Why would an all powerfull being want or need?

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:

Your assumption and presupposition is that God is empirically definable like a rock or tree. He is not.

I am saying like any claim, having a demonstrable falsifiable model based on prior data is paramount, otherwise all you have is a naked assertion. And thats what makes believing absurd things so easy, because people like the feeling it gives them.

Since as you say here, "God is not empirically definable" YOUR WORDS, not mine. Why should I believe a naked assertion? Because you by fiat claim your god is real? Stand in line, other people have other god(s) that they cant empirically demonstrate either yet you don't blindly buy their claims.

My bad. I thought you asked about perfect and all powerful.

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 359

Quote:

Your argument is the gap of tautology. "If I were perfect it would make sense to me to not create, therefore God doesn't make sense, hence He doesn't exist"

Want and need, for the last time, mean that god needs/wants something that it does not already have. This means it is not perfect. A god with a need or a want is not perfect. Therefore a perfect god who created the universe does not exist

Quote:

However this god would definitely express or exhibit a demonstration of that infinite power with perfection. This could constitute a need fulfilled. Not that there is lack but rather that there is an abundance that requires demonstration in order for "all power" to be actualized. This is a positive need in that all power must be demonstrated in order for all power to exist in completion. Thus the possession of all power is not complete until the need for demonstration is fulfilled. Once demonstrated this god is now all powerful.

Saying that a perfect power needs to be demonstrated in order for it to be complete is contradictory since this power has to meet a need to fullfil itself. Hence, it is not perfect. A perfect power would need no reason to exercise itself in the creation of humanity or anything because it would have nothing to prove to anything. It would only be complete in OUR terms. When we have power, we say we sould do something with it in order for it to matter to us. This is called A WANT.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Cygnus wrote:

Want and need, for the last time, mean that god needs/wants something that it does not already have. This means it is not perfect. A god with a need or a want is not perfect. Therefore a perfect god who created the universe does not exist

Well God certainly doesn't lack anything and He is indeed perfect. God's act of creating in and of itself doesn't imply lack or gap at all. Why would it? The bible states that God created for His pleasure. I can be content, complete, and pleased (lacking in nothing) and simply turn my attention to any new focus that I desire to focus upon and be equally content with pleasure. If God chooses to exercise His power and perfection to His pleasure then He is free to do so without a need or want present.

Cygnus wrote:

Saying that a perfect power needs to be demonstrated in order for it to be complete is contradictory since this power has to meet a need to fullfil itself. Hence, it is not perfect.

A silent and still hydroelectric dam is complete but is not completing it's self intended purpose. Neither is a battery on a shelf or a laptop in the attic. The use and demonstration of it's power is a natural demonstration and completion of it's purpose. The dam is pleased and fulfilled to have water flowing through it and generating power as intended.

Cygnus wrote:

1) A perfect power would need no reason to exercise itself in the creation of humanity or anything 2) because it would have nothing to prove to anything.

1) A perfect power has no reason to provide you with a reason. It is a perfect power who chooses by His will and pleasure to do His will and pleasure. That is not a lack. That is God's joy manifested.
2) Why are you assuming a motive of proving one self and projecting that upon God? What makes you think that creating necessitates "proving something"?

Cygnus wrote:

It would only be complete in OUR terms. When we have power, we say we sould do something with it in order for it to matter to us. This is called A WANT.

Again you seem to be projecting your thoughts as though they should be God's thoughts. You propose that if we had this power then therefore every persons feelings universally are that, 1) "we should do something with it " and that the motive of what we "should do" is intended 2) "in order for it to matter to us" or take a place of significance in our view of self and self importance.

A perfect all powerful entity would not debate Himself as to should's and should not's. Neither would this perfect being have a want or need to "have anything matter" to Him. I'm suggesting to you, as I suggested in my first post, that this is a humanist view of self-centricity that expects others to exhibit a mirror image of their own personal thoughts to exalt oneself from a seat of pride and conceit.

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9362

Missionary wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:

Your assumption and presupposition is that God is empirically definable like a rock or tree. He is not.

I am saying like any claim, having a demonstrable falsifiable model based on prior data is paramount, otherwise all you have is a naked assertion. And thats what makes believing absurd things so easy, because people like the feeling it gives them.

Since as you say here, "God is not empirically definable" YOUR WORDS, not mine. Why should I believe a naked assertion? Because you by fiat claim your god is real? Stand in line, other people have other god(s) that they cant empirically demonstrate either yet you don't blindly buy their claims.

