I want to say that this seems like a very understandable argument for someone to believe in the existence of God, so lets put this into perspective. What are some of the most creative things man has been able to develop? Computer and planes are some acceptable answers. Has man ever created anything so complex as the world, and everything in it that revolves around one another. So if a human is not capable of creating the world, then what or who is? I would agree that this is a rationally sound argument for the existence in God. Now some problems with this are, who designed God, and how come God did not make the world perfect? These again do not prove that God doesn't exist, but do give weight to the objection. The first objection seems to be a question that is answered based on someone's faith. The second though, there have been plenty of responses to such as, we would not know good, if we did not know what evil was. I think only the first objection of who created God, is the only one that has enough rational behind it to be considered a good argument.
Steven Lippman
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that those arguments do weigh against the existence of a God. I sometimes find it odd that people dont postulate other, more varied explanations for some kind of 'original mover of the universe'.
ReplyDeleteWhy does God have to be all powerful? Maybe, if he/she exists, isnt. Maybe its not a he or a she. Why would this God even have to be benevolent? Maybe the ultimate creator / watcher figure is just having fun with a world. Maybe our universe was just some random offshoot of some more advanced dimension, some play project.
I think that a lot of typical philosophical arguments tend to get mired down in what we think of as traditional (when talking about the existence of god, etc).
I agree that the concept of a "first mover" seems more probable than an omni-God. But I still think that when you ask, "So if a human is not capable of creating the world, then what or who is?" you make an assumption that there was an intelligence behind the organization of existence. This leads to the infinite regress of determining what caused that intelligence. Eventually the ultimate assumption we all make is that before the "beginning" there had to be nothing. For me personally, I have trouble comprehending deriving something from nothing, whether it is the Big Bang Theory or determining the origins of an Intelligent Designer.
ReplyDeleteI agree Steven! I think the argument from design is a very good one. I also think you bring up an interesting point in regards to the question of "Who created God?" In response to this I would say that perhaps we should think of God as an infinite being who exists beyond the limits of space and time.
ReplyDelete