How could a perfect creator being exist?

I don’t know if your original premise, that something perfect does not need anything, is correct. I’m perfect, but still like to share my life w/my partner ~

Your question made me instantly think of the quotation widely attributed to Epicurus. It is disputed, but he is quoted as saying, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

To that and in a more direct answer to your question, I would only add that a perfect being would need to create in order to be known. It needs no other reason.

That reminds me of another quotation from Carl Sagan. “We are the universe experiencing itself. That’s why we’re here.”

Yes indeed the perfect is in need of nothing ,
Thus there is no need to create anything for himself per se but yet he is a creator.

This is how it goes, God deserve the title creator because he has created himself.
And since creating himself, he ceases to create any other thing.

What we as human perceives as creation, was put into motion by God as his first and last act to serve as representation of who he is.

God has set himself the most noble of any task , which is accomplishes in and by His rest. The task is the replication of perfection.

Now as a human you see things as good and as evil, so as to fully understand what perfection is and how it works, so that you may know what is required to cause it to be accomplished.

God is not perturbed however, that with the wisdom to know good and evil, men uses this knowledge to seek to accomplish their own agenda, foreign to what He is intending ultimately and seemingly bring his name in disrepute..

That kind of action is not only expected, but fully intended, for by it the purposes of God will be accomplished.
If it was not so, his noble task would be fruitless.

Or perhaps a perfect being would try to create a perfect world out of His perfect image. It seems logical that if you’re perfect and all-powerful that you’d want to test yourself to see if you can produce more perfect beings or creations.

Doesn’t.

I don’t agree with your assertion that creation must be due to an unmet need.

It couldn’t.

We subconsciously need a perfect creator to help assuage our fear of death. This also gives us a scapegoat when shit doesn’t go right. Horrible tornado? We pissed off the creator. Crops withered in the field this year? We didn’t give a worthy enough sacrifice to the creator. Lost an infant to crib death? It was the creator’s will.

This takes a lot of pressure off of us in terms of personal responsibility and gives us someone to blame other than ourselves.

@Blondesjon That’s an interesting take since most Christians associate with the Republican party which is all about personal responsiblity. I wonder why a Christian would have a fear of death anyway, that’s the good part of this mess.

@KNOWITALL . . . That’s my point. Folks need a perfect creator that promises everlasting life because nobody wants to just be dead when they die. It’s kind of like a metaphysical blankie.

As far as mixing God and politics, well, we’ve all seen how well that works.

If you were perfect, you would exist in a needless, flawless, absolute state. You would want for nothing, desire nothing. To create is to have a desire to create. So how could you be perfect?
Bear in mind, I am not asking this to incite a “God exists/doesnt exists” war. People believe in all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. I personally believe it is wrong to murder people, and dont feel any need to question such a belief based on nihilistic meanderings to the contrary, after all. Just kicking this theological/philosophical can around some is all.

@hogbuttons . . . You are trying to apply a word, created and defined by humans, to a non-human spiritual concept, uh, defined by humans.

@Blondesjon Well….. yeah….
All in the hypothetical, of course. IF said being existed (universal godhead, Brahman/Paramatman), could it be both perfect and a creator. Some have said that my assumption that creation does not require need is interesting, and I would like to know why/how they think that is so?

Perhaps creation is a byproduct of perfection? A natural extension so to speak?

@hogbuttons Welcome to Fluther and thanks for a fascinating question.

A being that was perfect would possess both absolute omniscience and absolute omnipotence. Both are logically contradictory properties, and thus impossible. But I suppose that if we posit a plane where even logic does not exist, anything and everything is possible. And then we could have a perfect being who is love deliberately building a world where horrendous death and suffering are commonplace, childhood starvation is rampant, parasites eat the eyeballs out of third-world babies, and God is the ultimate good. Of course, if we posit this world of illogic, it’s equally possible that Wotan is supreme, or that Santa Claus created the Universe and rules it from a sleigh drawn by flying reindeer.

Interesting question. What if the creator was in a constant state of creating things? The core essence of its being is the act of creation. Then the act of creation would not be a change. To stop creating would be a change.

By way of analogy, a body in motion will remain in motion at a constant speed unless it is acted upon by an outside force.

@hogbuttons I own two dogs. I didn’t need to own them, but they needed somewhere to live (they are both animal rescue). I have created things for them, e.g. a spot in the backyard where they can get shade on a hot summer’s day. I did it, not because of an unmet need, but because I like making their lives better.

@Blondesjon It could be indeed!

@phaedryx True, but you did desire to do it, no? If something is perfect, can it truly desire for anything? Would it not be totally satisfied in and of itself? Or is that what perfection is at all, and my interpretation is wrong? Is perfection timelessly desiring and needing? Is the lack of desire and need really just a limitation that I am putting on a limitless concept?? (You are very noble for that btw, poor doggies, sad if your not human then its acceptable for you to suffer needlessly and nobody really cares much).

@ETpro In this “logicless” plane though, our ideas of morality, of what is good and bad, all of that would be subject to a different perspective of things. Machines of truth beyond our comprehension. Could pain and misery exist without being contrasted by joy and bliss?

@LostInParadise That is thinking outside the box! What a great answer, I had not considered that at all!

So many good thought out answers to such an arcane topic. Thank you everybody, you are all great such answerers. You have indeed expanded upon this in ways i could not have done thinking about it alone.

@hogbuttons I think that need and desire are different things.

To further my argument, if you had a being that was complete, self-sufficient, perfect, etc. that coexists with beings that have needs, I see no reason why that being would become imperfect by taking action for those beings.

I’m a theist and I’m on the side that this/these intelligence/s (up in the air on that one) are extremely powerful, but not omnipotent. Personally I feel that we may be part of a universal sentience, and experiencing life for it. There’s a difference between analyzing/thinking vs experience, and the Knowledge Argument (also known as Mary’s Room Paradox) emphasizes that point.

I’m on the side that if a supreme Mind exists that it’s not omnipotent nor omniscient, but rather continues to learn and experience through us. Many people will ask (including myself at one time) why does God let bad things happen to good people? Perhaps with a different take on what God really is, along with considering the Knowledge Argument, could answer that famous question.

Here’s an interesting take on creation, such as in Philipp Mainlander’s God. Apparently Mainlander’s God didn’t want to exist anymore, but couldn’t annihilate itself since It was an indestructable mind in spirit form. This God managed to finally annihilate itself through the creation of the universe, thus transforming itself from a sentient transcendental entity into a the matter that gave life to the universe. The death of God according to Mainlander was the beginning of life for us.

@hogbuttons You are doing such an admirable job arguing with yourself on my behalf that I wouldn’t think of interrupting you. :-)

Said in love. You obviously have a fine and inquisitive mind. I’m glad you decided to join our group.

@Paradox25 , Are you saying that God might make mistakes? If so, why should we consider his knowledge superior to our collective knowledge? It would certainly rule out blind obedience to any particular holy book.