” The existence of the creator, Ohrmazd, is manifested by the formation of the Creation. ”
─ Denkard, book 3
” In the name of the creator Ohrmazd. ”
Hello all, in this post I hope to create an argument for Ohrmazd. As you can read in the quote I wrote above, the Denkard writes that the Creation itself is evidence for the existence of Ohrmazd (God). So I will offer an argument like the Kalam Argument or the Leibniz Argument for Ohrmazd. This argument will be based off what we read in the Denkard, which is as Wikipedia calls it, a ” a 10th century compendium of the Mazdaen Zoroastrian beliefs and customs. ” (Wikipedia) I should also let it be known that when I say Ohrmazd, I am referring to the God of the Abrahamic religion, which is Christianity, Jews, and Islam in the East, because I think that Ohrmazd is this same God, no fundamental properties changed.
My argument is based on these premises that lead to a valid conclusion:
1. If the formation of the Universe happened, then Ohrmazd exists
2. The formation of the Universe happened
3. Hence, Ohrmazd exists
So I will now defend each of the premises. Obviously this is similar to the Kalam argument presented by ancient Muslims in the East and William Craig. (Craig)
Two. If the formation of the Universe happened, then Ohrmazd exists
” First he produced the celestial sphere […] ”
I think this is the premise that most of the anti-theists will disagree with. Well I don’t understand why. A few hundred years ago, most anti-theists would think that if the formation of the Universe happened, then Ohrmazd exists, because being cannot come from non-being so there must be a being to create it, which exists without a cause, like with being necessary. So anti-theists reasoned that the formation of the Universe never happened, and that there are neverending years before the current time. So it wasn’t until modern that anti-theists accepted the formation of the Universe and still denied Ohrmazd.
Why would the formation of the Universe mean that Ohrmazd exists? Well I briefly touched upon this in the paragraph above. If the formation of the Universe happened, then that means all the materials we see, all the things we see, came into being before our current time, with a certain number of years ago. But why would this come into being, rather than not come into being? For instance, what I mean is, even if this is the beginning of time, this would still demand an explanation. Why would there be material, rather than not material? It seems to me that if the Universe came into being, then the Universe must have a reason to be, or in France, ” raison detre. “
Well, if the Universe has a ” raison detre, ” then I think it would be Ohrmazd. If we say, it could be a white hole from a black hole in another Universe (Gibbs), then we just need another explanation for that. Anything that does not exist in and of itself, needs another explanation. So if we say this made the Universe, or that made the Universe, then we are just needing another explanation for those things. So we need something that could exist in and of itself, like logic, or math, or a necessary being like Ohrmazd. Well out of math and such I think a willful being like Ohrmazd is the best explanation, if not the only one (how can math make a Universe?)
So I think we should accept the premise ” If the formation of the Universe happened, then Ohrmazd exists ” because the formation of the Universe means that an explanation is needed, and the best explanation is Ohrmazd.
Three. The formation of the Universe happened
” Thou knowest this, and how it is, O holy Zarathushtra! from my understanding and from my knowledge; namely, how the world first began […] ”
─ Khorda Avesta
I think since most anti-theists pride themselves for loving and accepting science, this should not be hard to agree with.
Well Neil J. Cornish writes in his article about measuring the shape of the Universe that we should agree with the ” Big Bang ” model of the Universe because it has profound evidence in favor of its truth, such as the expansion of the Universe, the existence of background radiation, and the widespread existence of the lightest elements. (Cornish) So we should accept that the Universe is formed because we have observed many different bits of evidence that lead us to this conclusion.
Four. Hence, Ohrmazd exists
” This, too, that the friendship of Ohrmazd is appropriated by him who has Ohrmazd as a guardian […] ”
─ Denkard, book 9
Well this conclusion follows from premise 1 and premise 2. So let’s look at the logical version of my argument.
1. F → O
3. ∴ O
Where ” F ” is the formation of the Universe, ” O ” is the existence of Ohrmazd. So if F, then O. Then F. Hence, O. I have defended 1 and 2. So then 3 follows, that Ohrmazd, the Creator of all things, exists.
Cornish, Neil J., and Jeffrey R. Weeks. Measuring the Shape of the Universe. ” Big Bang Cosmology. ” 1998. p. 1.
Craig, William Lane, and Moreland, J.P. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. ” The Kalam Cosmological Argument. ” pp. 101 ─ 201.
Gibbs, Philip. ” Is the Big Bang a black hole? ” Physics FAQ. Retrieved on February 18, 2013.
Wikipedia. ” Denkard. ” Retrieved on February 18, 2013.