A Perfect God and the story of Noah

by David Epstein

December 25, 1999

 

One idea which can be extracted from the story of Noah is that God, the creator of the world, is perhaps not such a perfect being after all. A perfect God, after all, would not need to wipe out his work of creation and then recreate it. While this is not precisely what happened when he caused the Great Flood, it nevertheless is a useful parallel to consider. It is quite apparent that God was greatly disappointed in his creations because they spread great evil and wickedness throughout the world. The flood was meant to replenish the world and destroy its evil people.

 

The argument goes like this: A perfect God would not need to intervene in human affairs. He created the world and the people that inhabit it, but then he withdrew from it. Perhaps he is an overseer, nudging it along when humans are struggling, but he does not actively interfere in their affairs. What they do with their world is their own business. They must be the principle force to make it a worthy place to live. At the same time, they can’t blame anyone else for their immoral actions. Only they can establish justice and righteousness in their midst.

 

Continuing on, we must concede that God *does* interfere in the worldly affairs and acknowledges that he has made a mistake. He didn’t apologize to his creations for his inaction to preserve goodness in the world; rather, he destroyed them. Not such a compassionate guy. Regardless of his intentions, he must now rewrite history and, in effect, recreate the inhabitable world. He does spare Noah, his family, and a select few from the animal kingdom; so he’s not completely destroying all living beings. Still, he must recognize that when he sees the beings he’s destroying, he is destroying a part of himself. And since man is created in the image of God, and man is imperfect, God must look in the mirror and see that he also is imperfect.

 

I reject this simplistic argument. It assumes that we as finite, limited beings can conceive of the intentions of a divine being. With our limited intelligence, we can’t understand how a perfect God can make a mistake. Yet consider this: could we conceive of a perfect mistake, a faux pas so bad that *everything* goes wrong after the misdeed is committed? As imperfect beings, we don’t understand why a perfect God would do that. It could very well be the case that the perfect God created a perfect world, but in his infinite wisdom, left the world to be developed by humans who would exercise their own free will, kindle a strong sense of community, and embark on a path of cooperation and spiritual fulfillment. Yet if humans fail to live up to God’s expectations, it is *not* the fault of God, but humans who succumbed to the dark side of their existence.

 

God would not be imperfect by flooding the world. If anything, it would show his perfection by demanding the world to be the good, righteous place that he designed in the first place. If humans can’t make the world a good place, then he will make it such by purging it of evil. The fact that he saves a few good biological creatures demonstrates, in a subtle way, that he loves his creations. He knows what’s good in the world, and rather that throwing out the baby with the bath water, he holds on to the baby.

 

However, I’m not satisfied with this counter-argument either. I think that we need to approach this logically. First, let us assume that we were created by an imperfect being. Then we must accept the dichotomy between design and creation. Because an imperfect being has limited powers and abilities, he needs to first conceive of an idea, then fashion a design to create it, and then finally implement it. All of this is conducted in space and time which, in effect, is the playing field of imperfection.

 

A perfect being, on the other hand, is neither bound by the design/creation schism nor by the phaseology of creation outlined above. He does not exist in space and time; he created them. And the only way we can fathom such perfection, intellectually clumsy as it may seem, is to visualize the divine creator as one who instantaneously conceives, plans and creates the world *outside* of space and time.

 

Now, if we were created by an imperfect being, relegated to space and time, he, in turn, must be created by another being who, while a step or two closer to perfection, is still imperfect. This tertiary being, in turn, must be created by a more perfect being. The process continues to infinity. In effect, this is a recursive, infinite series of creations by progressively greater beings. Mathematically, it’s possible for the series to converge to some finite value which could somehow represent perfection. This could only occur if the gap between the creator and created, in terms of their relative powers and proximity to perfection, becomes progressively smaller as we ascend to higher-order beings.

 

Alternatively, if we are unsatisfied with the premise that some finite value represents perfection, great as that value may be, we can equate perfection with infinite worth. Let us then assume that perfection is equal to infinity. Then we would still have an infinite series of creators. Each successive one would be greater than the previous creator, but the gap between any two would not have to become progressively smaller. In fact, the gaps could even be a series of random values.

 

Yet there are two main problems with this argument. First, while we can converge to some finite value which could represent perfection, or if we alternatively assign the ‘value’ of infinite worth to perfection, there still would be an infinite series. This means that every higher being is created by an even higher being. The process of creation goes on forever, and while we can establish the presence of this value of perfection, there is nobody to assume it! It’s an elusive goal, a Platonic ideal.

 

Second, even if a first, perfect creator existed, he (or she) would still exist in space and time. There is no escape route. The perfect creator would have to be created by someone outside of space and time. At this point, we could say “STOP”. We’ve just proved that a perfect God exists: he exists outside of space and time and created the alleged perfect being who is confined to space and time. However, there could even be a *higher* infinite series of creators who exist in a non-space/time energy, one of which actually created space and time (note: It does not necessarily follow that it would be the last in the secession of creators. Perhaps someone in the middle created space and time, or the last in the secession actually creates the first being in space and time). These group of creators are in a higher scale of perfection; yet they too are relegated inferior to an even higher group of creators who exist outside of this non-space/time energy. In effect, we could continue this process infinitely, resulting in an infinite series of infinite series!

 

Now at this point, we can assuredly say “STOP THE MADNESS. Let me off this train. It’s gonna go on forever and we gotta stop somewhere.” In other words, at some point, the process of creation has to come to a halt. Besides, what purpose could there be for an infinite series, much less an infinite series of infinite series? Sounds pretty inefficient. Admittedly, when we introduce the concepts of purpose and intention, we certainly are lighting a powder keg. Regardless, it is a reasonable question to ask. One could counter that an infinite series could be part of an evolutionary process which makes the question of purpose or intention moot. “There is no purpose; the process just is.”

 

To that, I say “no, nO, NO!”. That is an intellectual copout. IF we accept the idea of a divine creator (and I’m not saying I do), then that being must be perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient. They all go together. The world (including space and time) was created by a perfect being, or it was not created by a being at all. QED. And by a similar argument, we can reject a polytheism that is independent of a perfect divine creator. For polytheism inherently is the division of divine labor, and since each god specializes in a particular divine market (whether it be the god of the sun, god of love, war, fertility, etc.), he or she has limited powers. These polytheistic gods would have to be created by a perfect, divine being, or we once again will get caught in an infinite series of infinite series.

 

OK logic buffs or New Agers. Don’t give me this “circle” argument. Or that the “infinite regression of first causes” is an illusion. Nor even that strange loops or twists are found in logic. Yes, you might find an escape hatch, but it’s gonna lead to even greater stranger loops and twists. Eventually, it will still lead to a perfect divine creator who is strange, loopy and twisted-minded! The only escape is to admit that there is no divine creator. Then again, I will turn around and ask you this: “who created the rainbow after the flood?!”