A Perfect God Lacks Potential

[micksherlock]

A Perfect God Lacks Potential

 

This is a bizarre thought I had on the way home from work, a time when I am plagued by many, possibly idiotic ideas. I was thinking about a saying I once heard; “The journey is more important than the destination,” meaning, it is more important to seek the truth, than to find it, or strive to be a better person, than actually be one. It is the effort which is important, the attempt to transform potential into actuality, which enunciates the beauty of potential, yet to be manifested.

 

This led me to consider whether in imperfection there lies perfection, or conversely to see that perfection lacks potential. If this is the case, then a perfect God would lack potential, for he/she would already be perfect and would thereby be lacking any potential.

 

Of course, this would not apply to the God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, for he is a god who makes mistakes (see Gen. 2; allowing a talking snake to corrupt his perfection) commits acts that he later regrets and grieves over (see Gen. 6:6; the Lord repented and was grieved about making mankind on the earth), feels remorse for things he has done (Gen. 8:21; God feels remorse for cursing the ground and wiping out all living things in flood), and attempts to do things, and fails (attempt to kill his mightiest prophet, Moses and fails, Ex. 4:24).

 

But if he was perfect, then he would lack potential, and in so lacking, be imperfect anyway, right?

 

 

I would love some feedback on this possibly insane reasoning.

[nebula]

It sounds like process theology. http://en.wikipedia....rocess_theology

[BMandeville]

I agree, and your line of reasoning is well-thought out. You're right, if we say, as Anselm of Canturbury maintained, that the Judeo-Christian god is "the most perfect being imaginable," then absolute perfection does indeed imply a lack of potential, which is basically the capacity for change. I don't know that I would say a lack of anything is by definition contradictory to the notion of perfection (although this gets hazy, because we haven't defined perfection and haven't examined its inherent subjectivity), because we could, after all, be talking about a lack of malicious intent or a lack of potential for the commission of evil. I would agree that it could be argued that a lack of anything could be seen as less than perfect, as evil acts may be necessary for ultimate good, but will concede that this is not consistent with the Christian god's characteristics of benevolence and omnipotence (which I think sums up "perfect" quite well in asserting the desire to only do good by means which do not require evil), and so I don't see the point of carrying things that far.

 

I usually just ask how a perfect being who lacks potential or capacity for change can create anything, as the process requires change. Further, how can a perfect being who knows no limitations create such self-limiting constructs such as space and time? In other words, it is our very existence and the nature of such which contradicts God's own existence and presumed qualities, provided creation is attributed to him. A perfect existence is self-assured and self-sufficient (and by extension, as I like to tell Christians, self-evident), requiring and desiring no change whatsoever.

 

I think we should clarify what "perfect" means in the everyday usage of the word versus its literal definition, whether or not it may be applied as an objective observation, and if such a characteristic may be used to describe metaphysical concepts such as God. Good topic! Hats off to you, my friend.

 

 

 

[micksherlock]

I agree, and your line of reasoning is well-thought out. You're right, if we say, as Anselm of Canturbury maintained, that the Judeo-Christian god is "the most perfect being imaginable," then absolute perfection does indeed imply a lack of potential, which is basically the capacity for change. I don't know that I would say a lack of anything is by definition contradictory to the notion of perfection (although this gets hazy, because we haven't defined perfection and haven't examined its inherent subjectivity), because we could, after all, be talking about a lack of malicious intent or a lack of potential for the commission of evil. I would agree that it could be argued that a lack of anything could be seen as less than perfect, as evil acts may be necessary for ultimate good, but will concede that this is not consistent with the Christian god's characteristics of benevolence and omnipotence (which I think sums up "perfect" quite well in asserting the desire to only do good by means which do not require evil), and so I don't see the point of carrying things that far.

 

I usually just ask how a perfect being who lacks potential or capacity for change can create anything, as the process requires change. Further, how can a perfect being who knows no limitations create such self-limiting constructs such as space and time? In other words, it is our very existence and the nature of such which contradicts God's own existence and presumed qualities, provided creation is attributed to him. A perfect existence is self-assured and self-sufficient (and by extension, as I like to tell Christians, self-evident), requiring and desiring no change whatsoever.

 

I think we should clarify what "perfect" means in the everyday usage of the word versus its literal definition, whether or not it may be applied as an objective observation, and if such a characteristic may be used to describe metaphysical concepts such as God. Good topic! Hats off to you, my friend.

 

Wow

I agree, and your line of reasoning is well-thought out. You're right, if we say, as Anselm of Canturbury maintained, that the Judeo-Christian god is "the most perfect being imaginable," then absolute perfection does indeed imply a lack of potential, which is basically the capacity for change. I don't know that I would say a lack of anything is by definition contradictory to the notion of perfection (although this gets hazy, because we haven't defined perfection and haven't examined its inherent subjectivity), because we could, after all, be talking about a lack of malicious intent or a lack of potential for the commission of evil. I would agree that it could be argued that a lack of anything could be seen as less than perfect, as evil acts may be necessary for ultimate good, but will concede that this is not consistent with the Christian god's characteristics of benevolence and omnipotence (which I think sums up "perfect" quite well in asserting the desire to only do good by means which do not require evil), and so I don't see the point of carrying things that far.

 

I usually just ask how a perfect being who lacks potential or capacity for change can create anything, as the process requires change. Further, how can a perfect being who knows no limitations create such self-limiting constructs such as space and time? In other words, it is our very existence and the nature of such which contradicts God's own existence and presumed qualities, provided creation is attributed to him. A perfect existence is self-assured and self-sufficient (and by extension, as I like to tell Christians, self-evident), requiring and desiring no change whatsoever.

 

I think we should clarify what "perfect" means in the everyday usage of the word versus its literal definition, whether or not it may be applied as an objective observation, and if such a characteristic may be used to describe metaphysical concepts such as God. Good topic! Hats off to you, my friend.

,

 

Wow, Thank you for your brilliant reply. You just took the raw materials of my idea and made a three course meal. Excellent. I may need to pick your brains about such issues in the future. You have given me some delicious food for thought. Thanks.

[micksherlock]

It sounds like process theology. http://en.wikipedia....rocess_theology

It sounds like process theology. http://en.wikipedia....rocess_theology

 

Thanks for the link, I'll look into this.