Why do we assume that if there is a God that he is perfect?

« The world is not going down hill but slowly struggling up hill | Matter over mind: the organic machine »

Why do we assume that if there is a God that he is perfect?

by aaronkendall @ 03.09.2008 – 13:48:50

It is often assumed that if there is a God that he is perfect, faultless, all good and all powerful. So when a nice young man happened to come across him whilst taking a walk he asked: ‘God why do you allow cancerous disease in the world.’ To which God replied

‘I do not allow it. I simply do not have the power to stop it. It is either a fault in my design to which I do not yet have the knowledge to correct or it is an inevitable by-product of the process of human creation just as carbon dioxide and other gases are unavoidable by-products of various chemical reactions. These gases are often detrimental or have no effect. But no one assumes that they serve such purposes, only that they have that function. Don’t be so hard on me. I am limited by my knowledge and the stretch of my innate faculties just as you are. You know, you have very high standards of me. You put me up on a pedestal that is really just too hard to stand on. I am not all powerful you know. Heck! Why would I be? You’re not. Please stop worshipping me. I’m as flawed as the next being, I just happen to be a bit more intelligent than you.’

We assume God is perfect because we created him to be so. God is our answer to material problems to which we cannot see the material solutions. So he has to be perfect or else he can’t solve all the problems we want him to solve. And if he can’t do that then we might just as well have not made him up.
Options:
Tags:

4 Comments on Why do we assume that if there is a God that he is perfect?

Hide subcomments

- DominicGee
- 04.09.2008 @ 09:53:34
Here's one answer:
If you accept that there is perfection in the universe i.e., logic, maths, geometry and the laws of physics then one would have to accept that God (if he exists) was also perfect, as the creator of these laws.
Science is based on the idea that the Universe is knowable, consistant and understandable. The pursuit of science is based upon this principle, so in a sense, the universe is perfect. This being the case, God is also perfect.

Whether God can be proven to exist is not really the point, it is a world view held by many that God is the cause (and in a way the purpose) of the Universe.

You are familiar with the situation where one person bumps into an old friend and says "What are you doing here?" The facecious reply is often "Talking to you", or "My legs carried me." It is funny because it is not really answering the question.
I am at work. Previous to this I was in a cafe eating food. Prior to that I was walking across town, over a bridge. Before I had left my house I had a shower and got changed. This chain of events was triggered by my alarm clock going off. A scientist, with no other knowledge, observing from affar could then answer the question "Why Am I at work?" with "Because of his alarm clock 60 minutes before." What he would be describing is the chain of events leading to my arriving at work, but without describing WHY my alarm clock went off in the first place.

The God hypothesis was created in order to answer the question of the meaning or purpose behind our existence. The answer to the question "Why are we here" is not "Gravity and Electromagnetism" then... we do not know the answer. Some people choose to believe in a Creator, others not. As I said in the beginning, it is a world view. Science does not disproove God as that is something science cannot do, like measure beauty or goodness.
You have chosen to believe that there is no God - so the answer to the question "Why are we here" is either "I don't know" or "No reason at all." Some people don't like either of those.

If God IS the answer, then he must have the following properties:
Existence
Perfection
Eternal

What is included as being 'perfect' is also up for debate, we know that Descartes tried making out that perfection must mean that he exists, so therefore he exists, but I think he had got bored at that point.

As for the issue of an afterlife, interaction with the Creator, a continuous manipulation by the Creator (miracles, answering prayers etc) and a moral code... well that's another story.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- aaronkendall
- 04.09.2008 @ 11:34:34
Yeah i see what you are saying. If God is the first and most intelligent being then he is, in a sense of the word, perfect and in a sense, all powerful. But he is still limit to the confines of his nature. That nature may have allowed him to create life and the universes but the life and universes he made may have been his best possible attempt, given all he knew. His best attempt, if he is the first and most intelligent being, is perfection relative to possibility i.e. this is the best possible world he could have created so any conception of a world better e.g. without cancer, is an impossibl world. If ur conception of perfection exceeds the possible it is unachievable, therefore if God is the extent of the possible then he is perfection. But God's perfection is limited to the possible i.e. to his nature.

