If you were God

[Thief]

I read it somewhere....'ye are gods....'

Are we discussing the actual event?

 

[Penumbra]

I can only apologise.

No worries- just letting you know. This post of yours was much easier to respond to.

Well, hell I don't know, but why should I assume a pantheistic god? Again, I can only go back to the OP and its hypothetical ie; "If you were a perfect entity with creative powers". That sounds fairly monotheistic to me.

You don't need to assume a panentheistic god, I'm just pointing out there are other options.

You said, "An infinite/perfect god would need nothing but itself, anything less than that would ask a question or have a need and therefore become a creator god." Apart from being written in the general sense rather than in a concise sense about specific gods, your post seems to have made certain assumptions that the OP didn't necessarily make (I think she was pretty explicit about knowing the rather limiting nature of asking such a question.)

Basically, I find that most western atheists and agnostics of various sorts tend to think almost 100% in terms of the Abrahamic god, and it's worth addressing this from time to time. Arguments that they may think apply to all god concepts in reality only apply to a rather limited number of them.

Besides, panentheist does not necessarily mean unconscious. Panentheistic gods can be wholly or partly a "perfect entity with creative powers".

Pointing out does not mean doing. Are you suggesting that god does because of why not? But that would put god in space-time and I did not assume that. And anyway, can one do things they need not do? Would a perfect entity? Given that there would be consequences if creation was the result.

-Yes, I'm suggesting that gods can do because "why not" (or perhaps a slightly more elegant description thereof). This is not uncommon among religions. And logically, once one gets to the level of omnipotence, much of your post was correct- the concept of "needing" to do something becomes nonsensical in most cases.
-No, this doesn't necessarily put god in spacetime.
-If there were consequences from a perfect entity, they would by definition be perfect consequences, so no worries.

While I appreciate that my argument that a perfect god would not create (for the sake of a hypothetical OP) is not complete or indeed relevant, you have given me no reason to suppose that said god would or that any creation would have to be in our physical space-time. Or if it did create why it would/could not be perfect.

You're probably right.

I've provided several examples of philosophies/frameworks to show why a god might create. And I have no intention to give you a reason to suppose that said god necessarily would (this would be a pretty silly thing for an atheist to attempt to do). Basically, rather an explaining why a god would do something, I'm pointing out that what you said labeled an oxymoron is not necessarily an oxymoron.

 

[PolyHedral]

It's my suggestion that "perfect" is only defined when one means perfect with respect to some purpose. In order for God to be perfect, God must have a purpose, which automatically means that there's something external to God, which shoots most pantheistic ideas in the foot.

 

[Penumbra]

It's my suggestion that "perfect" is only defined when one means perfect with respect to some purpose. In order for God to be perfect, God must have a purpose, which automatically means that there's something external to God, which shoots most pantheistic ideas in the foot.

True, but one must keep in mind that if discussions concerning gods become more specific, more concise terminology must be used than simply "perfect".

Defining perfection in regards to a goal, and then stating a goal must be external, and that therefore panentheism shoots itself in the foot seems to be an out-of-context argument, as panentheist conceptions of god are rarely depicted as having a specfiic "purpose" other than perhaps to simply exist as god.

Rather, they're often depicted as being limitless and without bound, and often depicted in a rather universalist way.