How to define God?

Before speaking of the soul and its destiny, one must know the nature of God. Not through faith — through reason: each attribute demonstrated as a necessary consequence, and each depending on the others.

This story is presented in the form of a supposed dialogue between two friends — Tom and Roger — who have completely different views on life. In the first part, we addressed the question of God, the cause of causes, and the scientific-philosophical proofs of His existence.

After a brief silence, Roger asks:

— Tom, is today the day you will speak to me about the soul and its destiny after death?

— Before we speak of the question of the soul and its destiny, we must seek to know at least a little of the nature of God. We do not yet know all that He is, but we can already form an idea of what He cannot fail to be. We already know of His existence; now we need to understand His attributes.

— And what are those attributes? — asks Roger, growing ever more curious.

— God is the supreme and sovereign intelligence. He is eternal, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, sovereignly just and good, infinitely perfect, unique. These are the attributes that God cannot fail to have.

Roger looks at his friend and says:

— Explain that better. Why can God not fail to have these attributes?

Tom, pleased by Roger's question, explains:

— God is the supreme and sovereign intelligence because He encompasses the infinite. For that reason, it must be infinite. If we supposed it limited at any point, we could conceive of another being more intelligent, capable of understanding and doing what the first could not, and so on, to infinity.

Roger signals to his friend to continue.

— God is eternal because He had no beginning and will have no end. If He had had a beginning, He would have come out of nothingness. Now, since nothingness is nothing at all, nothing can it produce. Or else He would have been created by another prior being, and in that case, that being would be God. If we supposed Him a beginning or an end, we could conceive of an entity existing before Him and capable of outliving Him, and so on, to infinity.

Roger, recalling an earlier conversation with his friend, says:

— Yes, we reached that conclusion in an earlier conversation. Truly He cannot fail to be the supreme and sovereign intelligence and, of course, He also cannot fail to be eternal. Can you continue?

— God is immutable because, if He were subject to change, the laws that govern the universe would have no stability.

Roger, frowning, says:

— Immutable? But the universe is in constant change, evolution, expansion. How can the cause of all that be immutable?

— It is an important distinction, Roger. The universe changes — but the laws that govern it do not change. Gravity worked in the same way a billion years ago and will work in the same way a billion years from now. The speed of light is constant. The mathematical constants are eternal. If the primary cause changed, the laws would change with it — and the universe would be unpredictable, chaotic, impossible for science to comprehend. The fact that science is possible — the fact that we can discover laws and rely on them — is in itself evidence of the immutability of the cause that sustains them.

Roger signals to his friend to continue.

— God is immaterial because His nature differs from everything we call matter. Otherwise, He would not be immutable, for He would be subject to the transformations of matter.

Roger, thoughtful, says:

— But Tom, if God is immaterial, how can He interact with a material universe?

— Notice, Roger, Einstein demonstrated that matter and energy are two forms of the same reality — E=mc2. Steam is not solid like stone, yet it moves locomotives and ships. Even within the universe there are profoundly different realities that interact with one another. Invisible fields move particles. Gravity acts at a distance. Modern physics itself has shown us that reality is far deeper than the old idea of solid matter. Therefore, the mere fact that God is of a nature different from matter does not mean that He cannot act upon it. It means only that our understanding of reality is still limited.

Roger is amazed at the connection between the attributes and says:

— It is incredible, Tom. The attributes need to be connected to one another for them to make sense. Continue, my friend, continue.

— God is omnipotent because, if He did not possess supreme power, one could always conceive of a more powerful entity, and so on, until reaching the being whose potency no other being could surpass. That one, then, would be God.

Roger nods to his friend to continue.

