Can a Perfect God Have Wants/Desires & the Implications

[jgh7]

I read in other arguments that if God is perfect, then He must be without want or desire. For if He had want or desire, then it means that He is imperfect. My guess as to the reason is that having a want or desire entails that you will get satisfaction from attaining it, but getting satisfaction entails getting pleasure, and it should be impossible for a perfect God to get more pleasure than He already has.

A possible implication of this is:
If it is true that a perfect God cannot have want or desire, then the universe's existence entails that a perfect God does not exist. If God created the universe, then it means that He "wanted" or "desired" to create the universe, and thus is imperfect.

So this thread is to debate whether God can be perfect and still have wants and desires or not.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

A want implies a desire to obtain something in order to achieve some kind of psychological gratification. Achieving this something will result in a shift or change in the psychological state of the "wanter" after obtaining what is wanted. This implies two things
1. The wanter (God) desires and will undergo psychological change once what is wanted is obtained
2. The wanter requires something external in order to achieve this psychological state

A perfect entity would not undergo a psychological change (or any change for that matter) as a perfect entity ought to be in a perfect state at all times. So why would it desire a change? The fact that it desires change implies that the post-change is better than the pre-change, but how can something be better than an already perfect state?

If it were somehow possible for a perfect entity to undergo change without losing its perfection, why is it that the prerequisite for this change (that which is wanted) is external from the perfect entity as point 2 implies?

So no, it would not make sense for a perfect entity to want or desire

[theStudent]

I read in other arguments that if God is perfect, then He must be without want or desire. For if He had want or desire, then it means that He is imperfect. My guess as to the reason is that having a want or desire entails that you will get satisfaction from attaining it, but getting satisfaction entails getting pleasure, and it should be impossible for a perfect God to get more pleasure than He already has.

A possible implication of this is:
If it is true that a perfect God cannot have want or desire, then the universe's existence entails that a perfect God does not exist. If God created the universe, then it means that He "wanted" or "desired" to create the universe, and thus is imperfect.

So this thread is to debate whether God can be perfect and still have wants and desires or not.

In order to debate this, I would first have to be shown what perfection has anything to do with emotions.
Because as far as I know, it doesn't.

[Justin108]

I read in other arguments that if God is perfect, then He must be without want or desire. For if He had want or desire, then it means that He is imperfect. My guess as to the reason is that having a want or desire entails that you will get satisfaction from attaining it, but getting satisfaction entails getting pleasure, and it should be impossible for a perfect God to get more pleasure than He already has.

A possible implication of this is:
If it is true that a perfect God cannot have want or desire, then the universe's existence entails that a perfect God does not exist. If God created the universe, then it means that He "wanted" or "desired" to create the universe, and thus is imperfect.

So this thread is to debate whether God can be perfect and still have wants and desires or not.

In order to debate this, I would first have to be shown what perfection has anything to do with emotions.
Because as far as I know, it doesn't.

Perfection implies that there is nothing better than perfection. As some emotions are better than others (i.e it is better to be happy than to be sad), a perfect entity would have perfect emotion (the entity will always be as happy as possible). So as you can see, perfection can be applied to emotion

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 4 by Justin108]

Why is it better to be happy than sad? It may be preferable, but if a situation (external) is not favorable, sadness is the perfect reaction to that sad situation. If a person's child child is killed would it be "better" to react with happiness than sadness? Or would that not reflect some kind of mental or emotional problem (fault; read "imperfection") in the person that reacted inappropriately? A perfect God would react with the perfect emotion to any situation.

I agree that a perfect God would always be "as happy as possible" but the "as possible" would depend on the situation (external).

I propose a perfect God would always have perfect control of his emotions, and concede that He would never display negative emotions (such as envy), but that there is no logical reason why the ability to feel emotions should in itself be equated with "imperfection" or why the expresson "God is love" should be tantamount to an admission of imperfection.

So as you can see, perfection cannot be equated an inability to feel emotion.



* perfection meaning being complete, whole, without fault or error.

[Justin108]

Why is it better to be happy than sad.

There comes a point where every argument necessarily becomes circular. This is such a point. Asking me why it is better to be happy than to be sad is like asking me why 2 + 2 = 4. I cannot make any other argument other than to repeat "because 2 + 2 = 4"

It may be preferable, but if a situation (external) is not favorable, sadness is the perfect reaction to that sad situation.

Sadness is the most *fitting reaction. I assure you, if something that would normally make us sad would make us happy instead, then we would be happy about it (obviously). The only reason "sadness" is ever more fitting is because if you were smiling at a funeral, you would just end up making other people sad. So your one instance of happiness results in a greater instance of sadness. That is why it is sometimes more fitting to be sad, as happiness would result in a greater amount of total sadness. It is then a "greater good" to be sad just as it is a "greater good" to kill a madman with a gun. As long as your happiness does not make other people sad, it is always better to be happy.

If your wife's mother died, would you try to make her sad because it is better to be sad in this situation? Or would you try to make her happy regardless of whether she has a reason to be sad? The fact that most would try to make a sad loved one happy indicates that it is better to be happy.

[Justin108]

I agree that a perfect God would always be "as happy as possible" but the "as possible" would depend on the situation (external).

Then this god is not perfect as
- It is restricted by "what is possible"
- It relies on the external

I propose a perfect God would always have perfect control of his emotions, and concede that He would never display negative emotions (such as envy)

The God of the Bible regularly displays wrath and jealousy

[JehovahsWitness]

A perfect entity would not undergo a psychological change (or any change for that matter) as a perfect entity ought to be in a perfect state at all times

Could define what you mean by "a perfect state at all times"

JW

[Justin108]

A perfect entity would not undergo a psychological change (or any change for that matter) as a perfect entity ought to be in a perfect state at all times

Could define what you mean by "a perfect state at all times"

A perfect state is a state that cannot be better. Whatever the exact definition of that state may be is irrelevant. What is important is the fact that this state would never change. A need for change implies that the current state is not good enough. If the current state is not good enough, then the current state is imperfect.

[JehovahsWitness]

It may be preferable, but if a situation (external) is not favorable, sadness is the perfect reaction to that sad situation.

Sadness is the most *fitting reaction. I assure you, if something that would normally make us sad would make us happy instead, then we would be happy about it (obviously).

So you seem to be saying that emotions (in this case sadness) are not "good" or "bad" but "fitting" or "appropriate" to the situation; and that even that appropriateness is objective. And that is my point.