Why does god have to be perfect?

[Skwim]

For his existence. Those attributes are the essence of what it means to be God. So to ask "why does he have to be x" is like asking "why does does a bachelor have to be unmarried"?

So, then unicorns with hooves, manes, and a long horn sprouting from their forehead must also be necessary beings. That about it?

 

[StarryNightshade]

God, objectively , doesn't have to be perfect.

It's people who apply finite human characteristics to an infinite reality who want him/her/it to be perfect.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So, then unicorns with hooves, manes, and a long horn sprouting from their forehead must also be necessary beings. That about it?

What you are failing to realize is, when we speak of God we are speaking of something that is by definition a necessary being. We don't know whether God exist with 100% absolute certainty, but if such a being DID exist, it would exist as a necessary being. The OP was a question about God's perfection...which would be a necessary attribute of a necessary being if this being does actually exist.

And the other question is...do we have reasons to believe that such a being does in fact exist...and based on the soundness of the Modal Ontological argument...yes.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is an if statement and a big 'If' at that. If God exists then its out of necessity. If God does not exist then it is not of necessity. See how that works?

No I don't see how that works, because if it is possible for God to exist, then it can't be impossible for God to exist, and based on that possibility alone it follows that God exists...because any possible necessary truth must be necessarily true.

 

[idav]

No I don't see how that works, because if it is possible for God to exist, then it can't be impossible for God to exist, and based on that possibility alone it follows that God exists...because any possible necessary truth must be necessarily true.

Just keep in mind how the word 'if' works. 'If' is used to assume any premise true. We can assume that it is true god exists then whatever logically follows. Using the if statement we can assume a diiferent premise that god doesnt exist and then whatever logically follows. So IF god doesnt exist its because god isnt necessary for existence.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Just keep in mind how the word 'if' works. 'If' is used to assume any premise true.

Ok I understand that, but if God's existence is even POSSIBLE, then God must exist. When dealing with the nature of necessity, all that is required is the minimum possibility. Once that is established, then it logically follows that what is possibly necessarily true is in fact necessarily true.

We can assume that it is true god exists then whatever logically follows. Using the if statement we can assume a diiferent premise that god doesnt exist and then whatever logically follows. So IF god doesnt exist its because god isnt necessary for existence.

Sorry idav, but that won't work given the fact that the Modal Ontological argument is logically sound.

1. It is at least possible for a MGB (maximally great being) to exist.
2. If it is possible for a MGB to exist, a MGB must exist in some possible world.
3. If a MGB exists in some possible world, a MGB must exist in all possible worlds.
4. If a MGB exists in all possible worlds, a MGB must exist in this world.
5. Conclusion: A maximally great being exists in this world.

Now 2-5 just follows logically from 1. The only way out of this is for you to negate the first premise, which I don't think you can do. So as long as #1 is true, 2-5 just follows logically.

So as long as it is possible for God to exist, there can't be an "if God doesn't exist" scenario at which such a proposition can possibly be true. That is like saying "If a one-sided stick does exist..." the statement alone is incoherent and while you can certainly make the statement, there can be no truth value to the statement.

 

[idav]

Ok I understand that, but if God's existence is even POSSIBLE, then God must exist. When dealing with the nature of necessity, all that is required is the minimum possibility. Once that is established, then it logically follows that what is possibly necessarily true is in fact necessarily true.



Sorry idav, but that won't work given the fact that the Modal Ontological argument is logically sound.

1. It is at least possible for a MGB (maximally great being) to exist.
2. If it is possible for a MGB to exist, a MGB must exist in some possible world.
3. If a MGB exists in some possible world, a MGB must exist in all possible worlds.
4. If a MGB exists in all possible worlds, a MGB must exist in this world.
5. Conclusion: A maximally great being exists in this world.

Now 2-5 just follows logically from 1. The only way out of this is for you to negate the first premise, which I don't think you can do. So as long as #1 is true, 2-5 just follows logically.

So as long as it is possible for God to exist, there can't be an "if God doesn't exist" scenario at which such a proposition can possibly be true. That is like saying "If a one-sided stick does exist..." the statement alone is incoherent and while you can certainly make the statement, there can be no truth value to the statement.

We dont know number one is possible, it may not even be necessary and we can only assume it is true. I could say its possible that god was wearing a pink tutu when he created the universe but it would also be possible that he not wearing a pink tutu, possible doesnt mean true unless you presume it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

We dont know number one is possible, it may not even be necessary and we can only assume it is true.

There is no possible world at which the number one doesn't exist, thus, the number 1 is a necessary truth (the concept).

I could say its possible that god was wearing a pink tutu when he created the universe but it would also be possible that he not wearing a pink tutu, possible doesnt mean true unless you presume it.

Right, but if I were to imagine YOU wearing a pink tutu every night before you go to bed, that would be contingent now, wouldn't it?

 

[Whiterain]

I just thought again at the delightful hilarity the world would be up if the first Man
presented himself. The sin. The mass sin that would happen. I mean these talks are the
delights of the rich but is common now. Damn what a massacre.

 

[egcroc]

I am not looking of a debate but an understanding of why people need to believe in a perfect God. Why do you feel god must be omni-anything.

From a few conversations I don't know if anyone can explain so I will also take your view on why you think people need a perfect god.

