Understanding the mind of God, as much as humanly possible, is essential for gaining insight into what He expects of us. Jewish scholars have long explored the nature of God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent—that is, as all-knowing, all-powerful, and universally present. This divine nature suggests that God, by definition, lacks nothing. Yet, a profound question posed by numerous scholars over centuries asks, “If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, what does He lack?” The most common answer is "limitation." Rabbi Yosef Albo, a prominent 15th-century Jewish philosopher, addresses this concept in Sefer Ha-Ikkarim (The Book of Principles), arguing that God’s only “limitation” is His lack of human limitations—a paradoxical observation that emphasizes the vast gap between divine perfection and human existence. 

Maimonides, the author of The Guide for the Perplexed, delved deeper into the concept of limitation by explaining that human cognition cannot fully grasp the limitations of God. While we may understand aspects of what God is, we cannot truly comprehend what He is not. This limitation exists because our perspective on knowledge is rooted in a natural, mortal state, whereas God possesses what we would term “divine knowledge.” Human understanding lacks the encompassing nature of divine knowledge, meaning it neither desires nor is capable of the same comprehension. 
 
St. Augustine also addressed this idea in his work, Confessions, by explaining that God, being unbound by time, transcends temporal limitations. 
 
I believe these perspectives are insightful. It is reasonable to understand that God does not experience human limitations, particularly regarding mortal concerns such as death or hunger. In this way, we can perceive certain aspects of what God is not. However, there are elements beyond our comprehension, such as the vastness of God’s knowledge or how He transcends time and space. I do not believe we will fully understand these mysteries until the final days, when we may witness them directly. 
 
For the purposes of this discussion, we will focus on God’s lack of human limitations, reserving the exploration of His unknowable aspects for another time. 

Expanding on this, another fundamental quality that God "lacks" is any inclination or ability to commit evil. Before examining this further, it is essential to understand what defines “evil.” Many events in our world are tragic but not inherently evil. For example, natural predators such as bears or lions kill to sustain themselves and their offspring. A human death in this context, while tragic, does not make the predator evil; it acts from instinct, not malice. Similarly, diseases such as cancer cause immense suffering and loss, but they are not evil in themselves; they are natural processes. Natural disasters, like hurricanes or earthquakes, can devastate entire communities, yet they are forces of nature rather than moral agents. 

In distinguishing evil from tragedy, two factors are crucial, and both seem necessary for true evil to exist: self-consciousness and human limitation. Evil requires self-consciousness because it entails a level of moral awareness and intentionality behind one’s actions. Self-consciousness enables individuals to recognize the difference between right and wrong, understand the consequences of their actions, and reflect on how their behavior impacts others. Without this level of awareness, an entity cannot be held to moral standards, as it lacks the capacity to choose between good and harmful actions. Consequently, a self-aware being has the unique ability to make intentional choices, including those that knowingly cause harm or suffering to others. This awareness makes self-consciousness foundational to moral responsibility and the potential for evil. 

Evil also requires human limitations because, often, it arises from desires influenced by scarcity, vulnerability, and the need for self-preservation. As human beings, we face limited resources, finite power, and physical mortality, all of which can create competitive, self-centered, or even harmful behaviors. These limitations drive individuals to sometimes act selfishly or aggressively to protect themselves or secure what they perceive as necessary for survival or success. Without the constraints imposed by human existence, there would be no pressure to hoard resources, gain power over others, or act out of fear or insecurity. Thus, the absence of human limitation would mean freedom from the envy, competition, or desire to dominate that often leads to evil behavior. In other words, a being without human limitations would have no compulsion toward harmful actions, as it would lack the drives that give rise to malice or selfishness. 

