What is the necessity for god or perfection to have a (radically) unchanging state?

Ok, perhaps some deeper explanation is required, (if we can get beyond lg's fallacious strawman).

We have a bowl of "perfect" strawberry ice cream, (sorry lg, I've hoisted it). By being "perfect", this ice cream can be said to have no needs - which, when put in better language, is to say that this ice cream depends upon nothing for it's state of existence.

The difference between an imperfect bowl of strawberry ice cream and a perfect bowl of strawberry ice cream is that the imperfect bowl depends upon a freezer in order to maintain its state of existence. In short: It needs a freezer.

The "perfect" bowl of strawberry ice cream by very definition does not need a freezer to maintain it's state of existence.

Does that ice cream however, desire a freezer? The answer can only be no given that a desire reflects a need which reflects a dependent. "I need oxygen" which is to say that I depend upon it for my state of existence. To say that I desire something, (e.g an iPod), is to equally reflect a need - in this case a continual healthy mental state.

Our ice cream sits all alone. Nothing else exists - not even 'time'. What we have is just pure perfection, no time, no needs, nothing required to maintain that state of existence and no mental need, (desire), for anything to take that unneeded job. Nothing happens - that's the only logical, rational, fact - regardless to how lg might whine strawmen.

The ice cream is not going to proceed in turning itself into vanilla, precisely because it is perfect as it is, (no need or desire).

What lg has to do, but will never bother, is explain the created existence of an entire material realm from nothing, creatures and stars and planets and atoms and pubic lice from an entity that has no needs or desires, isn't dependant upon anything and exists in a timeless state of pure, unarguable perfection.

Lg is in the middle of a strawman of her own creation. If she paid attention, this would go oh so much smoother.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ice cream is not regarded as a concsious entity; needs and desires are things we normally presume only conscious entities have; so it is not clear how ice cream can be compared to God.

One line that could be argued is that the perfection/imperfection of conscious entities is radically different from that of those that are not conscious.

It remains why an entity like God - given that He per definition owns and has everything - would do or will anything.
Perhaps His actions are illusiory.

In my threads, refrain from such name-calling.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was pointing out the fallacy that perfection must be measured on a needs/wants axis.

I used the example of eating to show that action does not necessarily result in an ontological change of state (being). And I mentioned love (the question about hell is a red herring) to explain how a person, or 'entity' if you wish, might still act even if all needs are met, perhaps especially because all needs are met, and that this is arguably more 'perfect' than something forced to be static by 'perfection'.

This seems to resolve the paradox between having nothing to add or subtract from an ontological state of being and that being accommodating - even welcoming - change in the eye of the beholder.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just found an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on some of the relevant points (such as the notion of immutability): Wainwright, William, "Concepts of God", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

[URL after December 2010: <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/concepts-god/>] (Winter 2010 Edition)]

 

That's what I keep telling lg but she seems adamant in using ice cream. Having said that, it's sufficient to point out her strawman and to point out the difference between having no needs, (not being dependant upon anything), or having them.

No, in either instance it only has scope in so far as needs, (being dependant), goes. Of course people can feel free to claim that a 'perfect' entity retains 'perfection' by having needs, (being dependant), but this negates all theology and doesn't make coherent, logical sense.

I'm unsure what you're reading, but there was no name calling in my statement. I pointed out that lg was arguing a strawman, (which she is). I further stated that this would go much smoother if she paid attention to what the discussion actually involves, (which isn't a needful entity choosing between two different perfect ice creams). It is essential to make mention of this for the sake of sanity and intelligent discussion.