Q&A: A Personal God
A Personal God
Question
Hello Michi. Can one say that the physico-theological argument not only tells us that there is something that created the world on the basis of its complexity, but that one can also infer from the complexity that it has intelligence, and if so then also will—or more generally, that God is a thinking being, and if so, then He is personal?
Answer
You can say that, and it is even reasonable. In fact, there was just a discussion here about that. I didn’t understand which two possibilities you’re raising here and what the difference is between them.
Discussion on Answer
Obviously. I meant your last sentence. Fine, I answered.
“You can say that, and it is even reasonable.” Why is it reasonable?
This is exactly the same discussion I had a few days ago. Wasn’t that you?
Do you mean this? https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%a9%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%94-%d7%91%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%A9%d7%90-%d7%94%d7%98%d7%99%d7%A2%d7%95%d7%9F-%d7%94%d7%A4%d7%99%D7%96%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95-%d7%AA%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99/
If so, there as here, the reasoning was lacking.
It may be that you have a vision problem.
I doubt it.
The closest thing to a reason you provided for why a mechanical explanation is insufficient was that it “itself required an explanation.” That’s why the question at the end had two parts. Why does a design explanation not “itself require an explanation”? To answer that, one has to clarify the reason the mechanical explanation requires explanation and then check whether those reasons are relevant to the design explanation.
If there is a person who plans and builds something, there is no need to explain the product, but perhaps the person. But here it is not a person but God, who is self-caused. But if a machine produces that same thing, the question arises: who is responsible for the machine?
The two possibilities are between God being someone and being something.