OH GOD!

Was God that bad?

What kind of theodicy could have saved such a God? Leibniz’s theodicy or Hegel’s? Which one was enough to justify God what happened?

Hegel’s argument when he said, “God rules everything and God is always good”, or Leibniz’s theory claiming that “this world is the best of all possible worlds”?

Did God create the universe only for once and then walked away, leaving us to our fates? Is God passive as in Aristotle’s description of the first mover?

Moreover, was Schopenhauer not absolutely right when he said; “If God created this world, I would not rather want to be in His place. Because the misery in the world breaks my heart.”. He goes on by saying; “As creative souls, it is our right to show Him what He has created and shout at Him. How did you attempt to break the silence and stillness of nothingness for the sake of exposing so much unhappiness and sadness?”

Let us consider the resemblance of this objection and the objection of the angels mentioned in Qur’an:

“Remember when your Lord said to the angels; ‘I am going to place a successive human authority on earth.’. They asked Allah, ‘Will You again place in it someone who will spread corruption there and shed blood while we glorify Your praises and proclaim Your holiness?’ Allah responded, ‘I know what you do not know.’” (Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 30)

Was Nietzsche wrong when he said that God is dead? Oh... Nietzsche! The wild philosopher, being ecstatic with God Dionysos’s endless turns, striking every bleeding wound with a scalpel, taunting man’s hypocrisy and all of his degeneration ruthlessly, making him blush even when they are reading his words. We owe him to be honest in our thoughts and feelings, which is for sure! Nevertheless, why did that magnificent brain of his finally bleed itself? Brain, the organ that we almost worship

for its efficiency... By saying, “God is dead,” he meant “you have killed God.”. Yes, but was not he placing his own head in a noose by deifying the Ubermensch where God died?

God could not live in humans; therefore, humans could not be deified.

Furthermore, Kant’s relationship with God was based on an approach and reproach basis. Surrounding his subject with “a priori” and “a posteriori” information in the world of phenomena, Kant, on the other hand, left his subject in the void of agnosticism when he came to the thing-in-itself, which is their essence and behind the phenomena. To whom does this world of “Self, the Numen” belong? To God! However, he claimed we cannot know Him. Here we hit the wall again!

Kant’s declaration that God is transcendent is a turning point in the history of philosophy. Of course, isolating God utterly from the world of phenomena and bringing Him into the transcendent realm was an essential step. In this way, a thought that coincided with monotheistic religions has commenced to exist.

In times of polytheism, pagan beliefs claimed that God was all around the being.

Or was God a transcendent being?

If he was an immanent being, what kind of immanence was it?

According to Kant, God was only immanent in our conscience, and He was a being we can know through revelation.

Are we killing God when and if we could know, and are we expelling him from the earth when/if we could not?

On the other hand, Spinoza was a hermit, but he was in exile at the same time, expelled like his tribe (Jew). Spinoza’s loneliness was something greater than the loneliness of his tribe because he was removed from his land and dismissed for the second time by his tribe. Perhaps for the same reason, he brought God down and scattered Him into each corner of the planet. He had no one else to refuge. His longing and love for God was the most fundamental motive of his entire philosophy. For him, the universe is filled with God, and the universe is God itself. This approach of Spinoza was in conflict with monotheistic religions, and it actually eventually transformed into Pantheism. As a matter of fact, Spinoza was excommunicated by the synagogue. Later he refused offers of employment from universities and worked as an optician at La Haye.

Moreover, he retreated himself from the shores of the world to his internal shores.

Furthermore, why did such a world emerge? Is it the “best of all possible worlds” as a result of Leibniz’s infinitely variable world of Being?

Was it enough to define the world as good and accept that it manifests in a particular shape among all infinite calculations, infinitesimal?

According to Leibniz, as the first great representative of German philosophy in the New Age, there are monads (capability/ force/potential) placed into each being separately. Communication between the monads proceeds according to a predetermined harmony Harmonia Mundi (Universal Harmony). Leibniz believes that the universe is predetermined right from the beginning.

Nevertheless, the questions remain:

Was the universe God Himself?

Was there no qualitative difference between the Creator and the created?

What kind of existence does the universe have, beyond being wholly transcendent or immanent?

In what ways was God immanent or transcendent to the universe?

If the universe was determined from the beginning, where did the creatures begin, and where did the Creator end?

Could the monads dance in harmony all over the universe?

Of course, there are answers to these questions, but let us simply keep asking our questions for now, as the questions matter more than the answers!