Is It Possible for God to be Perfect?

Perfect God

Many theists claim that they believe in a god who is “perfect.” Of course, perfection is a very subjective term, liable to definition by every person who uses it. In order to avoid the interjection of such subjectivism into religious faith, it is probably best to accept the concept of “perfection” which has been handed down through the history of Christian theology for at least the past 1,500 years. This traditional concept of divine perfection can be very generally summarized as follows:

1. God is all-powerful (omnipotent).
2. God is all-knowing (omniscient).
3. God is all-good (omnibenevolent).

While various other attributes have been added to, and subtracted from, the notion of divine perfection, these three characteristics have remained solidly consistent. However, it is a very simple matter to demonstrate that these three traits (above) are mutually inconsistent, or inconsistent with other characteristics (such as human free-will) which are commonly considered important in Christian theology.

First, let us take a quick look at one example of mutual inconsistency between these three characteristics: If God is omnipotent, then God can do anything; however, if God is omnibenevolent, then God cannot sin. So how can a God be called “omnipotent” when he cannot do this one simple thing which comes so easily to humans? Conversely, if God can in fact sin (but chooses not to), then God is not, in fact, omnibenevolent. You cannot have your divine cake and eat it too.

Of course, this problem has received much lengthy attention in this history of religious philosophy, but this treatment should suffice for present purposes.

Second, consider the concept of free-will. It is interesting to note that “free-will” does not enter Christian theology until about 400 years after the death of Jesus, at the hands of a very important Christian philosopher name Saint Augustine (“Saint” was not his name, but rather a title conferred on him by the Catholic Church). Augustine was as important in shaping what today is known as “Christianity” as either Jesus or the Apostle Paul; he is an extremely influential figure in Christian thought.

Augustine was wrestling with the problem of evil when he stumbled upon Aristotle’s notion of free will (animus liber). This “problem of evil” is perhaps best summarized by the philosopher Epicurus (circa 250 B.C.E.) who said, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

This problem is a serious challenge to the notion of Christian perfection (such “perfection,” by the way, is not Biblical, but was adopted by St. Augustine from the writings of Plato and Plotinus). Augustine thought he found a solution to the problem of evil when he introduced Aristotle’s notion of “free-will” which gets God off the hook for the existence of moral evil, and places that burden squarely on the shoulders of the human being, who was presumably created by this perfect deity.

A micro-essay On Moral Motivation

But note that, if God is omniscient and knows all things past, present, and future, it follows that God knows everything each one of us will think, do, or say from the moment we are born to the moment of our death. Moreover, God also knows where we will end up (heaven or hell), and he has always known this, since before the world was created. Of course, God’s knowledge is always true, or it wouldn’t be knowledge, so it is not in our power to change anything that god knows – if we could, he wouldn’t be all-knowing.

So, if God already knows everything, including our destination in the afterlife, and if it is not in our power to make anything God knows false, then how can we be free?

I point out these problems only in order to demonstrate that the concept of a “perfect God,” at least as the concept has been traditionally defined in Christian theology, is self-contradictory nonsense. Hence, the notion of a fallible God becomes more and more interesting. It is worth noting that God, within the Jewish understanding, is indeed fallible, and this is demonstrated again and again in the Torah (the first five books of the “Old Testament”). See for example Exodus 32:1-14.

In the passage just cited, God threatens to destroy the Hebrews at the foot of Mt. Sinai (and to make a great nation come forth from Moses, as he did with Abraham) because the Hebrews had made the Golden Calf. Moses engages in argument with God, and convinces God not to destroy the Hebrews. Now I ask, how would it be possible, not only for a mere human to engage in debate with a perfect deity, but for the human to prevail in that debate? If there’s an answer to that question, please let me know.

My point in this microessay has been merely to illustrate that, by insisting on a “perfect” deity, one is not necessarily doing God any favors.

Why would an Imperfect Deity be Preferable to a Perfect One?

The “omni-trifecta” of divine perfection [omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence] is a logical box that the Christian God cannot escape without logical contradiction, most of which involves self-contradiction. A perfect deity would be all-powerful but unable to sin, all-good but unable to eliminate evil, all-knowing but we (humans) are free to determine our own fates. That last contradiction is what motivated Martin Luther [Lutheranism], John Calvin [Presbyterianism], and St. Augustine [Catholicism] to advocate predestination; it is also why John Wesley [Methodism] maintained that God has self-limited His own knowledge of the world, in order to make room for human free-will.

A flawed deity (similar to Wesley’s deity), might not know everything you were going to think, do, or say from the moment of your birth to the moment of your death and beyond. A flawed deity might not have known, even before creation, where your soul would end up for eternity. A perfect deity knows exactly that, and there is absolutely nothing in your power that you can do to make God wrong. If such a perfect deity knew a billion years ago that you’re going to hell, you could live like a saint and beg for forgiveness, but it wouldn’t do you one bit of good. God’s perfect knowledge cannot be made false – not even by God.

Ah! But once again, if God cannot make his own knowledge false, there’s another thing He cannot do. And if there is anything He cannot do, then He is not omnipotent, hence not perfect.

To free God of this logical box, one has two choices: 1) to maintain that the laws of logic do not apply to god; which, in turn, would entail that it is true that God exists, but it is also, and equally, true that God does not exist. Everybody gets to be right but nobody is satisfied. Or 2) maintain that god is in some respect imperfect; for example, God’s knowledge of the future is not absolutely complete or flawless. God can be wrong.

There is one more interesting theological advantage to a flawed deity. Suppose, for the moment, that the story of the battle of Armageddon and the Satanic enemy were true. If the outcome of this battle is already known, what’s the point? But a flawed deity, whose knowledge of the future is imperfect, could not be absolutely certain of the battle’s outcome. If the outcome of the battle is uncertain, it suddenly becomes perfectly clear why it is important for God to seek converts (i.e., “recruits”).

The great attraction that Judaism has for me lies in the fact that the Jewish God is imperfect in precisely this sense; he is almighty (can do what can be done) but not omnipotent (can do anything); he is wise but doesn’t know everything; he is just but sometimes his benevolence is a bit less than perfect. Moreover, humans can negotiate with an imperfect God and get a “better deal” (as Moses did on his first visit to Sinai [Exodus 3:10-14]), or argue with Him and actually win the debate (as Moses did on his second visit to Sinai [Exodus 32:7-14]).

An imperfect deity can also exhibit a “learning curve” as he comes to understand his own creation, which, to my mind, is the best explanation of the difference between the harsh deity of the Hebrews and the omni-forgiving God of Christianity. 

The burden of proof fallacy on existence of God

Of course atheists cannot prove that God doesn’t exist. They don’t need to; one cannot prove a negative proposition, i.e., a proposition of the form “X does not exist.”

For example, how would one prove that werewolves do not exist? Look for them and fail to find any? All that’s been done is demonstrate that none were found, not that they don’t exist.

This is called a “burden of proof fallacy.” There is NEVER any burden of proof on a negative proposition, because negatives cannot be proven; the burden of proof falls only to the positive claim.

Do not forget to drop a comment and share