One popular model has God necessarily not doing anything. He's supposed to be "changeless."

not much of a god then in those models then. :)

no thoughts, no actions etc...more like a statue of a god.

Well, and presumably He'd not even create the rest of the universe in that case, as that would have been doing something, changing in some way.

If a conscious entity doesn't have any needs, then why would they do anything? — wax

Most gods are created in the image of man, and then retroactively reversed. They say more about human desires than anything else- projected onto an entity. Thus, Yahweh reflected the ancient Hebrew need for community and ethical cohesion. Krishna reflected the human need for following caste and duty in order to sustain ancient laws. The Hindu Atman/Brahaman reflects our need to escape the noise of life into the quietude of a peaceful state.

Most gods are created in the image of man, and then retroactively reversed. They say more about human desires than anything else- projected onto an entity. Thus, Yahweh reflected the ancient Hebrew need for community and ethical cohesion. Krishna reflected the human need for following caste and duty in order to sustain ancient laws. The Hindu Atman/Brahaman reflects our need to escape the noise of life into the quietude of a peaceful state. — schopenhauer1

This is all we can do. We have to anthromorphise such a concept as God in order to say anything at all about it. The problem is we have no rational basis at all to support anything at all we say about the nature of such a thing as God. For all we know, we could be like 2 ants arguing about quantum mechanics. We are all free to believe as we wish, both theist or atheist, about our view of such a thing as God, however it is important to note all such beliefs are outside reason and are based on faith.

We are all free to believe as we wish, both theist or atheist, about our view of such a thing as God, however it is important to note all such beliefs are outside reason and are based on faith. — Rank Amateur

why are such beliefs outside of reason?

If someone believes they have had personal experience of anything, then that is good grounds to form a belief.

Take an example if someone believes that they saw a flying saucer land and aliens get out...that is good reason to form the belief in the existence of aliens. Witnessing that event might not tell you much about the aliens, only that the witness then has personal evidence that they exist, and that example doesn't seem to be outside reason, to me.

What makes you think consciousness necessitates need?

Was he figuring that? It seemed to me that he was wondering about a conscious entity with no needs, not arguing that consciousness is incoherent without needs.

Well the title itself:

"Which type of model of god doesn't have the god having his/her own needs?"

Followed by

"If a conscious entity doesn't have any needs, then why would they do anything?"

So my thing is what makes the OP think consciousness necessitates a need (or lack thereof)? At what basis is the OP basing his/her claim given the title of the thread?

I was positing the existence of a god with no personal needs and asking people what the motivation for their behaviour would be...

You can have a go at answering if you like.

Ok well that was a bit more than what I read then....

I was positing the existence of a god with no personal needs and asking people what the motivation for their behaviour would be... — wax

and on what possible basis could we defend as reasonable anything at all we could say on our guesses on what motivation or behavior mean for such a thing as God.

Not sure this is your point or objective, but there is a tried and true argument that people have used forever. They give God some anthropomorphic quality, and then proceed to argue that either having it or not having it is not very God like. And the philosophic problem with all such arguments is there no basis at all to give such a thing as God such anthropomorphic quality in the first place.

yes that is the problem with talking about models of god.

It is possible that God doesn't function on such things as 'needs' and 'motivation'....but human connection with god often is based upon a conception or model of god, which inevitably will be partly human based.

The concept of need is pretty fundamental to humans though, and is the bases of all/most behaviour, so if any attempt is made to form a model of god, then perhaps these things are a good starting point.

It is possible that God doesn't function on such things as 'needs' and 'motivation'....but human connection with god often is based upon a conception or model of god, which inevitably will be partly human based.

The concept of need is pretty fundamental to humans though, and is the bases of all/most behaviour, so if any attempt is made to form a model of god, then perhaps these things are a good starting point. — wax

I have no issue with any of that, and in fact do a great deal of it myself in one way or another. But the point is, that is theology not philosophy. Again i have no issue at all with theology - quite the contrary - but it is an important point for both theist and atheist to know when they are leaving one discipline and entering another.

I have no issue with any of that, and in fact do a great deal of it myself in one way or another. But the point is, that is theology not philosophy. Again i have no issue at all with theology - quite the contrary - but it is an important point for both theist and atheist to know when they are leaving one discipline and entering another. — Rank Amateur

I don't know; I would have thought there would be a philosophy component in theology, as I think there is, or should be, in science.

No need to reinvent the karmic wheel. Folks have been ruminating on such vital questions for a while. You'll get more from a bit of historical research than you will from the bullshit of a bunch of ignorant sceptics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

Has anyone ever jumped for joy?

Which type of model of god doesn’t have the god having his/her own needs? — wax

A model that is not understood as a separate entity, let alone as a ‘person’ (or three persons).

If a conscious entity doesn't have any needs, then why would they do anything? — wax

Because they’re aware that they can, and because they feel connected to others - not a completely separate entity.

If a conscious entity doesn't have any needs, then why would they do anything? — wax

Through a gratuitous act of sheer beneficence. The Hindus call it 'Lila', the divine play. The gnostics spoke of super-abundance, a creativity so great that it simply emanated the entire universe. For sport.