My bad. I thought you asked about perfect and all powerful.

Quote:

My bad

Did you purchase your "bad" at Wal Mart? Do you have a receipt for this "bad".

You admit you have no evidence for your god, so we cant even get to "perfect" in any case. It is merely something you bought that some goat herders spread a long time ago that had followers who effectively marketed this fairy tale you buy today.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

So then you are or are not interested in discussing your OP and my replies?

Why change the topic from:

A generic perfect and all powerful being and it's alleged need or want to be the center of attention

To:

Walmart purchases, uncaused cause, God of the bible, proof of existence prior to discussion of perfect and all powerful, or goat herders?

I mean, certainly you're within your right to not discuss anything you find unmanageable, I was simply in hopes of witnessing an actual Master of Logic in action.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Allow me to quote the OP:

Brian37 wrote:

Now, this goes out to the theists. I don't want you talking about your particular god. I want you to strictly address the concept of "all powerful" and "perfect". Please focus only on those concepts when answering the following.

Why would an all powerful god want or need to be the center of attention? When you order food at a restaurant and after eating it you don't feel anything needed to be changed, you describe it as "perfect".

The words want or need show a deficit. If god has no deficits then it should not want or need anything.

Now I’ll restate my reply and [extract my personal God] in order to keep the reply generic as per the OP:

Missionary wrote:

[Consider the possibility that the problem may be a limitation of humanist thinking. Man is naturally self centric first and foremost, and as a result words like want and need become internalized. We think of them as "What more do I want for necessity and/or pleasure" or, "What need would I like to be fulfilled?" If we can jettison that type of definition we may have something.

Sticking to your criteria of all-powerful (possesses infinite power) and perfect (absolute completion, whole purity, free from flaw and defect) a god would indeed have no need or want from the humanist view per se. However this god would definitely express or exhibit a demonstration of that infinite power with perfection. This could constitute a need fulfilled. Not that there is lack but rather that there is an abundance that requires demonstration in order for "all power" to be actualized. This is a positive need in that all power must be demonstrated in order for all power to exist in completion. Thus the possession of all power is not complete until the need for demonstration is fulfilled. Once demonstrated this god is now all powerful.

Therefore, in order for the need to be fulfilled there must exist a want for the need. The want is also a positive in that it too is not lacking but is a positive exertion to actuate the need to complete all power. This is the execution and exhibition of all power from the seat of perfection denoting infinite completeness of self: all powerful and perfect.

[snip]

How many different descriptions would you receive for beauty? Politics? Society or culture? [extract my personal God]

[snip]

Your argument is the gap of tautology. "If I were perfect it would make sense to me to not create, therefore God doesn't make sense, hence He doesn't exist"
Here's your argument:
P1) If he needs you to worship him
P2) If he "wants" you to worship him
P3) Where P1 or P2 are true, that is a gap
P4) a gap means the claim of "perfect" is a flaw

C1) 1, 2 are true which means 3 is true proving 4 is true.
C2) There is no God-If god is flawed then why call it god?

Here's the problem with your argument:
1) you have not defined need or want.
2) you assert that need or want is a gap as inferring unmet necessity, missing substance, or incomplete being without evidence.
3) that a flaw exists based on assumption a gap exists based on assumption of word definition projected and applied to God.

[snip]

Well (IT) [extract my personal God] certainly doesn't lack anything and (IT) is indeed perfect. (IT) 's act of creating in and of itself doesn't imply lack or gap at all. Why would it? (IT) [extract my personal God] created for (IT)’s pleasure. I can be content, complete, and pleased (lacking in nothing) and simply turn my attention to any new focus that I desire to focus upon and be equally content with pleasure. If (IT) chooses to exercise (IT)’s power and perfection to (IT)’s pleasure then (IT) is free to do so without a need or want present.

A silent and still hydroelectric dam is complete but is not completing it's self intended purpose. Neither is a battery on a shelf or a laptop in the attic. The use and demonstration of (IT)’s power is a natural demonstration and completion of it's purpose. The dam is pleased and fulfilled to have water flowing through it and generating power as intended.

1) A perfect power has no reason to provide you with a reason. It is a perfect power who chooses by (IT)’s will and pleasure to do His will and pleasure. That is not a lack. That is (IT)’s joy manifested.
2) Why are you assuming a motive of proving one self and projecting that upon (IT)? What makes you think that creating necessitates "proving something"?

