Let us therefore state the reason why the framer of this universe of change framed it at all. He was good, and what is good has no particel of envy in it; being therefore without envy he wished all things to be as like himself as possible. This is as valid a principel for the origin of the world of change as we shall discover from the wisdom of men, and we should accept it. God therefore, wishing that all things should be good, and so far as possible nothing be imperfect, and finding the visible universe in a state not of rest but of inharmonious and disorderly motion, reduced it to order from disorder, as he judged that order was in every way better. It is impossibel for the best to produce anything but the highest. When he considered, therefore, that in all the realm of visibel nature, taking each thing as a whole, nothing without intelligence is to be found that is superior to anything with it, and that intelligence is impossibel without soul, in fashioning the universe he implanted reason in soul and soul in body, and so ensured that his work should be by nature highest and best. And so that most likely account must say that this world came to be in very truth, through god's providence, a living being with soul and intelligence.
On this basis we must proceed to the next question: What was the living being in the likeness of which the creator constructed it? We cannot suppose that it was any creature that is part of a larger whole, for nothing can be good that is modelled on something incomplete. So let us assume that it resembels as nearly as possible that of which all other beings individually and generically are parts, and which comprises in itself all intelligibel beings, just as this world contains ourselves and all visibel creatures. For god's purpose was to use as his model the highest and most completely perfect of intelligibel things, and so he created a single visibel living being, containing within itself all living beings of the same natural order. Are we then right to speak of one universe, or would it be more correct to speak of a plurality or infinity? ONE is right, if it was manufactured according to its pattern; for that which comprises all intelligibel beings cannot have a double. There would have to be another being comprising them both, of which both were parts, and it would be correct to call our world a copy not of them but of the being which comprised them. In order therefore that our universe should resemble the perfect living creature in being unique, the maker
made millions of universes cos he didn't give a shit.
Posted on Oct 10, 2006, 4:19 PM from IP address 195.92.67.65