Compare the concept of God as a prime mover to the idea of him as a craftsman

If we were to accept the concept of God as a prime mover we would then have to accept that while God created humanity, he really wants nothing to do with it. If we were to accept the contrasting view of him as a craftsman then we have to accept that God created us for a reason and wants to forma relationship with us, this has its negativites however. IF we accept that then we must accept that all atrocities that have occurred have happened and God has no qualms with it happening. The support for viewing God as a creator comes from the Book of Genesis. The mention of God in this book has led to the belief that God created the world “ex nihilo” or out of nothing. In Genesis it is also implied that God wants to have a relationship with his creation because he has given them a list of commands to follow (the Ten Commandments.) This draws a parallel with the Aristotelian idea of God as more of a prime mover. This would make God an external agent working with matter, nor is he an agent over against other agents. This two ideas contrast here because if God were to not be against other agents, he would not have banished Lucifer, as it is told in the bible. Another point of conflict between these two ideas of God lies in the problem of evil. If we accept the traditional idea of God as a master craftsman we must accept that he himself made all things in the world and therefore they must be perfect. This however leaves us confused when evil arises as it does not explain the existence of evil, ugliness and less perfect forms such as disease and disability. Moreover, If God created the universe and everything that happens within the universe including evil and suffering. Since in Aristotle’s theory of God, God simply created the world without specifically crafting all things, the problem of evil would arise through evil itself manipulating Gods creation as a platform for evil, rather than evil arising through merely using God’s creation. Another contrast between these two concepts is the logic that both use to validate their God’s existence. While both use logic they employ very different forms of it. Aristotle argues that everything in the universe is in a constant state of motion and this motion is caused by the motion of other things, therefore there must be something beyond human understanding acting as a motor for all this motion and this motor would be God. The standard Judeao Christian validation for God’s existence is since we can see from empirical evidence that the universe has order and design and God is the reason for that design. These two ideas contrast because one goes on to support a more Darwinian approach, that everything in the universe has come in existence through chance, where as, the other suggests that everything in the universe came into existence because God saw it fit to exist.
All points of conflict between these two arguments boil down to the same point: does everything exist because it has a specific reason to exist, or has everything come into existence through chance and consequence. This point addresses many things, the problem of evil, purpose and the idea of morality.

Only Philosophers can explain creation If only philosophers were able to explain creation that would mean that the account given by the bible and the beliefs of millions of people would be wrong. It could be argued that only philosophers could explain creation if you were to follow the teachings of Plato. In his analogy of the cave Plato states that since philosophers are the only ones to have escaped the cave (material bonds) they are the only ones who have discovered the nature of creation and thus it is only they who can explain it. Philosophers may also be the only ones who can explain creation because they are impartial to wholly scientific and religious views and therefore they could incorporate both to create a theory that takes into account all possible causes. Since they can do this they could potentially put forward a balanced explanation of creation. It may also be argued that only philosophers can explain creation because philosophers have been at the forefront of logical reasoning throughout history, for example Plato and his rationality behind the events and consequences of his cave analogy.
However it may be argued that only philosophers could not explain creation because creation has already been explained in religious texts. It may also be argued that the only science and facts based on empirical evidence can explain creation and therefore that scientists are the only people capable of creating a valid explanation of creation.

To conclude, whilst philosophers use logic masterfully in their theories, they often manipulate the logic to make it support them. Since the explanation of creation is a matter that concerns everyone in existence manipulated logic will not suffice. The only people who can explain creation are the people that actually know, for a fact, how the universe came into existence, regardless of their brand as scientists, preachers or philosophers.