This understanding places natural disasters, diseases, and other tragic occurrences into perspective. Hurricanes, cancers, and predators lack both self-consciousness and human limitations, making them forces of tragedy rather than evil. Although they can cause suffering, they do not do so out of intent or awareness, distinguishing them from genuinely evil acts. Even within the animal kingdom, predators display behaviors that sustain their species, but they lack both moral reasoning and the human struggles that lead to harm for its own sake. The notion that suffering can occur without evil intent highlights the complex nature of morality, reminding us that while suffering may be part of existence, it does not always carry moral implications. 

Returning to the nature of God, He embodies self-consciousness, but He lacks human limitations. This combination means that, while God possesses full awareness and infinite knowledge, He is not subject to the drives and constraints that fuel human aggression, selfishness, or malice. God, in lacking both human limitations and any capacity for evil, transcends the conditions that lead to moral struggle. His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence allow Him to exist without the desires for control, survival, or power that lead humans toward negative actions. In this way, God’s perfection is complete, free from the forces that bind humanity and often compel us toward actions that harm others. Therefore, God’s lack of human limitations, combined with His all-encompassing awareness, places Him beyond the capacity or need for evil, reinforcing the idea of a divine being who embodies ultimate goodness, purity, and wisdom. 

This perspective offers a profound insight into the differences between the divine and human realms, illustrating why evil, in its true form, is inherently tied to human experience. As finite beings with both self-consciousness and limitation, humans are susceptible to moral challenges and conflicts that God, in His limitless and perfect nature, will never experience. This distinction not only highlights the limitations of human morality but also underscores the idea of God as a perfect being, free from both the need and the capacity for evil. There also appears to be an argument suggesting that the capacity for evil is essential for the existence of morality. However, we will delve into this concept at a later stage. 

Why would God, a being who neither embodies nor requires evil, choose to create humanity—a group capable of, and often inclined toward, acts of great evil? This question, profound and complex, likely holds an answer beyond human comprehension, touching on concepts that exceed our understanding of divinity and morality. Nevertheless, I will attempt to share my perspective, knowing it is, at best, an imperfect interpretation. 

Throughout history, poets and philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche have grappled with the paradox of having everything yet feeling isolated. How can someone who seemingly has all they desire feel empty or alone? This question, pondered across the ages, might illuminate something of God's mindset in creating humanity. As an infinite being with access to all that could be conceived or desired, surrounded by beings whose behavior was, for the most part, predictable, God made the decision to create a new kind of companionship—one characterized by freedom, unpredictability, and choice. Humanity, with its capacity for both great good and great evil, represented the most unpredictable creation imaginable. 

It is possible that God, despite His infinite power, sought something uniquely dynamic and imperfect, a relationship defined not by predetermined roles but by free will and genuine connection. The idea that God, an infinite being, might have felt a sort of loneliness—an absence of unpredictable companionship—is not a suggestion of divine deficiency but rather an insight into the depth of relational value. He may have desired a creation that, while flawed, would bring an element of genuine surprise, complexity, and narrative richness. 

Knowing the eventual consequences—the trials and failings of humanity, and the ultimate need for the sacrifice of His Son—God (and Jesus, who was present from the beginning) might still have found it worthwhile, choosing the companionship and unpredictability of humanity to break the monotony of perfection.  

To explore why God might have created humanity as He did, we must consider the concept of inherent value—a notion Leibniz touches upon in Theodicy. Leibniz suggests that God designed the world this way because, without genuine unpredictability or free will, there would be no possibility for authentic moral connections. Qualities such as love and sacrifice could not truly exist in a world where every action was predetermined. 

 Kierkegaard further examines the significance of free will in Fear and Trembling and The Concept of Anxiety, where he describes free will as essential for humanity’s "leap of faith." This leap represents the conscious choice to connect with the divine, despite the uncertainty and risk inherent in such a decision. Kierkegaard argues that without freedom, any relationship with God would lack depth, as genuine companionship requires choice; and choice, by its nature, requires free will, which is inherently unpredictable. 