— God is sovereignly just and good because the providential wisdom of the divine laws reveals itself in the smallest things as in the greatest, that wisdom not allowing His justice or His goodness to be doubted. The fact that a being possesses one quality infinitely excludes the possibility of a contrary quality, for the latter would diminish or annul it. An infinitely good being could not contain the most insignificant portion of malignity. God, therefore, could not be simultaneously good and evil, for, not possessing either of these two qualities in the supreme degree, He would not be God; all things would be subject to His caprice and for none of them would there be stability. He could not, consequently, fail to be either infinitely good or infinitely evil. Now, since His works bear witness to His wisdom, His goodness, and His solicitude, it will be concluded that, not being able to be at once good and evil without ceasing to be God, He must necessarily be infinitely good. Sovereign goodness implies sovereign justice, for if He acted unjustly or with partiality in a single circumstance, or with regard to a single one of His creatures, He would no longer be sovereignly just and, consequently, would no longer be sovereignly good.

Roger, frowning, says:

— But Tom, if God is infinitely good, how do you explain the suffering in the world? The wars, the diseases, the death of innocents. How can an infinitely good God allow that?

— That is an excellent question which we will look at later. First you need to understand a series of details that you do not yet grasp.

Roger is once again surprised by his friend's arguments and says:

— I am impressed by the arguments you use concerning the attributes of God. You may continue.

— God is infinitely perfect because it is impossible to conceive of God without the infinity of perfections, without which He would not be God, for one could always conceive of a being possessing what He lacked. So that no being may surpass Him, it is essential that He be infinite in everything. Being infinite, the attributes of God are not susceptible to increase or diminution, otherwise they would not be infinite and God would not be perfect. If the smallest portion were taken from any of His attributes, there would no longer be a God, for a more perfect being could exist.

Roger asks his friend to continue.

— God is unique, because the uniqueness of God is a consequence of the fact that His perfections are infinite. Another God could not exist, save on the condition of being equally infinite in all things, since, if there were between them the slightest difference, one would be inferior to the other, subordinate to the power of that other, and then would not be God. If there were between the two absolute equality, that would amount to there existing, from all eternity, one same thought, one same will, one same power. Thus merged as to identity, there would be, in reality, no more than a single God. If each had special attributions, one would not do what the other did; but then there would not be perfect equality between them, for neither would possess sovereign authority. In short, God cannot be God except on the condition that no other surpass Him, because the being that exceeded Him in whatever it might be, even if only by the thickness of a hair, would be the true God. So that this may not occur, it is indispensable that He be infinite in everything. (1)(4)(5)

Roger is filled with wonder at the irrefutable logic his friend presents to him concerning the attributes of God and says: — Tom, I am astonished by your exposition of the attributes of God. I understand them all and I see that some cannot exist without the others. Yet, what is the relationship between the soul and its destiny and the attributes of God?

Tom breaks into a smile and says:

— Roger, they are indispensable for us to understand the soul and its destiny. But we are still only at the beginning, and there are many points left to connect.

— My dear Tom, the destiny of the soul after death is merely a matter of faith. Some religions say one thing, others say another. Some speak of heaven, hell, paradise. They speak of souls, spirits, angels, demons. In short, all of that is nothing but a matter of faith.

— No, Roger, that is not a matter of faith. Our conversations have no religious character. We do not intend here to defend religion A, B, or C. Our conversations are always scientific-philosophical.

Roger, surprised, says:

— But Tom, how can you speak of the soul without speaking of religion? The soul is a religious concept.

— It is true that religions have spoken of the soul for millennia, Roger. But the soul is not the exclusive property of religion. Plato explored the nature of the soul as a philosophical and rational question, through the force of pure reason, independently of any belief. Pythagoras, the Stoics, the Neoplatonists did the same. What is most interesting is that thinkers from completely different eras, cultures, and traditions arrived at the same conclusions about the soul — not through faith, but through reason. And more recently, researchers such as Dr. Alexander Moreira-Almeida, Dr. Ian Stevenson, and Dr. Pim van Lommel have studied the soul and the survival of consciousness with full scientific rigour. The question of the soul can be approached with philosophical and scientific rigour, without any need to invoke religion. That is precisely what we shall do. (6)(7)(8)

Roger is surprised by his friend's answer and says, animated:

Excerpt from the work The Great Discovery, by César Manuel Malainho de Oliveira.
Read the full work · Listen to the work