Christians claim that God is a perfect Being. In response to a recent post, a challenger raised a fair question: “So, why does this being that doesn't need anything need praise? A perfect being shouldn't want for anything, including the worship of its creation.”The question can be restated in the form of an argument denying that the God of the Bible is perfect. It would go like this:
• A perfect being has no needs and no wants.
• The God of the Bible needs and wants praise and worship.
• Therefore, the God of the Bible is not perfect.
Of course, a non-perfect “God” is a contradiction. Either he doesn’t exist or the real God is not him. Either way, the Christian loses.
The value in restating the question lies in the clarification it brings to the challenger’s assumptions. The syllogism set forth is logical. If in fact the God of the Bible needs and wants praise and worship, he could not rightly be viewed as perfect. The problem with the challenge is not the implied logic; no, the problem is that the assumption about God – that he has a need or desire for praise – is false. The God of the Bible has no such desire.
To see why, one must first spend a moment considering what “praise” and “worship” entail. To “praise” is to express approval or admiration. It derives from the verb “to prize,” or in other words, to highly value something. To “worship” derives from "worth" and means to revere or to adore. To “revere” means to regard with awe, an overwhelming feeling of fear or admiration produced by that which is grand, sublime or extremely powerful. These concepts all boil down to the same basic thought: praise and worship are a recognition and expression of awe in the presence of something great.
In considering praise and worship, two things are apparent:
1) To be meaningful, praise and worship must be freely given. Like love, praise or worship that is coerced by threat or by promise is of no value. One cannot be forced to admire or to feel awe.
2) Praise flows naturally from a recognition of greatness, even if I refuse to convey praise to the person I am admiring. For example, I may dislike the Blue Angels, but contemplating the great skill required to control high performance aircraft travelling inches apart at near supersonic speeds would cause me to feel awe; the performance of the pilots is worthy of praise, whether I like them or not. Similarly, I may dislike overpaid baseball players yet still admire the ability required to hit a curving ball travelling toward the batter at 90 miles per hour.
Recognizing what praise and worship involve, it is apparent that no leader – certainly not a perfect one – would demand it. It simply does not work this way. Review the pages of the Bible, and you will see that God does not demand praise and worship. Where those concepts are discussed, they are the words and exhortations of other people talking about God. But God does expect our worship and praise, for this conforms to the natural order of things.
This point bears emphasis. God knows the way things really are. His self assessment of his infinite perfection is accurate. Such perfection is worthy of praise and awe and reverence. For God to think otherwise would not be humility, but error. Having no limitations, God rightly expects that we view him in the correct way, the only way that conforms to reality. Consequently, whatever attributes a person finds worthy of praise, God possesses these in infinite measure. Getting one’s mind around the immensity of a perfect God – of the utter overwhelming greatness that he possesses – one would necessarily be overcome with awe, fear and reverence. Whether we "like" Him or rebel against Him, our urge to praise and worship Him flow naturally from a recognition of His greatness.
Now add to this the fact that God created us from nothing. He offers us the opportunity for union with Him, the chance to partake in His eternal loving relationship. When we really get our minds around the notion of what living eternally in the presence of perfection will be like, we will naturally, as a recognition of the proper order of things, gush praise and worship, and love. This is what the Bible is capturing when it speaks of the need – our need – to give praise and worship to God.
For those looking in from the outside, this will make little sense. They will mock our rituals as primitive or as a form of wishful thinking. For they do not yet understand. They have closed their minds to Godly things. Think of it this way: a person encounters a scuba diver for the first time. Watching him ascend a set number of feet and then stop for a period may seem quaint. The observer might imagine that the diver is saying prayers to the gods or partaking in some other primitive ritual. But the diver knows better. Understanding the workings of nature – that rising too quickly will result in that dangerous condition known as the bends – he periodically stops his ascent to comply with the natural order of things. It may seem like silly ritual to the uninformed, but to one with actual knowledge of the way things really are, it is indispensible.
So too with eternal matters. While our prayers and beliefs and rituals may seem foolish to the secular world, they are in fact a proper recognition of the “worth”ship of God. We bend our knees voluntarily to His sublime excellence, for it is the natural order of things.
Posts
32 comments:
I think that's the most circular piece of reasoning I've yet seen on here, and that's saying something
God clearly demands worship, in the ten commandments he says '8 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,
10 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.'
So, whilst you state that god doesn't demand worship, he DOES threaten dire punishments to those who don't worship him!
