious, though: What do non-Christian religions say about this?
not sure how you connect the idea of god's perfection to the idea of "what's the point." seems like a leap to me.
I think it is a circular argument based on the following assumptions:Originally Posted by kev67
1) human beings are imperfect
2) God isn't tied to the life cycle
3) humans are tied to the life cycle
Hell, we don't fully understand the life cycle. No one knows what happens after we die.
Last edited by hypatia_; 01-03-2014 at 09:31 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote