I Owe You an Apology: The Creator Revealed

In the previous post in the I Owe You an Apology Series, Creation is a Fact, I used logic and reason to show that the Universe must have been created, and also pointed out 4 important facts about God that are revealed in the logic that leads to the Creation Fact.

• God must be eternal
• God must be immutable
• God must be omnipotent
• God must be capable of decision

With this small bit of information revealed I closed the post with this statement:

There are many other truths we can infer about God from these simple truths, but at this point I think it is enough to have provided a reasonable proof to the fact of Creation.

As I said, there are many things which can be inferred from the logic that leads to a Creator. Many suppose that God has hidden Himself, but if so he is terrible at hide and seek. It isn’t that God hid so that He cannot be found, it is that He is not so obvious that we cannot reject Him. We must open our eyes and look.

Just as a bit of warning, my previous post was more general, focusing on the general concept of a created Universe, this post focuses in more closely to what we can know about the Creator, and may be offensive to those holding to beliefs which are not supported by the included statements.

So why can’t Polytheism be the source of a Creator?

True Polytheism is logically flawed. In Ancient Polytheistic Myths, the gods are not eternal. The come from somewhere, as I demonstrated in the previous post, this simple cannot work logically. They have to either be eternal, or they have to be created by one who is eternal. However, let’s assume that the myth writers were capturing great ideals of omnipotent beings which are eternal. Could that work?

No, you can’t have more than one omnipotent being that is unique in being. Again, this falls to the mathematical and logical failures regarding the problem of infinity.

Just as new gods could never be created, being infinite in power they must be infinite in existence, gods cannot be plural in the Polytheistic sense. Let’s consider two gods of ancient lore, Zeus and Hera. Husband and wife, brother and sister, male and female, but not infinite. Infinite, by it’s very definition, implies a whole and complete set without limit. There could be no time where Zeus and Hera ever argued, but it is recorded they often argued, their knowledge of each other much be complete for them to be omniscient, and omnipotent implies all knowledge as well, as knowledge is power. There could never be anything that Zeus possessed which Hera did not and visa versa; and yet, it is clear that they each have unique characteristics, which means the other must be lacking those same characteristics. If a being is lacking, then they must not be infinite, again this is the definition. Infinity lacking is not infinity.

Now, could there be immensely powerful beings that shake the Heavens and Earth? Yes, the Bible refers to Angels, Demons, and even gods. However, it is important to note that the Bible never ascribes any of them with the full attributes of God and it seems very clear from Biblical accounts, and even more so the logic, that these beings are all created. Much like the Universe, all finite beings must be created, and by definition there can only be a single infinite being without origin, the immovable mover.

But What About Pantheism?

Pantheism is, in short, the generalized idea that there is a divine being, or consciousness, which all other existence emerged and which all other existence is a part of. That might be a bit too short, but the general concept is valid, and if you really want to learn more, there are plenty of resources available. I know there are many sets and subsets of Pantheism, but generally they hold to at least this general concept.

Now I must admit, this seems to fit everything we have seen from the logic thus far. This can provide a basis for Polytheism within a Pantheistic worldview (some religions do this). There is really only one major flaw, and by this flaw the entire house collapses. God must be immutable. I already provided a single argument for this, but lets consider one other argument before I show how this breaks the Pantheistic Model.

Remember that you cannot add to, or take away from infinity, by definition it must be complete, and must always have been complete. How can we know this? Well lets say that you have an infinite set of numbers, and lets say the number 1 did not exist in this infinite set. Essentially this is infinity-1. Now lets say that someone “invents” the number 1 and now that number is part of the infinite set of all numbers. This is infinity+1. OK, so things seem fine, except this doesn’t work mathematically. X-1=X is an invalid assertion as is X+1=X, but that is what we must believe to hold to the idea that the infinite can be added to or subtracted from.

If you are a thinker, then you have already made the next logical step which proves why the Universe cannot be created by an eternal entity, and also be a part of this being. If the being is infinite, then it must already have every part of it’s infinite self for all eternity. You can’t add a universe to the being. Now the being could add a finite universe that is not part of his being.

Which Brings us Back to Monotheism

As you can see, Monotheism is the only belief model which fits the logic.

• All things which have been created must have a creator.
• The Universe was created
• There cannot be an infinite regression of creators.
• There must be a prime Creator by which all created things have existence
• The Creator must be omnipotent
• The Creator must be eternal
• The Creator must be immutable
• The Creator must be One
• The Creation cannot be part of the Creator
• Therefor the Creator must be very must like the God of the Bible

In fact, no other religion or other worldview appears to fit with the logic.

Moreover, we can continue to infer a great number of things about the Creator. For example:

• The Creator is self sufficient: If He required other beings He couldn’t have already have existed for eternity before the first creation
• The Creator chose to create: Since He is self sufficient, He didn’t need to create, so it must be a choice be the logic of exclusion, if it is not choice A it must be the remaining choice B. In this case there really is not other choice so it applies.
• The Creator must love His Creation: Since He chose to create, and since He knows all and is all powerful, He must have chosen out of love knowing much of His creation would reject Him
• The Creator is absolute good: This is a truism by definition, being the originator of all good He is the definer of all good, and the measure of all good.
• Evil cannot exist within the Creator: evil is a deviation of good, that is to say it is the changing of good to less than good. Since the Creator is immutable then the inherent (by definition) goodness of the Creator cannot be changed to less than good.

Honestly I could go on and on, but as you see, the logic ends up defining the same God that the Bible defines. Now one might think I am allowing my own prejudice to come to these conclusions, and such a person would be at least partially right. My worldview shapes my understanding, this is nearly a definition to the concept of worldview; however, this does not render the logic invalid. Follow the logic and it is sound and reasonable.