Again you seem to be projecting your thoughts as though they should be (IT)’s thoughts. You propose that if we had this power then therefore every persons feelings universally are that, 1) "we should do something with it " and that the motive of what we "should do" is intended 2) "in order for it to matter to us" or take a place of significance in our view of self and self importance.

A perfect all powerful entity would not debate (IT)self as to should's and should not's. Neither would this perfect being have a want or need to "have anything matter" to (IT). I'm suggesting to you, as I suggested in my first post, that this is a humanist view of self-centricity that expects others to exhibit a mirror image of their own personal thoughts to exalt oneself from a seat of pride and conceit.

If you are unable or unwilling to reply to my rebuttal of your OP that is indeed your right. However, I have [extracted my personal God] out of the equation in an attempt to rebut the OP on the generic basis as you had originally intended. My reply stands as generic.

Should you not reply or choose to reply with more Walmart receipts of goat herders, I will assume you have withdrawn your OP in light of my unanswerable rebuttal.

With all due respect Cygnus, your esoteric extrapolation of Brian's OP nearly derailed (by my biting) my interest in walking through Brian's claim and what Brian thinks as opposed to what you think Brian thinks.. I will only be able to discuss this matter with Brian and what Brian thinks should Brian choose to continue.

Brian?

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9362

Quote:

Thus the possession of all power is not complete until the need for demonstration is fulfilled. Once demonstrated this god is now all powerful.

If you can't understand the flaw in this, you will never understand it and I am wasting my time and yours.

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 359

Quote:

Well God certainly doesn't lack anything and He is indeed perfect. God's act of creating in and of itself doesn't imply lack or gap at all. Why would it? The bible states that God created for His pleasure. I can be content, complete, and pleased (lacking in nothing) and simply turn my attention to any new focus that I desire to focus upon and be equally content with pleasure. If God chooses to exercise His power and perfection to His pleasure then He is free to do so without a need or want present.

Pleasure is rooted in the word WANT. God can't exercise something without want of doing something for something that is grounded in his want of doing something.

I'll wait while your brain explodes.

Quote:

A silent and still hydroelectric dam is complete but is not completing it's self intended purpose. Neither is a battery on a shelf or a laptop in the attic. The use and demonstration of it's power is a natural demonstration and completion of it's purpose. The dam is pleased and fulfilled to have water flowing through it and generating power as intended.

This is a bad comparison. Dams and batteries are inanimate objects that have no want to be used. People want and need to use them. HOW THE HELL CAN A DAM BE PLEASED!?

Is this a 'god dam'?

And tell me if god is the ultimate truth and purpose of everything, then how can he have a higher purpose for his power to fullfil?

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:

Thus the possession of all power is not complete until the need for demonstration is fulfilled. Once demonstrated this god is now all powerful.

If you can't understand the flaw in this, you will never understand it and I am wasting my time and yours.

I think you see clearly that your claim fails and now you just don't want to address it. That's your right to withdraw.

However I will say, to hold an expectation that a perfect and all powerful entity would remain in a frozen state of inaction is completely illogical in that perfection and omnipotence have purpose in which action is a natural completion. IT would fail if IT's self intended purpose for perfection and omnipotence were left unmet. Otherwise, it may be perfect but all power would be unused, wasted, and of no purpose. It's purpose is not complete until it is exercised.

By your logic a seed is perfect and fails when it sprouts. A stem is a failure when it blooms. A fish fails when it swims. Your claim is that IT fails if it moves, speaks, or exerts any detectable external action of any kind. Not only is this a ridiculous claim, it's a ridiculous expectation and would represent a contradiction.

The cause of action is purpose and completion, not need, want, lack or gap. IT's desire and pleasure is a continuous stream of perfect action.

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9362

Your analogies defy you every word you utter.

"God" is not a growing thing like a "stem" or a "blossem". If that is the way you view "God" then you, have your own individual interpretation. Like I said, ask every believer what |"god" is and you will get a different answer every time.

I have to admit, just when I think I have seen it all.

Why would a "god" need to "blossem"?

You are making this crap up as you go along rather than consider it is merely a claim you like believing.

Quote:

IT's desire and pleasure is a continuous stream of perfect action.

AGAIN, why would a perfect being who is a "stream of perfect action" DISIRE ANYTHING|? If it is and has always been perfect WHY would it "bloom" or start out as a stem. Babies start out as cells and then grow into adults. Are you claiming your god is a baby? Well the god of the bible certainly acts like one when people don't kiss his ass.

