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?
I would like to specifically respond to Philo’s argument, that like many human machines, the perfection attained in the universe is a result of many trials and errors not the work of an omnipotent and omniscient being. Philo, looking at how the universe runs like a well-oiled machine does not deny that it preforms perfectly, and accepts that there must have been a designer. However, he specifically brings up the point that this being could have tried an infinite number of times until finally coming up with a perfect machine—the universe. I would like to challenge the idea that because this is a possibility, than this being may not be perfect. After all this being has made a perfectly functioning universe so doesn’t that make this deity also perfect? Furthermore, it is possible that this entity did not start out as perfect but as time passed it acquired knowledge and power just as how children grow, learn and eventually rule the world as their fathers before them. Over an infinite amount of it would be possible to gradually gain knowledge and power until one becomes both all-knowing and all-powerful. If a being has attained perfection than we would still call it perfect even if it used to not be all perfect. Perhaps, Philo is right that god had to try many times to make a perfect world but the mere fact that god did make a perfect a perfectly functioning universe means that god must have also attained perfection in order to create it.
ReplyDeleteGod’s existence is not only a long-debated topic, but an also somewhat subjective concept. God has been generally defined as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being. This means all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. One of Philo’s several arguments that I would like to address is that God cannot exist due to Hylas’s argument failing to fall into this general definition. Philo states that the misery and suffering humans experience is proof in itself that God cannot exist. Being an all-knowing power, God knows that suffering exists, yet humans still suffer. Next, because s/he is all-good, God wants there to be no suffering, yet once again humans experience pain and misery. Lastly, because God is all-powerful, s/he has the power to eliminate and prevent suffering. Philo believes that because the scenario of suffering contradicts the definition of God, this higher mind/being cannot exist. If God did exist, then s/he would most certainly stop suffering and misery, right? I do not believe this is the case because while Philo’s argument is not wrong, it is also possible that God intentionally lets suffering happen. Humans could be spared from intense, massive amounts of suffering and go through relatively minute pain deemed necessary by God. I do not believe that God does not need to fit the tri-omni definition, and should just be thought of as a higher mind or being. I think that Philo is taking an unnecessary and risky step trying to prove God through his/her characteristics before having any actual proof of his/her existence, and that his argument on suffering is easily refutable through reason.
ReplyDelete