God as personal being

[catholic1seeks]

The typical arguments from cosmology, the first cause, and contingency are very convincing to me that God exists. It just makes sense to me that there cannot be an indefinite series of physical causes. There has to be something that explains its own existence, something non-physical.

What gives me some trouble, philosophically, is moving from the existence of an eternal, independent causal force to belief in a personal God. What does this mean, exactly? Does this refer to God’s will and his ability to Love? How are we to understand God as having an intellect and will, or being personal?

 

[fhansen]

The typical arguments from cosmology, the first cause, and contingency are very convincing to me that God exists. It just makes sense to me that there cannot be an indefinite series of physical causes. There has to be something that explains its own existence, something non-physical.

What gives me some trouble, philosophically, is moving from the existence of an eternal, independent causal force to belief in a personal God. What does this mean, exactly? Does this refer to God’s will and his ability to Love? How are we to understand God as having an intellect and will, or being personal?

A first cause, causing creation ex nihilio, would necessarily have to will it-otherwise there would be no separation between an eternal “causer”, or cause, and that which is caused; there’d be no reason for the caused to move from potential to act. And a personal being, with intellect and will, with telos or purpose, is inherently superior to a rather vague, unthinking, impersonal blind force or impulse that just kind of suddenly causes an enormously complex reaction without itself really knowing how or why, perhaps. And yes, it’s also true that love would be inconsistent with an impersonal creator-god.

It’s hard to wrap our heads around any kind of infinite, eternal creator, capable of causing the universe to come into being, regardless of its attibutes. But, while it may not necessarily appear so at first glance, a personal being is always superior to an impersonal one-and necessary as well in order for an initial causation to really make sense.

In the end, our initial failure to conceive of or imagine God as personal is really due to our own limitations as finite beings. We can’t think of God as being similar to ourselves- and yet we can know, from our own experience, that even the things we create do not occur without the (name removed by moderator)ut of intellect and will.

 

[SMH_2015]

This may be tangential to the OP…The (usually) Fundamentalist question: “Do you accept Jesus as your personal Savior?” I never knew what that meant.

 

[davidv]

The typical arguments from cosmology, the first cause, and contingency are very convincing to me that God exists. It just makes sense to me that there cannot be an indefinite series of physical causes. There has to be something that explains its own existence, something non-physical.

What gives me some trouble, philosophically, is moving from the existence of an eternal, independent causal force to belief in a personal God. What does this mean, exactly? Does this refer to God’s will and his ability to Love? How are we to understand God as having an intellect and will, or being personal?

Simple. Is Jesus God? Is He a person?
If the answer is yes to both questions, your philosophical problem is solved.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Simple. Is Jesus God? Is He a person?
If the answer is yes to both questions, your philosophical problem is solved.

Not really.

I never said I didn’t believe in a personal God.

What I said was the belief gives me trouble philosophically.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not really.

I never said I didn’t believe in a personal God.

What I said was the belief gives me trouble philosophically.

William Paley wrote a book titled Natural Theology. The book is an attempt to approach God on a purely philosophical level. Here it is online.

darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=A142&pageseq=1&viewtype=text

You can pick up his analysis of a personal God starting in chapter XXIII.

 

[davidv]

Not really.

I never said I didn’t believe in a personal God.

What I said was the belief gives me trouble philosophically.

Specifically, what is the trouble? The questions asked in the OP don’t give a clear indication what is the trouble. How can philosophy deny the reality of God’s personhood?

 

[ynotzap]

Not really.

I never said I didn’t believe in a personal God.

What I said was the belief gives me trouble philosophically.

