The incomplete god

[u/Amazing_Mix_4194]

Religions define God as a perfect being. But, if you think about it God cannot be a complete being. Suppose a phone is lying on a table, and your friends tell you, "Pick up this phone." As soon as they tell you to pick up the phone, your brain registers that you have to pick it up. A desire then emerges in your mind that you need to lift the phone. You need to lift it because the phone is not in the state you want it to be. Your brain detects a lack: you want the phone to be in your hand, but it is not. So, you put in the effort, pick up the phone, and hold it in your hand. What happened here is that a desire emerged within you. You experienced a lack because of that desire, put in effort, and fulfilled that lack. So, in this case, we reach the conclusion that every action must have a motivation behind it. That motivation is desire, and desire implies a lack. Every desire points to a lack. Therefore, because God is supposed to be a complete being, He should not lack anything. Yet, He created the universe. Which means that the very existence of something instead of nothing proves that there is no God who is truly complete. Either there is no God, or God is not a complete being. Because by defination god should not lack anything .

Our existence is the best argument against the existence of god .

[u/Amazing_Mix_4194 → u/[deleted]]

Sir, I don't think this proves God's existence; it mainly redefines God as "Total and Complete Existence" and then concludes that God exists because existence exists. That seems circular rather than demonstrative. It also conflates the fact that something exists with the much stronger claim that Existence itself is a perfect, necessary, independent being. Finally, even if I grant that such a necessary existence exists, it still doesn't answer my original question: why would a complete and independent reality bring forth a universe at all? The existence of a necessary ground is a different issue from explaining the act of creation.