I once read on a christian apologetic website on the problem of hell and how can God send billions of people there, many of them good people, they said that "good" isn't good enough for God because He's perfect, and that no one is really innocent and all humanity deserves hell...

that's when I stopped reading, the way I see it, this is far from perfect, they make God sound more like a tyrannical, self-righteous moral monster....

 

[idav]

There is no possible world at which the number one doesn't exist, thus, the number 1 is a necessary truth (the concept).



Right, but if I were to imagine YOU wearing a pink tutu every night before you go to bed, that would be contingent now, wouldn't it?

Being maximal would be an unnessary additional property of said being. The conclusion ends up as absurd as the premise that such a being can exist. If god is not maximal then a maximal being is impossible as well as unnecessary not to mention logically absurd.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Being maximal would be an unnessary additional property of said being. The conclusion ends up as absurd as the premise that such a being can exist. If god is not maximal then a maximal being is impossible as well as unnecessary not to mention logically absurd.

A maximally great being is not a logically absurd concept. It doesn't defy logic and if you think it does I would like you to enlighten me on how. If the concept is logically coherent, then it must be possible, and if it is possible then it must be true in some possible world.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

A maximally great being is not a logically absurd concept. It doesn't defy logic and if you think it does I would like you to enlighten me on how. If the concept is logically coherent, then it must be possible, and if it is possible then it must be true in some possible world.

Yes god is possible in the worlds of many peoples' imaginations.

 

[idav]

A maximally great being is not a logically absurd concept. It doesn't defy logic and if you think it does I would like you to enlighten me on how. If the concept is logically coherent, then it must be possible, and if it is possible then it must be true in some possible world.

Just something being possible doesn't mean it must be true somewhere or in some time.

Is it true in a possible world? Only if it truly is a possible world. We don't know a maximal being is even possible. You start with the premise of a being and then start attributing power and magic with no basis for it.

It is possible that the universe does not have a creator or a maybe a creator without self-awareness.

The absurd logic has to do with being all powerful and being able to do contradictory things like existing in multiple realities at the same time.

 

[McBell]

I am not looking of a debate but an understanding of why people need to believe in a perfect God. Why do you feel god must be omni-anything.

From a few conversations I don't know if anyone can explain so I will also take your view on why you think people need a perfect god.

God needs to be a perfect omni-being simply because humans tend to want an absolute.

 

[Pegg]

I am not looking of a debate but an understanding of why people need to believe in a perfect God. Why do you feel god must be omni-anything.

From a few conversations I don't know if anyone can explain so I will also take your view on why you think people need a perfect god.

the English word “perfect” comes from the Latin prefix 'per', meaning “throughout,” “thoroughly,” or “completely,” plus the verb 'facere', meaning “to do or make.”
So, something that is “perfect” is something that is ‘completely made or finished, not lacking in essential parts and not defective.’

When God creates something, he makes it thoroughly and completely so that its not defective.

And it is also said of him that he is perfect because he is not defective in any way. Everything he does, he does properly.

 

[McBell]

What you are failing to realize is, when we speak of God we are speaking of something that is by definition a necessary being. We don't know whether God exist with 100% absolute certainty, but if such a being DID exist, it would exist as a necessary being. The OP was a question about God's perfection...which would be a necessary attribute of a necessary being if this being does actually exist.

And the other question is...do we have reasons to believe that such a being does in fact exist...and based on the soundness of the Modal Ontological argument...yes.

By YOUR definition of god, perhaps.
Not by the overwhelming majority of definitions of god I have heard over the decades.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes god is possible in the worlds of many peoples' imaginations.

True, but it is also possible for God to exist as a living reality, which is beyond peoples imaginations.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Just something being possible doesn't mean it must be true somewhere or in some time.

If God exists, he would exist as a necessary truth. It isn't possible for a necessary truth to be possible, but untrue. If it is possible, it must be true.

Is it true in a possible world? Only if it truly is a possible world. We don't know a maximal being is even possible.

Thats why I asked you to point out why the concept of such a being is logically incoherent. That is the only way to determine whether or not such a being exists. Does the concept of such a being defy logic? The answer is no. So therefore, such a being's existence is at least possible.

You start with the premise of a being and then start attributing power and magic with no basis for it.

But that is besides the point, I can attribute any power or magic I want, but either such a being exist, or it doesn't exist. How I describe it has no barren on the truth value of whether or not such a being exist.

It is possible that the universe does not have a creator or a maybe a creator without self-awareness.

Not so fast. It isn't possible that the universe have a creator. This is due to the fact that an eternal universe defies logic, and a self creating universe also defies logic. But a First Cause (Creator) doesn't defy logic, so it is at least possible, and all possible necessary truths must be actually true.

The absurd logic has to do with being all powerful and being able to do contradictory things like existing in multiple realities at the same time.

Well if you are all powerful, why wouldn't you have the "power" to exist in multiple realites at the same time? That is the neat thing about omnipotence, being able to do all sorts of cool things without defying logic, which it doesn't.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

By YOUR definition of god, perhaps.
Not by the overwhelming majority of definitions of god I have heard over the decades.

I am making the case for a maximally great being. Any other definition of God is not necessary, in terms of the essence of its being.