Philosophy itself means “Love of Wisdom” The goal of effort towards knowledge is wisdom, truth is arriving at wisdom, the power to judge rightly,and following the soundest course of action based on knowledge and experience, understanding. Philosophy in Metaphysics can prove that God exists, and is the purpose of our existence, our goal. But He is identified by our Faith, as Jesus Christ who spells it out clearly, that Love of God, and neighbor are the two greatest commandments. Philosophy teaches us that the goal of the intellect is to know the truth, and the goal of the will is to acquire the good, which are both found in God, Jesus was often referred to as the Wisdom of the Father, and He is the Truth, Love, and Light

 

[ynotzap]

Philosophy by reason can lead you to the encounter with God, it does not produce the encounter. The personal encounter is a gift, a product of grace, that comes only from Jesus Christ who endowes us with His Spirit of Faith, Hope and Love. Philosophy shows that our Faith is reasonable, and it synthesizes reason with faith

 

[laircy]

There is a really great book that uses philosophy to prove the first cause is pure actuality, unchanging, non-physical, etc. and intelligent! Who Designed the Designer? by Michael Augros

Here’s the “bare deduction” for the intelligence of the first cause… which, of course, may make more sense if you read the book since it spends chapters explaining these things.

A principle productive cause precontains in itself (in a simpler and superior way) whatever actualities it causes in other things (because something cannot give what it does not have).

The first cause is the principle productive cause of all actualities in all things.

Therefore, the first cause precontains in itself (in a simpler and superior way) all actualities in all things.

Corollary: Consequently when some actuality that we can name (such as “acts” or “exists”) need not include any potential or limitation in its meaning (as “changes” or “cat” must) then that actuality must be attributed to the first cause.

“Intelligence” is an actuality that we can name that need not include any potential or limitation in its meaning (since what understands all things, not just some, and actually understands them and is not merely potential to understanding them, would still deserve to be called “intelligent”).

Therefore, intelligence must be attributed to the first cause.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

If the 1st cause is not personal how is it that the results become personal (i.e., you and I)?

This is where atheistic materialsts will invoke “emergent property”. They will say that consciousness is an emergent property of matter, nothing more. But that explains nothing. It just gives another name to mystery.

 

[Joy2day]

Try to listen to a talk by Fr Chris Ryan from The Missionaries of God’s Love order. His talks are amazing and all about our Personal God. Wonderful stuff. Popular media has no idea about this…

I have an amazing talk by Fr Chris on my phone which keeps repeating itself. I will try to find the link for you. It answers your questions.

 

[Richca]

The typical arguments from cosmology, the first cause, and contingency are very convincing to me that God exists. It just makes sense to me that there cannot be an indefinite series of physical causes. There has to be something that explains its own existence, something non-physical.

What gives me some trouble, philosophically, is moving from the existence of an eternal, independent causal force to belief in a personal God. What does this mean, exactly? Does this refer to God’s will and his ability to Love? How are we to understand God as having an intellect and will, or being personal?

Honestly, your best source here concerning your question is divine revelation culminating in the incarnation of the Son of God, Jesus Christ who suffered and died on a cross for our sins. In the Old Testament, God’s love for Israel, the chosen people, is depicted by the prophets after the manner of the love of a groom for his bride or married love which is the most intimate kind of human love on earth. Some of our mystic saints such as St Teresa of Avila and St John of the Cross describe God’s and Christ’s love for each soul in the same manner and they quite often use the Song of Songs in the Bible in describing the intimate relationship that God calls every soul to have with himself. We call Jesus Christ the bridegroom of the Church, his bride, which he bought and paid for with his blood. We are the Church and members of the Mystical Body of Christ and so Christ calls each and every one of us to an intimate personal relationship with Him.