Imagine that you make a race of robots. It does not follow that you know everythng that there is to know about that creation. There could be unforseen byproduct traits created. The robots may develop consciousness though you did not intend it and do not know what it was that you did that caused it. So your power to stop it and control it is limited to your current state of intelligence, which is limited.

Lets say God created life and an unforseen byproduct was cancerous disease. He is at at just as much of a loss as the robot maker is.

So. If God exists then he is perfect but that perfection is not limitless; it is confined to the realms of possibility which are, in turn, determined by his nature. And you can't say God's nature is perfect or limitless therefore the extent of his perfection is perfect or limitless as this would be a circular argument.

Also if evolution is the case then i am not sure that God's nature, such that it is, could not improve over time. Human nature, if it accelerated at a greater speed to God's nature could lead to man overtaking God. In this way God is no longer perfection for he has been surpassed. If God is eveloving then so would be th conception of perfection (if God were perfection) and so as always perfection is a relative term.

N.B I'm happy to assume that there is no single meaning or purpose to life. Why should there be?
- - DominicGee
  - 04.09.2008 @ 15:22:56
  What you say is true. I suppose it comes down to a definition of perfection, which as you say is evolving.
  
  If God is eternal, I'm not sure he can evolve as that would imply some passage of time or progression which would mean dividing infinity. Arrgh!
  
  In my definition of God (above), I put him as eternal etc but did not include All Powerful deliberately, that is another discussion. God may have created the Universe, but in it's perfection (possibly one of many verses etc) he may not be able to change it. Cancer is as much a part of the Universe as is a super-nova, a honey bee or gravity. God may have simply created the Universe and had to let it go it's course.
  
  Cancer is not a by-product of the Creation, it is necessary to it. It's like you said previously when talking about determination - Cancer could not NOT exist in this Universe as that'd mean somewhere along the line something is not consistent. Besides, the things that we call evil in this world (excluding human behaviour for now) are merely our interpretation of them. A long period of drought may seem bad to us, but in fact the Earth is keeping in balance. An Earthquake may cause massive devastation, but without plate tectonics it is questionable whether life could have started on this planet. Cancer can be benign or hostile - the way our body reacts to it, well, that reaction would save our lives in other circumstances.
  This may make me sound very clinical, but in fact that is the way the Universe must be viewed from a scientific point of view surely?
  
  You assume that there is no meaning or purpose to life. An ASSUMPTION is reached however when no evidence is presented, i.e. there is no evidence to suggest that there is no purpose, equally there is no evidence to suggest there is one.
  However, if I wanted to argue for the latter, I'd find it easier. To many people, the presence and order of the Universe DOES suggest a purpose and it would seem overly cynical to ASSUME that there wasn't one. It's an old argument, but our physical evidence shows that everything has a purpose (from an atom to gravity, they are interlinked by nature), so to assume that existence as a whole has NO purpose is actually counter to the human experience. Hmmm?
  
  BTW, can you make sure that when you reply you click on the reply to comment link at the bottom, cos it notifies me of your response. I only came back here by chance, and also cos I noticed you doing it previously.
  - - aaronkendall
    - 04.09.2008 @ 18:38:35
    Absolutely to the first half. Realistic analysis. It might sound cynical but not overly so. All i'd say about the second half is that one should be very specific on their definition of purpose. Gravity has a function: it does what it does because it does it but has no intentional purpose. The universe and all that is in it exists in a certain way but there is no meta-narrative to its existence. It just is. Gravity has a function; it does what it does. We often attribute to gravity's function a purpose i.e. to keep the planets in orbits and stop us from floating away. But this could only be the purpose of gravity if the universe has a meta-narrative, a God that made it so that it held its function in order to achieve the result that that function achieves.
    
    Life as a whole has many functions, therefore, but has no intentional purpose although conscious beings may shape things within the universe to serve purposes.
    
    The only purpose to "LIFE" is that which we attribute to it.
    
    Sorry if that was a bit repetative. And i'll try to remeber to hit reply to comment.
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink

Why do we assume that if there is a God that he is perfect?

4 Comments on Why do we assume that if there is a God that he is perfect?

Leave a comment (Login)