Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

God and Perfection

Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 9:30:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 9:25:17 AM, Meatros wrote:
What is the theistic response to the charge that an omnimax perfect entity would not do anything because it has no needs?

Smooth moves, bro. Should we kick off discussion here anyway?
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 10:05:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 9:30:15 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/18/2011 9:25:17 AM, Meatros wrote:
What is the theistic response to the charge that an omnimax perfect entity would not do anything because it has no needs?

Smooth moves, bro. Should we kick off discussion here anyway?

Sure. I tried creating a dup thread in phil where it probably belongs, and I couldn't.

I think this is an interesting objection. I don't see a simple solution to it, as everything I think of would be refuted by God's definition.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 10:11:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
yeah. The theological answer that I normally hear is that this shizzle is for gods glory. But glory (in theological terms) is defined with respect to god. As what he wants.
>.>
<.<
>.<
Yeah. I suppose another answer is that he is "unknowable", but damn that answer is boring. And isnt he supposed to be personal, so that we can know him?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 10:13:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Maybe he considers it more loving (omnibenevolence) to give us life and the chance to follow him? And what he created was the most loving option, whilst also being just and shizzle?
Would his definition preclude loneliness? I'm pretty perfect but I still get lonely.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 10:18:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 10:13:15 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Maybe he considers it more loving (omnibenevolence) to give us life and the chance to follow him? And what he created was the most loving option, whilst also being just and shizzle?
Would his definition preclude loneliness? I'm pretty perfect but I still get lonely.

lol
kfc
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 11:26:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thaddeus wrote: yeah. The theological answer that I normally hear is that this shizzle is for gods glory. But glory (in theological terms) is defined with respect to god. As what he wants.

I've heard this too. I don't think it works as it suggests that God has 'wants', which would mean he wasn't perfect.

Thaddeus wrote: Yeah. I suppose another answer is that he is "unknowable", but damn that answer is boring. And isnt he supposed to be personal, so that we can know him?

"Unknowable" to me might get around the logical problem, however it does not provide a rational reason to believe there is a resolution.

Thaddeus wrote: Maybe he considers it more loving (omnibenevolence) to give us life and the chance to follow him? And what he created was the most loving option, whilst also being just and shizzle?
Would his definition preclude loneliness? I'm pretty perfect but I still get lonely.


Well, he couldn't be lonely, as that would be another need. As to 'more loving', that would be a strike against omnibenevolence.

I think this is an old question - I want to say that it goes back to Plato. I can't remember. I seem to have it in my head there is a more sophisticated answer that gets around wants and needs.