Cordoba said:
It must be eternal. If we assume anything save this, then this will denote that it has a period of non-existence, and anything whose existence is preceded by a period of non-existence is an incident and needs a cause to endow it with existence. If the Necessary Being was not eternal, it would have needed an originator, and this is impossible because the Necessary Being is that who is self-existent; it needs no cause to endow it with existence and is the originator of all existing things.
We have already agreed this is implicit in the definition. That, however, does not mean that He cannot work within time as He sees fit, which could even include subjecting Himself to it.
Cordoba said:
Non-existence can never befall the Necessary Being, otherwise it would be deprived of itself and this is impossible.
I would agree that this is implicit in the definition. God would be self-existant. That is, He would be true being. Everything else is derivative being.
Cordoba said:
It must not be composed of parts, because if this were the case it would have required the precedent presence of these parts, which have an independent existence. Hence it would have needed the existence of something else, and the existence of the Necessary Being is not due to any cause save itself. Moreover, if it had been composed of parts its existence would have depended on the existence of these parts.
While I agree that God is not composed of parts, I think you've overstepped your logic. How do you know that God isn't a universe contained in Himself, and that our universe popped up out of His core universe: that ours is a derivative? You can't.
In fact, you have already defined him into posts. You have specified He must have abslotue free-will. By doing so, you have stated you can identify a part. However, this doesn't indicate that "parts" require a precedent. Indeed, they may be as self-existent within the Creator as the parts you believe in, His will or ability.
Cordoba said:
It must not be divisible, because if it had been divisible the resultant would have been a number of partitions, consequently a number of existing things liable to non-existence or composition, and this is impossible as aforementioned.
Again, you cannot know this without divine revelation.
How do you know that divisions within God wouldn't all be co-eternal? You assume that if God has a division in Himself that it is the result of a prior cause. But, like the above, it could be self-existent. Since God is not subject to the universe, then we cannot know if God has divisions, or even if the division/unity dichotomy can make any sense in reference to Him.
Cordoba said:
It must be omniscient; its all-inclusive knowledge must precede the acknowledged so that the acknowledged coincides with the eternal knowledge of the Necessary Being.
If God is not subject to time, and all existence comes from Him, then I can see this being reasonable. However, we do not know how this omniscience works. Does He see all possibilities or only those that happen? We cannot know.
Cordoba said:
It must have absolute ability so as to be able to originate and create all the possible and potential things, the means of their existence, their survival, as well as the causes of their annihilation.
I agreed above with qualifications on wording: "ability" is a property of the universe we see. God is the source of all ability, but we do not know how that functions with Him without revelation.
Cordoba said:
It must have an overwhelming will and absolute freedom of choice, as all the possible things exist at a certain time and according to certain characteristics, and it could have been otherwise. Therefore they exist according to the eternal will of their originator and creator.
You assume that god has a will. What happens if God just
is, and the universe emanates from Him? In that case, God makes no decisions, and the universe becomes a creation of God simply because God is. Without divine revelation, we cannot even know God has a mind.
Cordoba said:
It must be ever-living in order to grant life to all living things. Its life must be eternal; it is the life that is neither affected by sleep nor slumber, or else its knowledge, ability and will would have been reduced, and this is impossible because all possible beings are in constant need of the absolute existence and presence of the Necessary Being.
This is another argument that I agree with, but it also follows from your wording that He must also be eternal death. After all, all death also flows from Him. Destructive things like tsunamis and black holes are His creations after all.
To define it any other way requires divine revelation.
Cordoba said:
It, solely, must have absolute existence, with no other Necessary Being or grantor of existence. If there had been any other Necessary Being it would have been either a helper or a rival. The existence of a helper would mean that the Necessary Being does not have absolute ability, while the existence of a rival would have spoiled the order of all possible things because of differences in wills and choices.
That I can grant. God is self-existent, but it is subject to our lack of knowledge on division/unity and parts or even if those concepts make any sense. The argument can only refer to the existence of other beings, not of divisions within God, emanations from God, or parts of God.
Cordoba said:
It must have no limited essence, because every essence is restricted to a limited space in which it must either be still or moving; both stillness and motion are incidental, and anything associated with an incident is incidental.
This makes sense. Motion is only the definition of something existing in the universe. Since the Creator does not, then I can grant that, but there are hangups here.
Cordoba said:
It must have no body. Since it has no limited essence, it must have no body as every body must have a spatial limit and must be made of a number of matters, and all these qualities apply only to incidental things.
I can agree to this only in part. However, if God chooses a body and to exist within one for a period of time, is that beyond God's capabilities?
Cordoba said:
It must not require a body to occupy. Anything that occupies a body is temporal and is not self-existent, but requires the existence of this body preceding its own existence. Every body is incidental and needs the precedent existence of its creator. How would the Necessary Being occupy a body if its existence had been eternal? This denotes that this Being is self-existent, has neither a limited essence nor a body; is not temporal and does not need a body to occupy.
Now this I can agree to. He doesn't require a body...but that doesn't mean that He's limited in that He can't assume one. Unless, of course, you want to put limits on God's abilities
. As for how God could do such a thing? I can't understand God, so I am certainly not going to attempt to explain that.
Cordoba said:
It must not be restricted to directions. All directions are incidental and described in relation to the human body; they are either above, below, in front, at the back, to the left or to the right. If the human being had been created in a different shape, e.g. as a sphere, there would have been no directions created. Therefore, it is impossible to assume that any direction can be attributed to the Necessary Being, or that it can be restricted to directions. How could any direction be attributed to the Necessary Being if all directions are incidental?
If God should choose for it to be. Remember, we cannot understand the nature of God, and we cannot understand how He could manifest Himself in the universe. For all we know, He can assume a body, and assuming one, have the orientation of the body all the while having no orientation over all. Contradictory? You bet...but we're talking about a being not subject to the rules of the universe, and that includes directions.
Cordoba said:
All the epithets of perfection attributed to any created being must be attributed to the Necessary Being in the most perfect manner because it is quite illogical to assume that the created being is more perfect than the creator.
You cannot know this. I agree, but you cannot know it. God is not subject to our logic, and thus, who are we to guess at His motives?
After reading the above, it seems to me that you are either confusing revelation with fact, or you have gone off and done a lot of speculation about something you can't know about. Not all of those attributes are anywhere near implicit in the term Creator.