If it desires something it must feel it is missing something. If it is not missing anything why would it want superflous things it doesnt need?

YOU merely like the idea of a super hero, that is what is really going on in your head, the sooner you realize that the sooner you wont have to be embarrassed with your backpedaling ambiguous apologetics.

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 359

Quote:

A silent and still hydroelectric dam is complete but is not completing it's self intended purpose. Neither is a battery on a shelf or a laptop in the attic. The use and demonstration of it's power is a natural demonstration and completion of it's purpose. The dam is pleased and fulfilled to have water flowing through it and generating power as intended.

Are you suggesting that god has a higher purpose than itself?

Quote:

1) A perfect power has no reason to provide you with a reason. It is a perfect power who chooses by His will and pleasure to do His will and pleasure. That is not a lack. That is God's joy manifested.
2) Why are you assuming a motive of proving one self and projecting that upon God? What makes you think that creating necessitates "proving something"?

1.)I don't need this perfect power to provide me with a reason. It is self evident that it has a reason already. He does stuff for pleasure. THIS, FOR THE LAST FREAKING TIME, IS CALLED A WANT!

2.)I use this motive of 'poving oneself' because you seem to create the need for god to do this in saying that a manifestation of a perfect power is required for that power to be perfect. Why would it feel a need to do this?

Quote:

Again you seem to be projecting your thoughts as though they should be God's thoughts. You propose that if we had this power then therefore every persons feelings universally are that, 1) "we should do something with it " and that the motive of what we "should do" is intended 2) "in order for it to matter to us" or take a place of significance in our view of self and self importance.

That's funny. I was just accusing you of doing the same thing. Looks like you didn't get the message. You, without realizing it, were doing this very same thing by saying that god needs to do something with his power simply because it's there. I was saying that since god was not human, he would not feel these same desires to exercise power that humans feel when they have power. You completely misunderstood my original message.

Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 3:49 am

May I ask why people are feeding a troll?

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9362

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

May I ask why people are feeding a troll?

Because I lost my navel lint collection and I have nothing better to do? Rolling Eyes

Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 5:38 am

maybe your new cat ate it.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Brian37 wrote:

Your analogies defy you every word you utter.

"God" is not a growing thing like a "stem" or a "blossem". If that is the way you view "God" then you, have your own individual interpretation. Like I said, ask every believer what |"god" is and you will get a different answer every time.

I have to admit, just when I think I have seen it all.

Why would a "god" need to "blossem"?

You are making this crap up as you go along rather than consider it is merely a claim you like believing.

Quote:

IT's desire and pleasure is a continuous stream of perfect action.

AGAIN, why would a perfect being who is a "stream of perfect action" DISIRE ANYTHING|? If it is and has always been perfect WHY would it "bloom" or start out as a stem. Babies start out as cells and then grow into adults. Are you claiming your god is a baby? Well the god of the bible certainly acts like one when people don't kiss his ass.

If it desires something it must feel it is missing something. If it is not missing anything why would it want superflous things it doesnt need?

YOU merely like the idea of a super hero, that is what is really going on in your head, the sooner you realize that the sooner you wont have to be embarrassed with your backpedaling ambiguous apologetics.

Blossoming isn't a need. It is a fulfillment of intended purpose and design. If a seed did not stem and blossom it would be a failure; it's species would be extinct. The continuous "stream of perfect action" is an intended purpose by design which is exactly what we see in our universe.

You stated, "If it desires something it must feel it is missing something." is an assumption of emotional need or vacancy on your part. A desire is a purposed intention expressed as an emotive value for an action in course of execution.

Purpose does not automatically require want or need. Fulfillment of purpose does however require action as an object or end to be attained. Action requires motion. Fulfillment, action, and motion to the end of an intended purpose can apply to anything IT sets it's self-intended purpose to be including but not limited to creating. Whatever action pleases the desire of IT to do or be is NOT a need or want from a position of lack, gap, or imperfection.

Another assumption and projection of underlying motivation on your part: "If it is not missing anything why would it want superflous things it doesnt need?" Want or need are not the ONLY explanations by which reason could be found for IT creating. IT creates out of self-intended design and purpose to the extent of IT's desire or pleasure which do not serve as indicators of lack, gap, or imperfection but of a being who possesses a cognizant and emotive nature.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore