Board index ‹ God

[Michael Keaton]

I have an argument to disprove a perfect god. While it doesn’t disprove god in general it frames him/her/them as learning with its creation.

Please tell me what premises don’t work and why you disagree with them!

P1: a true state of perfection would be static or in equilibrium. (Why would a being in a perfect state have any desires to do anything?)

P2: creation necessarily involves movement and/or change.

C: any existing god would be ever changing and therefore imperfect.

[jimwalton]

I think the flaw is in premise 1. Something can change without necessarily improving or desiring improvement. A dynamic world can be just as perfect as a static one. When magma moves under the Earth's crust, it's not imperfect or desiring improvement. It moves. Nothing wrong or imperfect about that.

[Michael Keaton]

But natural causes don’t have intention behind them whereas intelligent causes do. There has to be some reason god wanted to change things.

[jimwalton]

> But natural causes don’t have intention behind them whereas intelligent causes do.

This is debatable. If I'm thinking correctly, the intention behind biological evolution involves natural selection with the intent of specie enhancement and/or survival. Am I wrong in this?

> There has to be some reason god wanted to change things.

This seems to be a different emphasis than your argument. You claim to disprove a perfect god by showing that any god would be ever changing and therefore imperfect (disproving a perfect god). But now you are claiming "there has to be some reason god wanted to change things." So are we talking about god's nature (your argument), or about god making changes in "things" (a different argument)?

[Liaison]

> If I'm thinking correctly, the intention behind biological evolution involves natural selection with the intent of specie enhancement and/or survival. Am I wrong in this?

Very much so yes.

There is nothing that indicates intent in evolution.

Genetic changes that add a survival benefit are more likely to be replicated than ones which don't. It really is that simple.

[jimwalton]

About 3 years ago I had a conversation with Denis Alexander (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Alexander) about evolution. I asked him, "How can we understand purpose in biological and chemical processes?" One of things he said was, "You can’t derive “purpose” from biology, but biology is not purposelessness. Evolutionary biology doesn’t look like just rocks on the beach, strewn about randomly. In biology many designs converge. When you look at evolutionary history, it’s all highly organized. It’s not random in any sense. Evolution is not a chance process (Dawkins). It’s highly organized and not a chance process. 'Human beings were not a random accident but that something like a human is a predictable outcome of the evolutionary process: It’s more like solving a puzzle than writing a novel' (Conway Morris)."

He also said that mutations are not random. "Mathematically that’s not true. If you look at mutations where the genome is sequenced, every baby has approximately 60 new mutations. Those are not random—they come in clusters (they tend to occur at certain points in the genome far more than at other points). If they were random, they could come in any position, but they’re not. They’re not randomly generated.

"If you look at the periodic table, the elements all have properties that define what they can do. The whole of chemistry is highly organized (fine-tuned) and not really “'random”' at all.

So it seems to me that biology is not purposeless. I had a conversation with Dr. Sarah Bodbyl Roels, who said that biological evolution can neither acc irately be described as purposeful or purposeless: "It’s like the system has been gamed for success, as if life has been rigged to move forward against all obstacles. ... The system displays a clear advantage over sheer randomization."

I'm pretty sure it's not accurate to say, "It really is that simple."

[Michael Keaton]

Maybe I just lack an understanding of what gods nature would mean to you or anyone else. Just simply stating, if a god exists in an eternal state and then created something finite, then there would have been some change, movement, or decision to be made in order to accomplish this.

[jimwalton]

Your understanding is correct. If God exists in an eternal state and then created something finite, there would have to have been some change. That's correct. But (1) creation of something doesn't indicate a lack of perfection, (2) changes in nature don't equate to changes in God's nature, and (3) changes in nature don't disprove God's perfection.

[Michael Keaton]

The point is there had to be some reason behind creation. Weather god wanted to be worshiped or share his glory with us implies that he was not content with basking in his own glory.

[jimwalton]

This comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of God, and in addition has nothing to do with your original post or argument.

Yes, there was a reason behind creation. The Bible portrays creation as not only purposeful, but also good in the sense of using wisdom to bring order. But the fact that God created something else doesn't mean He was therefore imperfect.

God didn't create in order to be worshipped or to share His glory with us. And God certainly does not bask in his own glory. The Bible indicates God created us because He wanted more children, so to speak (Rom. 8.16-18, 29-30; Jn. 1.14, 12; Heb. 2.10). His love was complete and fulfilled in the Trinity, but He wanted more children to share His presence and His love with, not out of need but out of desire. His desire to create doesn't prove He's an imperfect God. Rather, it proves that loves is only love when expressed.