Thursday, October 29, 2015
God -- Or Some Lesser Designer?
In Chapter V, Philo devises several arguments that accept that the universe has a designer, but deny that that designer is God. Given our traditional definition that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, is Philo correct? Or is there a response to his arguments? Does it matter if the designer is the traditional God?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I first believe that the debate for God is very arbitrary and actually hasn't proved or disproved God. As of now, I cannot differ to one side of the debate so I must default to agnosticism. Given the possibility that God exists, I believe it to be different from the traditional perception of God. The god mentioned in the traditional sense only takes in account a narrow use of reasoning. The traditional argument is that there is one god that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. However, this argument is hugely flawed. The idea that God is omnipotent can never be truly proven. There are two reasons, the first of which is its possible to that there are multiple gods. This is particularly articulated in the analogy of how the universe is like a machine. Just as a machine is created by many different mechanics, the universe is created by many different Gods. The second is that there may be a God, but he may not be all powerful, rather just very powerful. There is no definite way to quantify God's power with absolute certainty, thus the probability that God doesn't fit the image of the traditional God is very slim. The image that God is omniscient can be proven according to skeptic reasoning. However, there are many flaws with skeptic reasoning that question the credibility behind their reasoning. The slim chance that skepticism is the right ideology should not be something to rely on proving God's omniscience. The idea that God is omnibenevolent is one that is hugely false. If God, by himself, created a world who was all powerful why is there still evil running rampant? Omni benevolence cannot be proven either way, but one should take in probability that this one little sliver of thought is true, while the endless possibilities that he isn’t aren't. Although God's traditional image is believed among many people, the chances that these characteristics are false outnumber the one chance that they are true.
ReplyDeleteThe three main monotheistic religions of the world are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; and although they disagree over many beliefs, they all have the same view of God. All three religions agree that the one God is all power (omnipotent), all knowing (omniscient), and all good (omnibenevolent). However, in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume is an atheist who proposes arguments why the monotheistic idea of God is false. Philo is one of the characters that try to prove that God is not how we describe him. In chapter V he makes a metaphor that the universe is a machine designed by a greater being, but that being is not God. I disagree with Philo because if there is evidence of a God who is similar to our theology, then that is good enough. Philo argues that God is not perfect and does not control everything in the universe. Although that is a relevant point, I believe that God made the universe the best it could be, and how could we even know what the perfect universe is supposed to look like? Philo has no bases to suggest the world is perfect or imperfect, so therefore he cannot judge if God is perfect or imperfect. The second reason why I disagree with Philo is because God is all knowing and powerful. A designer knows all the parts in his machine, and if God is the designer then he knows every part that exists in the universe. Even if God is not all power and knowing, that doesn’t matter. Philo’s argument actually helps prove that our idea of God is more accurate than those that say God is non-existent. If God is the creator of the universe, he must be infinitely more powerful and knowledgeable than humans, but there is no way to prove he is omnibenevolent. All in all Philo’s argument that the designer of the universe is not the traditional God does not matter because his description of the designer is very similar to the traditional God.
ReplyDeleteWhat would a theist say if he/she was told that the God he/she believed in was not who he/she really thought he (God) was? As you could imagine, it would probably be problematic for the theist who has spent years in devotion to this traditional, three-omni (omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent) containing God. Before addressing the prompt, it is important to lay out the machine analogy, essentially the design argument, that Cleanthes proposes in part 2 on p. 15 of the Dialogues. In premise form, it is similar to this:
ReplyDeletei) The world is like on big machine.
ii) Like a machine, the world has many parts working towards order.
iii) A machine needs (has) a creator, as does a universe.
iv) Because the word is more complex (than a machine), the mind behind the creator of the universe must be more powerful than the mind (human) behind the machine.
v) Therefore, there is a powerful creator/designer of the universe whom we can attribute to God.
At first, this argument seems fair, and the proof of the designer of the universe being God does not seem farfetched. However, Philo points out some serious flaws with this analogy used to prove that the traditional God is the designer of the universe. In his objections, his goal is not to show that there isn’t a designer of the universe, but rather that it does not necessarily have to be the/a traditional God. Some examples he uses to object to this analogy are that, and this is a big one, it is possible that there is a God (not the traditional one) who is the creator; in other words, there could be a God who is very, very powerful, but not necessarily omnipotent. Similarly, there could even be an evil genius as a designer of the universe. Even more possible is the idea that the designer of the universe could just be a copier; he (it/she, or whatever we choose as a pronoun) does not need to be a genius (omniscient).
Another example he uses to prove this analogy false goes a little something like this: God’s perfection is based on the universe --> if God is perfect then the universe must therefore be perfect --> this claim, of course, that the universe is perfect, cannot be made.
A few more brief examples are that if the universe is finite (which it is), then God cannot have infinite power. This debunks God’s traditional label as being omnipotent. In addition, it is entirely possible that there can be more than one God (designer of the universe). It takes more than one person to create a machine, so why can’t this same truth be applied to the universe?
Philo’s objections are, for the most part, all fair claims, and they do in fact succeed in proving the machine analogy (design argument) to be fallible. He shows that while there can still be a designer of the universe, it does not necessarily have to be accredited to the traditional God that theists believe in. As to whether or not this causes problems is another story. It most definitely does cause problems. To refer back to the “situation” posed in the first sentence of this blog, it is not hard to imagine that a theist would be disappointed to find out that the God he/she believed in has the possibility of being false. To remove God’s perfection would be like replacing milk in a bowl of cereal with water – it’s doesn’t fly. Of course it is an extreme exaggeration to liken an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God to a bowl of cereal, but it is just to put things into context. The point is that, for most theists at least, the fact that there is a designer of the universe, even if he is a really, really powerful God, it will not cut it, unless he has his attributed perfection that he has been traditionally associated with.