We can come to know the existence of God and other truths about God and the world through philosophy by the natural light of reason. This however is a difficult task as the greatest minds in philosophy have told us and it is not without error as we see in Plato and Aristotle and all modern philosophers who did not use divine revelation as a guide. Divine Revelation is another order and superior knowledge where God comes to meet man. God has ordained human beings to a supernatural end, namely, the beatific vision and eternal life. The beatific vision surpasses any creature’s natural powers. Philosophy certainly could not have made known to us the revelation of the Son of God, Jesus Christ nor the Blessed Trinity or many other truths about God, ourselves, why we are here, our end, the meaning of life in general, the source of evil and suffering, sin, etc. God has revealed to us many truths also that can be known by the natural light of reason but as I said above this is a difficult task and subject to error. So that all humans may know the truth simply and without error, God revealed to us not only truths that are above reason but also truths that can be known by the natural light of reason.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The typical arguments from cosmology, the first cause, and contingency are very convincing to me that God exists. It just makes sense to me that there cannot be an indefinite series of physical causes. There has to be something that explains its own existence, something non-physical.

What gives me some trouble, philosophically, is moving from the existence of an eternal, independent causal force to belief in a personal God. What does this mean, exactly? Does this refer to God’s will and his ability to Love? How are we to understand God as having an intellect and will, or being personal?

There are a number of philosophical arguments that suggest God’s personality, though not in terms of human personality (like other posters, I’d agree that the Incarnation is the place to go for this - even then, in His essence God’s personality is only analogous to our own). For instance, teleological arguments imply a creator who possesses intelligence, will and a sense of purpose (design), i.e. a designer. Such qualities exist in persons, rather than impersonal forces (like laws), or physical and abstract objects. The moral argument hints at a God who is Himself moral and a source of morality. Arguments from God’s revelation likewise argue for the personal qualities of God.

 

[Razumihin1866]

I would recommend consulting Aquinas and his questions in the Summa Theologica that deal with the Divine Person, and also the human person. There are some very good arguments and definitions that may help. Also, I have Dr. Augros’ book that was mentioned up there and I would recommend it as well, I have found it highly readable. Finally, since an effect cannot contain more than its cause, it would appear to follow that if a human being is a person, therefore much more so his Creator.

 

[Wesrock]

So Catholic1seeks seems to be asking if we can go from a philosophical proof that there is one “God” to making the leap to the Christian God (or a personal God in general). Aquinas’ proof, as far as I understand it, only proves the existence of a single Creator, but going from that generic concept to further proving that God must also be a personal being like the Christian God seems like it requires additional proof. Certainly we have divine revelation, but can we also deduce it independently using philosophy?

Sorry if I misstated anything.

 

[Razumihin1866]

So Catholic1seeks seems to be asking if we can go from a philosophical proof that there is one “God” to making the leap to the Christian God (or a personal God in general). Aquinas’ proof, as far as I understand it, only proves the existence of a single Creator, but going from that generic concept to further proving that God must also be a personal being like the Christian God seems like it requires additional proof. Certainly we have divine revelation, but can we also deduce it independently using philosophy?

Sorry if I misstated anything.

I don’t think you did. I do not recall immediately if Aquinas argues from the personhood of man to the Personhood of God directly, and if he did not, there is probably a good reason. I suppose I should also add that I do not recall if Aquinas states that the idea of Person is theological rather than philosophical. Perhaps someone else could elucidate that point.

 

[ynotzap]

I don’t think you did. I do not recall immediately if Aquinas argues from the personhood of man to the Personhood of God directly, and if he did not, there is probably a good reason. I suppose I should also add that I do not recall if Aquinas states that the idea of Person is theological rather than philosophical. Perhaps someone else could elucidate that point.

By the Cosmological Argument we conclude that we necessarily need an uncaused cause, and an unmoved mover, for reasoning from effect to cause found in the material universe does not explain our existence, necessitating and uncaused cause. It is reasoned that this uncaused cause has to have existence as it’s nature, no beginning or end. This uncaused cause is called God. We learn that God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Pure Act, Pure Being and Existence
It is only in revelation that we find this God in Jesus Christ. He was accused of blaspheming because He identified Himself with the “I Am Who Am” (I am existence), and the Jews knew that He was identifying Himself with the God of Abraham, Isaac,& Jacob. When Moses asked God his name from the Burning Bush, He answered, “I Am Who Am” From Metaphysics we reason God exists, from Revelation, Faith we identify Him as Jesus Christ. And it is through and by Him we encounter God and God’s infinite love for us. For mankind is born in spiritual bondage and Jesus came to free us from this bondage by living and dying for us that we may have a “new life of Grace” as God’s adopted children, liberated from the power of evil, and Satan. Jesus has two natures, divine and human, but only one divine personality, it is called the “hypostatic union” He was truly man, and truly God, one divine person.