'You don't have to worship me, and I'd never ask such a thing of you, but if you don't I'll crush you, and your kids, and THEIR kids, just to make sure my message is clear' seems to be the way god is saying things are.
So, here we have a supposed perfect being, in a supposed revelation in his supposed holy book, saying that he'll be angry if he isn't worshipped!
We come back to the question - why would a perfect demand worship?
Why would a perfect demand worship? Because a perfect God knows what is best for His creation.
A screwdriver was created to screw/unscrew things. The creator might even give instructions to that effect. If used improperly (as a hammer or a pry bar) the screwdriver could be bent and rendered ineffective or ultimately useless for its original purpose. The instructions imply no NEED by the creator of the screwdriver to have their creation used properly.
That's so circular that it's eating its own tail, Tim.
Answer me this -
Is a perfect being ever wrong?
Alex B. - just saying it is circular doesn't make it so. What do you mean by circular in reference to my comment?
Unless you have a different definition of perfect, I think you know the answer. I suspect you want to tell me how God is mistaken, so go ahead.
Well, God did say he'd made a mistake just before the flood, didn't he? From what you're saying he never made a wrong move, so he knew from the beginning of time that he would wipe almost everyone out in a flood.
It's circular because you're using your idea of god as a perfect being as evidence for his perfection, which you then use to show that he's perfect.
Circular argument
God does not exist. Since God does not exist, there cannot be any valid evidence that shows his existence. Since there is no valid evidence, any presented evidence must be invalid. If all evidence presented is invalid. then one would be a fool to accept any of it. Since I am not a fool and have not been presented with valid evidence, the obvious conclusion is that there is no God.
That covers just about any atheistic conversation I have ever had that didn't devolve into Jr High type name calling.
Trent, good point. We are required when giving evidence to meet the atheists' presuppositions, and then the chain of "argument" that you laid out is the typical sequence.
Trent, I've never once encountered that used as an argument for the non-existence of gods.
Then either you haven't talked to a lot of people, or you are flat out lying.
Leave off the first statement as being unspoken. Recognize it now?
I'm sure even if you have never seen this argument used, many here will have many times.
Alex B. – you said, It's circular because you're using your idea of god as a perfect being as evidence for his perfection, which you then use to show that he's perfect.
Originally you asked, why would a perfect demand worship? So we are both starting with the assumption of a perfect being, even if yours is hypothetical. Your argument was that demanding worship requires a 'need' by the one demanding. That is not always the case. I wasn’t trying to prove God’s perfection. That was OUR initial position.
Did God Make a Mistake? answered here.
'Then either you haven't talked to a lot of people, or you are flat out lying.'
Neither of those statements are true Trent. Look me up on twitter (theealex) and youll see I talk to LOTS of atheists, not one of them, in their tweets, blog posts or emails have ever used the argument you present. Almost without exception the atheists I know argue using a knowledge of biology, history, and theology...most know their bible better than the majority of theists
I look forward to your apology
Tim, I don't accept that a perfect being is possible, I'm just using your version as an attempt to keep the discussion fair to you.
If you like I can stop, and insist that you first prove your god exists before we start considering his perfection, or otherwise.
Hey Alex, I fully understand that you do not believe in God and when we discuss a perfect Being, you are using "my version." It IS only fair, but let's be honest, you are trying to prove "my version" fails to meet certain criteria, so it's not out of some duty to fairness.
You are the one making the truth claim that you "don't accept that a perfect being is possible."
I could just as easily say to you, "If you like I can stop, and insist that you first prove that a perfect being is impossible before we start considering that He made mistakes, or otherwise." But I won't.
The evidence I give for the existence of God is here on our website. These evidences in their most robust forms are proof enough for me (along with other evidences) that the God of the Bible is real.
Alex, what would be evidence enough for you to prove that God existed?
Trent - I am sorry that your posts seem to be continually trapped in our SPAM filter. I will try to release them as soon as I can and figure out why they are being trapped at all.
Great posts BTW Trent and thanks to EVERYONE and I do mean everyone for their participation here.
Perhaps, I didn't word that properly.
Although I lack belief* in the fact that you have never heard this argument, I cannot show that your statement is deliberately untrue.
-------------------
*Not to be confused with actively believing that you have heard it, as I am told that a lack of belief is not the same as active disbelief.
Tim, it only seems to happen when I use the IE9 Beta. Other platforms (Google Chrome or the Safari on my iTouch)seem to go through fine.
