The second argument against the existence of a God that is both perfect and creator of the universe accepts the act of creation but then uses that to disprove the possibility of the creator having been perfect to start with:
- God is perfect. (premise)
- God deliberately created the universe. (premise)
- The universe, or at least aspects of it, is not perfect. (premise)
- Nothing deliberately created by a perfect being can be imperfect. (premise)
- Conclusion: this universe was not created by a perfect being. (from 1-5))
This argument is a simpler than the first, but not quite as strong. It makes the case that anything created by a perfect being must also be perfect; but since nothing that exists is perfect, a perfect god can’t be behind it.
Criticisms
Theists may reject premise #3 — what does it mean to say that the universe is not perfect? What is imperfect about the way gravity works or the structure of our solar system? Without a clear idea of what absolute “perfection” is, there is no way to understand if, or how, the universe might be any better. That is why premise #3 includes “or at least aspects of” the universe — it certainly seems as though we experience imperfection in our lives.
It is still possible that a believer might argue that, because we lack an understanding of the “big picture” that God has, we also cannot see how things here really are “perfect.” This argument cannot be refuted, but it entails that the we cannot logically argue that what we have here is not deliberately imperfect and that God is really a sadistic monster having fun with us. Thus, the theistic position ends up relying on faith: they have faith that their god is good and this, then, is the only reason to believe that our world is perfect. So their objection to the above argument is based on faith, not logic.
A theist could more plausibly argue that everything was created “perfect” for us in the beginning, but we humans have messed everything up. This ends up being a repetition of the Argument from Evil, with nonbelievers arguing that the existence of suffering and evil is incompatible with the existence of a good, moral god and believers arguing that human free will allows for the existence of evil.
Theists might reject premise #4: why shouldn’t a perfect god deliberately create an imperfect universe or world? It is unclear how this argument can be sustained — there is, for example, a value issue to consider. Isn’t a possible world with nothing imperfect better than a possible world with one imperfect thing?
It might be argued that the existence of imperfections would fulfill some need or want on the part of this god — for example, by presenting a challenge — but this would just lead us back to the original argument presented above, in which the existence of needs or wants seems incompatible with creation in the first place.
It does not appear as though the qualities of both perfection and creator, normally ascribed to the god most theists claim exists, are entirely compatible. A god that creates cannot be perfect and a god that is perfect would either not bother creating or would at least create something perfect, which our universe is not. Because our universe clearly does exist, we must conclude that either no gods exist or, if they do, they are either imperfect or had no role to play in the formation of our universe.
« First Argument Against a Perfect Creator | Arguments against the Existence of God »