 

[Contarini]

The typical arguments from cosmology, the first cause, and contingency are very convincing to me that God exists. It just makes sense to me that there cannot be an indefinite series of physical causes. There has to be something that explains its own existence, something non-physical.

What gives me some trouble, philosophically, is moving from the existence of an eternal, independent causal force to belief in a personal God. What does this mean, exactly? Does this refer to God’s will and his ability to Love? How are we to understand God as having an intellect and will, or being personal?

Yes, I think it has to do with intellect and will.

If “personal” means “God is basically the same as us,” then God is not personal. C. S. Lewis suggested the term “trans-personal.” The point is that God has all the perfections that are included in personhood, but possesses them in a way that far surpasses our understanding. And, again following Lewis, the fact that we speak of God as three Persons points to that.

Yet again from Lewis, and echoing something said by another poster as well–to say that God is impersonal is to say that God is more like a gas or a rock than like a human, and that obviously isn’t the case.

Edwin

 

[noether445]

The typical arguments from cosmology, the first cause, and contingency are very convincing to me that God exists. It just makes sense to me that there cannot be an indefinite series of physical causes. There has to be something that explains its own existence, something non-physical.

What gives me some trouble, philosophically, is moving from the existence of an eternal, independent causal force to belief in a personal God. What does this mean, exactly? Does this refer to God’s will and his ability to Love? How are we to understand God as having an intellect and will, or being personal?

For me, conscious experience is the starting point of a logical argument for a personal God. Nobody can explain experience, nor can we describe it very well. The best we can do is to explain the correlates of consciousness such as self-awareness, feelings, or perceptions. Those things fall short of explaining how it is that we’re on the “inside of something” peering out at reality. That is, there’s a subjective quality to every experience and it defies objective description or explanation.

Among analytic philosophers, the debate about consciousness pretty much hinges on whether it exists. Right now it’s a hot topic. David Chalmers calls this the ‘hard problem of consciousness’. Language, and especially scientific language, cannot refer coherently to consciousness because it lacks the vocabulary for it, so usually philosophers use words like ‘qualia’ along with fairly poetical descriptions of their own experiences - that’s how primitive the debate is. On the other side, you’ll find snide people like Daniel Dennet who literally berate those of us who believe we’re having experiences. Or, in the consciousness club, you’ll find atheist philosophers such as Thomas Nagel who argue that consciousness does exist (Nagel’s famous contribution is a paper called “What is it like to be a bat?”) - Nagel sympathizes with intelligent design advocates about the matter. Even Bertrand Russell tried to account for subjective experience with the theory of neutral monism. I’m being a little misleading because it’s not a religious debate. The problem is: how do you get from biochemical and electric activities on neurons to conscious experience? Some philosophers build experience right into their metaphysical universe, others deny it exists, and some blandly assert that there’s nothing puzzling about it. Christians have it pretty easy.

I don’t like putting my faith on my inability to explain something. But if I immerse myself, like a Buddhist, in mindful experience… then I’m led right back to my Catholic faith. In that sense, I find a personal God inside of experience. Surely all of reality comes from God, but subjective experience is the surface of my own interaction with the universe, and therefore it’s the starting point of my interaction with God. Further, experience is a self-evident feature of reality. Equations on a paper cannot explain it, nor can some for-loops and transistors simulate it. In that sense, I think it’s a powerful antidote against materialist atheism.