Blogger itself gets picky, I have had my own comments in the spam filter! Other times, people I am conversing with suddenly get snagged. It's interesting that Trent (who shares a name with one of my favorite Louis L'Amour characters) has narrowed down which browser acts up. For the record, I use Firefox almost exclusively.
"I could just as easily say to you, "If you like I can stop, and insist that you first prove that a perfect being is impossible before we start considering that He made mistakes, or otherwise." But I won't."
We can if you like! For a being to be perfect it has to want for nothing, and be incapable of making mistakes, it also has to be all powerful.
So, if there is a single error in the Bible, even one, then the being isn't all powerful, as it hasn't been able to guide the writing of its revelation.
Then we come to the oft mentioned 'square circle' problem - elsewhere apologists on this blog have said that your god can do things that we couldn't even begin to comprehend, so making an object that is simultaneously square and circular should not be beyond the power of this being.
Also, if this being is all knowing and all powerful then it can a)see all of time, and b) do anything it wants to do. However, if it can see all of time then it can see what it will do next, which means that it is not all powerful. If it is all powerful then it can change its mind which means that it's not all knowing.
As it is very easy to show, with basic logic, that a being that is simultaneously all powerful AND all knowing is an impossibility, it can be equally easily deduced that god cannot be perfect. And if your god is not perfect, why worship it?
You've asked me elsewhere what evidence I would require to have your god shown as real - well, I'd want a scripture that wasn't contradictory, presented accurate history, and matched the observed world in every detail. That your god hasn't even managed to do that I find it highly unlikely that he has the power to create anything at all.
>>>Then we come to the oft mentioned 'square circle' problem - elsewhere apologists on this blog have said that your god can do things that we couldn't even begin to comprehend, so making an object that is simultaneously square and circular should not be beyond the power of this being<<<
I can do things a neanderthal could not comprehend, that does not mean I can do all things that a neanderthal could not comprehend.
This is not a good argument. Please rephrase.
You're trying to avoid answering the points raised by picking supposed problems with the odd sentence here or there, Trent.
Please explain to me, in a way that doesn't snap logic clean in half, how your god can be all knowing and all pwerful at the same time.
Also, Trent, you need to go back and read some of the previous posts, including the one where Al or Tim says that god can do things that we can't even imagine as he's all powerful.
Why would god not be able to bend reality in such a way that something we think would be impossible (in this this case a square circle) could be shown to us?
If that's too much tell me, if god knows what he's going to do before he does it, can he change his mind?
My point, if it was too subtle, was just because God can do things we can't understand does not mean that just because we can't understand how something can be done means it can be done by God.
All powerful would refer to being able to do anything that can be logically be done, not necessarily anything that can have a sentence constructed about it. I thought having such a background in theology, you would have come across that distinction before now.
It is like Dawkins answer about the question Why?. Just because you can construct a question, doesn't mean it deserves to be answered.
If God was to present you with a square circle, how would you know?
"If God was to present you with a square circle, how would you know?"
If your god really was all powerful, he'd be able to show me.
Good, you've shown he isn't. We're making progress.
A nonsense question like "Can God create a square circle" is a logic fallacy. So is assuming God cannot follow through on said nonsense.
We are getting somewhere, but not where you think.
Actually, where we're getting is to a place where the tiny portion of rational thought you have left is realising that certain supposed attributes of your god are impossible.
You've claimed him to be all powerful which means he should be able to do anything, even things that completely defy logic, that not a single one of you has said 'of course god can do a logically impossible thing, he's god!' shows that there is still a step of faith even you're not willing to take.
I don't know why you lot don't just take that step, after all there is no evidence for you god, so blind faith is all you have.
You are defining what the author should mean, complain that he isn't using your meaning, and then attacking him for your meaning being wrong.
In effect you are arguing with yourself, trying to make someone else look stupid, and assuming that no Christian will be smart enough to notice.
Well, everyone noticed.
actually, trent, all i'm doing is trying to get a straight answer out of a group of people who would seemingly rather do anything to avoid answering.
Trent, your holy book describes your deity as all knowing and all powerful. Please explain how this logically impossible thing can be....or do you disagree with the bible account?
A straight answer please.
I merely state that the definition you use is different than the one I use, and the one I use seems to fit the situation better. Your's seems specifically chosen to start a fight.
Arguing while using different definitions is pointless.
You still refuse to back up your claims, while you insist that I prove claims I have not made.
answer the question, Trent. How can your god be all powerful and all knowing?
No more attempts to avoid it please.
Post a Comment