Defending the Truth

This is what I get for taking philosophy while I'm a die-hard atheist.

God, by defenition, is the creator of heavens and earth. He is perfect and requires nothing. HOWEVER, if he created existence, then he required incentive. Incentive implies that he required something. However, by his very nature, he cannot need anything because he is already perfect. By it's very nature, this is a contradiction. The only way God could create the universe was if he had incentive to create it, but having incentive would be contradictory to his nature.

See, this is what happens when you think too much.

You say God has need of nothing, but that lack of need is only reckoned in the God that you do not believe in. I believe in God who does need.

He created all things for his pleasure. Pleasure is an incentive. And you see, take it further and God is love. Love is never love without need. In some form or another need is present in love.

And so God who IS love, created man to love, to have relationship with.

These are my little opinions and can readily be shot through, I am sure with any number of reasonable arguments. Still, I believe and that which I wrote comes from that belief.

OhDear

The same argument contradicts yours as one may say that something was needed to create the Earth, planets, or any type of matter...

I don't see how you come to this conclusion. Pleasure and doing something for this incentive connotates a need, or at least a desire. To want something is to signify to be incomplete. Perfect by definition is complete.

And why must love have need? I would say that, when talking in definitions of essences, singularities, Forms (as Socrates would put it), or the realm of the perfect (God), or whatever you want to call it; essential love would be completeness. I would not object, in the relevance of this discussion, that God would be the essence of love; because such would be a completeness of being fully loved. There is no need to be loved anymore if there is a completeness of love. But our concurrence on this point would lead to the logical absurdity of creation.


I'm just wondering if the materials of this creation came from nothing, or are we a part of God? The former signifies an inconsistency in the theory of theism (violation of theist logic 'something can't from from nothing'), and the latter of course would be inconsistent with the theory of a perfect God, as it would connotate that God is imperfect (as his alleged creation, undoubtedly imperfect, would be a part of him or 'it').

I don't see how that is a contradiction, nor do I see how that specific argument (need of first cause) is relevant to AntiThesis' argument.

We're talking about possible needs of God's, not the needs of man and God's alleged creation.

Nice. I myself am taking philosophy currently, and am very much enjoying it. Although I think I still find myself in the minority when it comes to my atheism and other philosophies (when the class was asked if people believe the 'mind' and the 'brain' are the same thing, only two people [out of possibly 40ish?] raised their hand...including me), it is still engaging and what I love to do. I am considering declaring my major in Philosophy, even when I know it's a dead market when it comes to jobs.

But I'd rather live in poverty and be happy than be rich and unfulfilled.

Not necessarily. I am saying that if the universe was created by a supreme being by necessity, then the being created it to fulfill some goal, but as a SUPREME being, there would be no goals, incentives, etc. As a perfect being, you'd be better off just existing.

It goes along witht he famous phrase, "If it's not broken, don't try to fix it."

I'm taking Philosophy, Politics, and Law. It's an original major that my school offers. It's fun, and I AM enjoying philosophy (moreso if it wasn't at 8:30 in the morning).