When arguing for God, one is arguing for a topic with a prestigious community which is deeply rooted since antiquity. As Plutarch placed it, you will not find a city without God.
The very fact that the population of human being for God is far more than the population against him, might be the first argument for him.
Also, another argument for him might be the absurdity of life without him. If we want to balance the problems of having him (say for example the problem of evil) with the problems of not having him, then the later–certainly- outnumbers the former. Moreover, the problems with God (like the problem of evil) does not prove non-existence of God, rather it –for arguments sake- proves the existence of an ‘evil’ God.
Now, I want to argue for the coherence of God’s properties, and I want to do that in the form of answers to a set of questions. in the show, I will start clearing the properties one after another in red and will place their sequence no. according to Mawson within brackets.
Q: Seeing a house must necessarily indicate a builder, and the house can not build itself, it must be build by someone else, does not that argue for God being the creator of this Universe?
In that way we get God the creator [10].
Q: following the trend in the previous question, the next question is: then who created God?
If there were some ‘super’ God who created God, the this question would also apply for that super God as well, and so we have to end the series at God and claim his eternality[6] property. In fact, this eternality would smoothly lead to necessity[9] of God, in the sense that nothing existed before him, and all other things were existed after him and because him creating them.
Q: if God was the creator of this complex universe including human being, what are the pre-required skills this God need to create?
The answer to this question would require the God to be: omnipotent[4], omniscient[5]. If someone wants to create something then, he need to have: 1) the power to do it 2) the willingness to do it (freedom) and 3) the knowledge of doing it. For these the presence of knowledge, willingness and power would result in creating the willed object. This willingness can be formalized in the form of perfect freedom[7].
There would interesting questions arising from the fact that God created mankind.
Q: Is not it necessary that an omnipotent and an omniscient creator communicates and interacts with his creation?
Negative answer to the above question would damage the previous proved properties, and positive answer would add two more essential properties for God: personhood[1], and revealer[12]. Communication and interaction with mankind would require being person and being revealer. This would also include some sub-properties like hearing (what we say) and seeing (what we do) properties.
Q: now, any interaction between two parties can be based on friendly, neutral or hostile form. Which one fits with God?
To be coherent with other properties of God which are all the best among various choices, the God must interact with mankind with the best form of interaction, which can be defined as friendly interaction, which can lead to perfect goodness[8] property. “Goodness” does not directly lead to “friendly” in the relative sense. The “goodness” of God relative towards a tyrant (like Hitler) is to punish him, which is “hostile” relation with Hitler but perfectly goodness to the mankind.
Q: Anyone exhorting effort to produce something of great perfect ness, must does that out of purpose. Us enrolling in this course, paying money and effort must be for purpose – which we tried to mention in introduction forum-. If that is the case, then there must be a purpose for the creation of universe and mankind. If so what would be this purpose?
This might be the hardest question. The theistic answer is the presence of another life “the life hereafter”. To logically prove this concept, we can see from our practical life that human being varies in their actions and behaviors and in their end result in this world. There are those who stay ‘obedient’ to God, do all moral actions and yet die without ‘enjoying’ this life, i.e, they spend their life being poor, suffering from pain and disease, etc. On the other hand, there are people who spend their life being ‘immoral’, tyrant, oppressors, etc, yet they are the richest, and the enjoy the life most. Does that fit with God? The answer to all these leads to have God who creates values[11] and set’s another ‘judgment’ day where he would reward the ‘obedient’ in eternal paradise and would punish the disobedient in hell (offerer of eternal life[13]).
Through the above setup, I have covered the coherence of eleven properties for God. What remained were transcendence[2] and immanence[3], of which I would not argue for in the way that Mawson had placed it. Rather I would think that a personal God must be physically existing and he must be different than us, and I and you can not be part of his body. He must be separate from us, but his knowledge is so vast, that as if he is with us.
Filter
No comments...
Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
Please don't use comments to plug your web site.. Such material will be removed
Do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be superior (in victory) if you are indeed (true) believers. [Quran aal-Imran (3):139]
Philo-Hikmah Vs Philosophy