The next logical question is, how did God create? Again referring to God’s omnipotence, he must have created ‘ex nihilo’ or his power would be limited. As McCann observes (307), this ‘ex nihilo’ creation of the universe is not a process, because process by definition must have something to act on. A process would imply that God was dependant on the resources that he had to ‘create from’, which contradicts his omnipotence and status as a totally non-dependant being. Furthermore, if the universe were created as a process then it would have taken time to create which implies a limitation of God’s power because it is more powerful to create in an instant than over time.
As has been seen above, the creator aspect of God is closely entwined with his omnipotence and so it must be discussed. Because God must be defined as an ultimately perfect being, it is more perfect to be omnipotent than to be limited by the universe. But if this ontological reasoning for the need of omnipotence if not sufficient, then one must consider the implications of non-omnipotence. The main implication is, what is God able to do? If one questions his ultimate power, how far does his power extend, and is he able to fulfil the other attributes of God with this deficient power? For example, could God be personal and perfectly good is he was not omnipotent? The answer is simple, without an omnipotent God he cannot fulfil his other supposed attributes. Furthermore, as outlined in Vardy’s ‘Puzzle of God’ (147-153), when omnipotence is put in the context of creatorship, illogical omnipotence is necessary for God to be coherent. This is so because otherwise how could he create ex nihilo (which would mean he is outside the universe) and be personal (which would mean that he must be within the universe)?
Thus having shown why God must be a creator, is it necessary for his to preserve the world he created? This is very contentious but when analysed with closer scrutiny it becomes obvious that it must be the case. The first issue at hand is the scientific laws of conservation and preservation. Even if God did create, then the laws of conservation dictate that the matter (or energy) of which things are composed cannot be destroyed (or indeed created). As McCann so clearly points out (310), the laws of conservation are concerned with “all physical interactions”, this means that when two entities interact, like in a chemical reaction, the amount of matter before will equal the amount of matter after the interaction. Thus, the law in itself does not explain the continued existence of things; it merely shows that in physical interactions, matter undergoes transformations not obliteration.
The above does not prove why God must sustain us. It shows why conservation laws do not explain why we continue to exist. But perhaps why we continue to exist is very simple, perhaps an inertia like principle applies whereby once given existence we will continue to exist as a matter of course. However, this in itself is not explanatory enough of how we exist. This is saying that things have a disposition to exist but this explains nothing as highlighted by McCann (308). I.e. the solubility of salt doesn’t explain why it dissolves in water. Another reason for why we do not just stay in existence is highlighted in ‘Reason & Religious belief’ (67). It is our nature to be dependant; we are totally dependant on the universe to stay alive for example. We depend on energy itself to make our body function and we depend on the “non-occurrence” or certain things such as disease. Thus, every aspect of who we are depends on something as we are entirely contingent. So to say we are not dependant on anything for our continued existence is illogical, if we were not dependant on something for existence we would become self-sustaining and never pass out of existence which is clearly not the case. So we must be dependant on something that is self-sustaining, the only thing which can be defined as self sustaining is God as every other thing in the universe is entirely contingent.
However, just because we must be dependant on God for existence, does not explain why he would want to sustain us. This can be explained in reference to his other attributes. If creation ex nihilo occurred then at one time nothing existed, this meant that God must have made a conscious decision to create. He must have then had motive; what would motivate him to create the universe apart from a generous nature. It would not add to God’s greatness in any way to create so it was a free choice. Consequently, if a transcendent idea of God is applicable then God is immutable and so if his original nature were to want to create, then he would not be able to do anything but keep creating and sustain everything. Thus God must sustain if he did indeed create the universe.
However, the objection to this is that God must be immanent if he is to interact in the world, which so clearly seems the case if God is benevolent and personal. However, counter-exemplification of this is that God is omnipotent to the degree whereby he can do the logically impossible and thus can rise above the distinction between being in and out of the universe. Hence God can be both transcendent and immanent due to his omnipotence and thus is able to create ex nihilo and interact with the world he has created.
Thus in conclusion, if God exists then he must be the creator of the universe because if he didn’t it would undermine his omnipotence which as explained is infinite. This creation was ex nihilo and was a free choice on God’s behalf. If God did create the universe, it seems inevitable that he sustains because of his immutable nature. Furthermore, because the only coherent concept of God depends on the fact that God is illogically omnipotent, it follows that he is able to be both transcendent and immanent at the same time. Thus God is able to create ex nihilo and sustain the universe and still be coherent.
Bibliography
Peterson, Michael. & Hasker, William. Reason and Religious Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1998.
Quinn, Phillip L. A Companion To The Philosophy Of Religion. Trans. Hugh J McCann. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 1997Vardy, Peter. The Puzzle Of God. Glasgow: Fount Paperbacks 1999
Ward, Keith. The Concept Of God. Great Britain: Basil Blackwell Oxford 1974