 Thus, in creating a world that allows for unpredictability, God created one capable of deep love, courage, and commitment. A purely deterministic world, by contrast, would lack the depth that arises from voluntary connections, rendering it devoid of the meaningful relationships and moral growth that freedom and unpredictability make possible. 

 This is, of course, only my personal interpretation, and I fully reserve the right to be wrong. 

We have examined the requirements for evil, but what, then, are the requirements for morality? First and foremost, morality requires an established set of rules, created by a being or authority that is not itself restricted by those same rules. For Christians, that being is God. God established the framework and standards for morality but remains unbound by the constraints these moral guidelines place on humans. Anthropologist and scholar Ninian Smart developed a concept known as the “fishbowl theory,” which has since been expanded upon to help explain this relationship. According to Smart, elements outside the "fishbowl" can influence and alter the contents within it without themselves being affected by the constraints of the bowl. By this analogy, God exists outside our "fishbowl"—able to interact with and rearrange elements within it but not limited by the restrictions or laws that apply within. 

To offer a more relatable, human example, think of a king within a monarchy. A king can establish laws that govern his subjects, but he is not necessarily obligated to follow them himself because he exists as the sovereign authority above those laws. The moral guidelines he sets for his kingdom serve to maintain order and justice among his subjects but do not confine the king in the same way. In much the same way, God, who is the ultimate authority in Christian theology, established moral laws to guide humanity but is not constrained by them as humans are. He operates from a realm beyond human moral boundaries, guiding us according to principles that we are bound to follow but that do not restrict Him. 

Having a defined set of moral guidelines is only the beginning of morality. The next requirement for true morality is self-consciousness. A moral agent must have the capacity to think independently and understand the principles that constitute their moral framework. They must be able to reflect on these principles, recognizing and evaluating the difference between right and wrong. Self-consciousness enables individuals to comprehend moral consequences, weigh the impact of their actions, and make intentional choices that align with or diverge from their moral values. Without this level of self-awareness, morality becomes a hollow concept, as it relies on the capacity to make informed, conscious decisions. 

Lastly, for morality to exist meaningfully, there must be the capability for violence or evil, combined with the strength to control these impulses. An individual who is incapable of doing harm may be harmless, but they cannot truly be considered moral. It is the person who has the capacity for evil and yet consciously chooses to restrain from it who demonstrates a higher level of moral virtue. This distinction between harmlessness and moral virtue underscores the importance of intentionality in morality; true morality requires both the power to choose harm and the will to reject it. 

By this standard, I would argue that God is not moral. To be clear, this does not mean that God is not good; rather, God is inherently good and entirely devoid of evil, operating from a nature that is fundamentally pure and holy. However, given His position outside the limitations of human morality, God is not "moral" in the technical sense, as He transcends the conditions and struggles that define human morality. In being beyond human limitations, God does not grapple with the same moral challenges humans do, nor does He experience the internal conflict between good and evil. This makes Him the embodiment of ultimate goodness, but it also places Him outside the realm of human-defined morality, highlighting the distinction between divine perfection and human moral striving. 

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson states, "Tragedy is a precondition for being; being is the interplay between the finite and the infinite, and there's no way out of that. Evil is something different. Evil is the conscious attempt to make the conditions of existence more pathological than they ought to be." I would expand on this by suggesting that while tragic events are indeed a precondition of human experience, humanity itself exists at the intersection of the finite and infinite—or between the known and the unknown. However, evil and morality operate on a separate axis entirely. Evil represents a conscious effort to make another’s understanding of the known world more tragic, whereas morality serves as the measure by which we assess the frequency and intensity of such actions. 

God, being beyond both the finite and infinite realms and thus outside the constraints of human experience, remains unaffected by these moral scales and the capacity for evil. Nonetheless, I believe God possesses an emotional nature, which I will explore further later. In this view, while human morality and our actions toward one another may influence God’s emotional state, the very principles of morality and the capacity for evil themselves do not apply to God.