The debate of the nature of God has raged since time immemorial. Many people have tried to express who God is and what relationship exists between man and God. This section of the paper aims to highlight some of the arguments by thinkers on who God is and the definition of the relationship between God and man.
On his part, Ghazali views God and as a supernatural, all-powerful entity that is behind all creation. Like any other thing existent on the earth, the man was created by God. Considering that God created man, what is the relationship between the two? Ghazali believes that man and God are related through an attachment of a spiritual link between God and the soul of man. Being his creator, God allowed man to continue deriving essentials from him. One of the essential derivatives from God to man through the spiritual link is knowledge. The soul of man travels towards its creator where the illumination of the spiritual linkage gives an individual knowledge of God (Mackie 36).
Down into the memorial past, God had plans to create man. This position puts Ghazali into controversy against the philosophers’ arguments towards emanation. According to him, it did not require God to change or wake up just to realize what he had created to make. It did not occur to him at some point to decide and choose a date for creation. He argues that God created time itself and hence had no reason to pick up a certain time to create.
In my opinion, Plotinus would not answer the first part of this question. This is evidenced by his perception of God. On his part, Plotinus views God as an incomprehensible entity that is incomplete oneness with itself. He refers to God as the One, which is a part of his four-step emanation degrees in his metaphysics. In his development of metaphysics, the One marks an integral part of the progression and all the other forms of emanation depend completely on him. Therefore, God becomes the standard source of knowledge and wisdom. It is from this source of wisdom that the Nous and other levels of emanation depend. Whereas all other things are multiple, God is one and has no trace of the character of multiplicity. This is even supported by Plotinus’ decision to refrain from giving much explanation of the one. He deems it fit to say that God is beyond and human explanation and understanding and that only negative theology can come closer to explaining God.
The lower cadres of emanation hence form other parts that are completely dependent on God. Man falls in the group the Universe. Equally, man is characterized by multiplicity. Like other lower levels of emanation, he completely depends on God who is perfect and good. However, men are evil because they fall way below the ladder of emanation. Just like a ray of light, which grows weaker further from its source, all the other forms from the One become weaker away from him and fade into evil and matter.
Aristotle views God as the center of everything (Banerjee, par. 2). He even gives an anecdote of a beautiful woman who walks down the street gazing at the ground as she is engraved in her thoughts. While she is oblivious of all that happens around her, the world around her cannot avoid giving her a stare. To Aristotle, this is the nature of God.
He argues that the relationship between man and God is an intricate one. While men are busy paying all their attention to God, his interest is not in the world. However, he points out that God cannot be swayed by this attention. The prayers and imprecations by men do not have any effect on God. This is because he is not a man. He does not change and cannot be made to think otherwise. His thoughts cannot change and he is not affected by passion. What he implies is that God is perfect and no form of prayers or passion can make him change his original and perfect self. This is to say that he cannot divert from his originality and become imperfect due to passion or prayer. Aristotle’s argument is based on the thesis that God is without passion and cannot change but he is perfect.
The most striking argument by Aristotle is the relationship between man and God. According to him, God is not movable. No amount of crying and praying can move him because he is perfect. Therefore, God is a mover of all things but he cannot be moved. He is termed by Aristotle as the “unmovable mover.” To distinguish God from other forms, he identifies every other thing as movable movers. These can be moved while they move others (Banerjee, par. 5).
Finally, contrary to the common belief that God is the creator of the Universe, Aristotle denies these allegations. He argues that God is not the creator of the Universe. Instead, he is the one that creates all the emotions within it. He argues that God cannot be a dreamer because dreamers yearn for something to accomplish. They seek to find happiness through the perfection of their work, an endeavor that is continuous and characterized by innovations. Therefore, creators are imperfect. However, God is perfect. He does not possess any dreams or desires. He does not desire to accomplish a certain mission that has become difficult. He does not yearn to achieve anything. He is perfect. As a result, he has no room to be unhappy.
This study has opened my eyes to several insights that I never thought of before. Most of them occurred to me as a surprise. One thing compels me. This emanates from Plotinus’ mysticism. Considering the argument, it becomes clear that most human actions are triggered by the contemplation of the wonders visible and invisible. Plotinus, therefore, posits that spirituality is the product of one’s contemplation on this issue, which eventually moves him from lower-level sense reality to spiritual reality. Whereas a scientist would be mesmerized and moved by the physical realities, spirituality goes beyond the physical realities and contemplates the spiritual realities that are foundation blocks from which the physical realities are developed.
I feel that when individuals contemplate the physical aspects of nature, it becomes clear that there has to be some intelligence behind the mystical physical realities. However, only inquisitive minds can understand the powers behind the physical realities. These minds can understand God and his existence. I find this argument by Plotinus very compelling because it offers me a chance to understand why some people believe in God while others find the issue of God as crap. These people have not been able to contemplate beyond the physical realities. They have failed to look beyond the physique and examine the power that creates such intricate creations.
On the other hand, there are arguments that I fail to agree with. This is Augustine’s position concerning war. Before this, I never considered that war could be justified under any circumstances, especially under the Christian teachings. However, Augustine points out certain circumstances in which he believes that military force could be used to get a solution to a given situation. Although Augustine tries to point out the circumstances, I still feel that they do not justify war. According to Augustine, if a community is undergoing tribulations, which are deemed lasting, and certain, military war must be used as an intervention tool. Second, he points out that if the other possible intervention measures are ineffective and impractical, then war could be justified. Third, war can be justified if it has been established that using it will not be successful. Finally, he argues that it can only be practical to use military war if the negative implications of the war will not outweigh the evil with which the war is expected to eliminate (O’Donnell 23).
Whereas these positions have been echoed and justified by other scholars and philosophers, a lot remains to be answered about this question. What makes me feel that war cannot be justified under any circumstances is the fact that what human beings need is a peaceful coexistence between neighbors. Should this status quo fall short of the expected equilibrium, one party is subjected to suffering. On the other hand, whenever any party is subjected to suffering, be it minor suffering or serious tribulations, there is no peace. This means, using tribulations to solve tribulations is like digging a hole to fill another hole. Therefore, pointing out that war can be justified if the tribulations being experienced by the party to be assisted far much outweighs the tribulations that war could bring to justify war is wrong. War subjects people to suffering and loss of property and death. At no point can one argue that all these could be good if the situation is worse. Therefore, I feel that Augustine’s perspective on just war was miscalculated
My preference for these two topics is established by the fact that they touch on reality. They explore true human feelings. For example, Plotinus’ position on mysticism helps me understand the diversity in beliefs in God’s existence. On the other hand, just war is a concept that has not been established without considering several other factors. For instance, using war to solve suffering problems is like substituting one problem with the other.
Works Cited
Banerjee, Bhaskar. Explorations into the Nature of God. 2009. Web.
Mackie, Leslie. The miracle of Theism. Arguments for and against the existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.
O’Donnell, James. Augustine: Confessions. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.