system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Would a perfect being ever create anything?

Obviously this is about the idea of a perfect God that created the universe (or the world, or humanity, or anything really).

Doesn't creating (or *doing*) anything imply there's some kind of need that isn't being fulfilled or at least is not being maximally fulfilled, which would imply the being in question is not entirely self-sufficient? And therefore not perfect?

I'm not sure I can really wrap my head around the concept of creation for creation's sake. There surely has to be some impetus for an action. Empirically, I'm not sure anything can ever truly be done 'for it's own sake'. If this can be justified philosophically please help me understand.

I suppose it could be said that the being is creating for the sake of the creation. But if it's morally better to create something than to not create it, than wouldn't that imply that the being's morality has been greatened and our being had to have been *less* moral prior to the creation and therefore not perfect?
gpt
Depends on what we think 'perfection' is supposed to be. It's not necessarily something that is incompatible with 'creation' - which we would also have to have a more thorough conception of. At any rate, 'self-sufficiency' need not be the determining theme.

Besides, you'd have to fit 'agency' into this. If _doing_ is an issue, it's going to have pretty serious ramifications for the notion of 'a being'.

Also, doing something moral doesn't make you _more_ moral. That's not a common conception, at least. It just means you did what was moral. Becoming "more moral" would be more akin to aligning your convictions better with whatever moral system you'd be adhering to.