Positing that God exists and is perfect (by the fact that he is the moral authority and is thought of as absolute perfection according to the general consensus); a change that he makes would mean that he was less or more perfect before the change came about. This follows the logic that something that is absolutely perfect must be unchangeable, because change is either for better or for worse. Any change would mean that God was more perfect or less perfect before or after the change. This is impossible, because God is absolutely perfect, there can therfore be no change in God or his "thoughts".

This change I'm referring to is the creation of the universe. The creation of the universe means that he underwent a change, because He was previously lacking a universe which he now has, and as I have stated, change in God is impossible. Logically, then, there could have been no creation, and the logical conclusion is that because God is absolutely perfect he must not have created the universe, or anything for that matter. Nothing therefore exists. We are all a delusion.

Though for a being (us humans) to think about his own existence precipitates that we be in existence. Therfore God should not exist by the very fact that we can question our existence. For, our existence is impossible if we believe in a perfect God (following my previous reasoning).

In summary, does our existence, which is a creation and therefore represents some manifestation of change, imply that God is not perfect or simply does not exist, because perfection precludes change?

  • 2
    Even in the case we humans are not a delusion and real in the same sense of existence as God's existence, a weak link in your reasoning chain is that you have a deity human-like view applying to God thus as if God has a free will choice to decide whether to create is for the better or worse. Admittedly 'create' may not be the felicitous word here since it's common and easy to make above mistaken inference. A drop in an ocean is not created by the said ocean but a necessary consequence of the said ocean's nature... Aug 24 at 23:52
  • The pointy-headed theologians you seem to be attempting to engage would inform you that since God is present in all times and knows all things about all times at all times, the concepts of "before" and "after" are not applicable to God.
    – g s
    Aug 25 at 0:31
  • Rational theology is problematic philosophically. A theist will say that God is immune to such analysis since God transcends our understanding. Having said that, a perfect transformation would preserve absolute perfection.
    – nwr
    Aug 25 at 4:55
  • You can't ask questions about an entity that exists under different laws. Either he breaks the rules of logic and physics (then, we can´t answer), or either he's a human ideal (then, you can grant God of any attribute, even if it is contradictory).
    – RodolfoAP
    Aug 25 at 7:08
  • In summary, does our existence, which is a creation and therefore represents some manifestation of change, imply that God is not perfect or simply does not exist, because perfection precludes change? A young man in California once voiced this affirmation in my presence: "I am perfect as I am and as I am becoming!" A Hebrew scholar once told me that when God spoke to Moses from the spiritual flame he said, "I am what will be". Aug 25 at 15:05

4 Answers 4


Good points raised already by commentators. Additionally, one could argue creation is a consequence of God's perfection so a non-creating God would be actually imperfect.

As for change, a metaphor may help us understand the nature of God as regards change which is often used by Sufis. Consider a mirror. All images in the mirror can change but the mirror itself remains stable.

Furthermore, following a maxim by Sufi metaphyscians such as Mulla Sadra, psychology is a paradigmatic science through which Divine realities can be best understood.

Consider the nature of our consciousness. Our consciousness certainly evolves by our experience and learning throughout life. We are not absolute consciousness after all. But still some aspect in our consciousness appears to remain stable throughout life, what we call personal identity.

Sure. Philosophers like Hume and Kant argued that there's really no substantial stable self that can be experienced. We are only looking at changing thoughts when we look inside ourselves. The latter is a valid point but it's ironic that these overly cherished thinkers of Modernity seemed to miss who is doing the looking! There obviously has to be a stable point in mind wherefrom to witness various thoughts linked together in time. If changing mental states totally exhaust the nature of mind, in fact we could never tell the links and sequences between mental states, so we won't be able to remember even the previous millisecond of our life!

There you get it. If there's a stable unchanging aspect in human consciousness that transcends all change and yet all changes still emanate at least partially from consciousness, you can see how psychology helped you spot a reality already known to yourself (in fact you yourself!) that can both create things but also somehow transcend the change that creating involves!

Yes! Psychology explains a lot! In fact it can help elucidate the most perplexing questions of theology! The problem is psychology was decimated by Kant and then physicalists made a vow to preserve the robbles!


Positing that God exists ... moral authority ... absolute perfection according to the general consensus...

There is no "general consensus" on "absolute perfection" as can be demonstrated by gathering a group of people consisting of representatives from different religious and philosophical groups and asking them to agree on almost anything, including what "absolute perfection" is. Therefore, the "God" you have posited exists, in fact, does not exist. (That is not to say that some other defined "God" must also not exist.)

something that is absolutely perfect must be unchangeable, because change is either for better or for worse

Change can just be change. Take a counter. It counts, changes, 1, 2, 3, and so on. Is 13 "better" than 12? Is 17 "worse" than 16? Whether any number is "better" or "worse" than any other number depends on interpretation. A number in and of itself is no "better" or "worse" than another. Therefore, you have not demonstrated that something "absolutely perfect must be unchangeable".

In summary, does our existence, which is a creation and therefore represents some manifestation of change, imply that God is not perfect or simply does not exist, because perfection precludes change?

No. Our existence does not inform anything about "God", as you've defined it. Even if your conclusion is correct, that "God" is not perfect or does not exist, reasoning based on demonstrably flawed assumptions is not at all enlightening. Put another way, "even a broken clock is right twice a day".

  • God being perfect and unchanging is shared by many theologies and for more or less similar arguments. Many natural theologies in world religions have actually some shared origin in Neoplatonism. There are theologians who subscribe to perennial philosophy postulating shared transcendental origin behind world major religions that may otherwise diverge on some official doctrines due to their different cultural settings and relative competence of each religion's theologians to accurately interpret their respective scriptures. So these questions are legit and have a history of scholarship.
    – infatuated
    Aug 25 at 8:04

This question hinges upon definitional assumptions. First, what does it mean for god to be perfect? The notion of perfection is arguably meaningless unless you define it relative to an attribute or attributes? Which attributes. You haven’t defined this.

If you choose the moral attribute, then it begs the question of what is morally perfect? If God had to decide between saving a child vs. two adults’s lives, which would he choose? This is the fundamental problem with morals. There seems to be no ontologically correct answer, and positing a “morally perfect” God just begs the question.

Secondly, the other definitional assumption you make is “perfection implies nothing needs to change.” Why? Sure, if you define a perfect God to mean He won’t change anything, then changing anything would contradict His perfection. But why assume this kind of God exists in the first place?

Playing hypothetical games with a Being with attributes for which there seems to be no evidence seems like a fruitless exercise.


One way around this is to see the perfection of god as in unlimited potential. See QUAESTIONES DISPUTATAE DE POTENTIA DEI (ON THE POWER OF GOD) by Thomas Aquinas. This solves the issue of Creation being by god, but not of god, because that's specific being as opposed to the unlimited potential for being.

Res cogitans, was what Descartes proposed as the alternate to res existens, the domain of thought, seperate to that of being and taking up space (extension). In this picture thought can partake in logos, the inference from particulars to the most general, like Plato's forms, of ideals and general principles, like in mathematics. So we can move from particulars to ideals, towards potentia.

In theology choice making, and agreements or fiats with god are really important. To choose to fulfil our potential, is participate in the transcendental from the particular.

You must log in to answer this question.