If God exists; why would He be a personal God?

[Whadyamean]

It is often argued that it is anthropomorphic to believe God is personal but to believe God is impersonal implies that we are superior to God by virtue of our power of reasoning - which is absurd. There is no evidence that impersonal objects have insight into the nature of reality whereas the success of science is ample evidence that we outstrip every other form of existence (of which we are aware). God is not personal in precisely the same way as we are but Jesus used the image of the loving Father because it is the closest analogy that is readily understood by children as well as adults. That image is the most appropriate because since we are made in the image of God we must reflect even to a minute extent His nature - not only in our power of reason but also in our capacity for unselfish love. Reality is not anthropocentric but ratiocentric!

I do like your explanation as a "closest analogy. "But it doesn’t seem to me that you are using the word “impersonal” in the sense it is philosophically meant, as in the higher Teachings of the world. There are many contemporary authors who can set us straight on this. I agree for a number of reasons with the impersonal way of understanding Deity. That is why the symbol for God is often the Sun disk, which shines equally on all, allowing each his story to unfold and yet utterly dependent on the Power from “above.”

And Deity is “ALL,” we being “made” in that image and likeness. “And in His Light we shall see Light.” To me that refers to the light of awareness, as is pointed now to by many interpretations. So it is our ability to be aware and all that implies, including our non material gifts, that constitute that “image and likeness” because it cannot be the materiality of the body.

 

[Bezant]

If God exists; why would He be a personal God?

Would you enjoy a conversation with an impersonal god?

Imagine what he would say: “Hi, hello, I am the Absolute One, the Supreme Being, the Divine, otherwise known as God, I have always been here, and I watch you as you do what you lot do, so carry on–oi, did I mention that I exist…?”

What a boring god. I might as well be an atheist, really, or start my own religion, or regress to an imaginary friend, if he was a pie in the sky.

 

[Whadyamean]

Would you enjoy a conversation with an impersonal god?

Imagine what he would say: “Hi, hello, I am the Absolute One, the Supreme Being, the Divine, otherwise known as God, I have always been here, and I watch you as you do what you lot do, so carry on–oi, did I mention that I exist…?”

What a boring god. I might as well be an atheist, really, or start my own religion, or regress to an imaginary friend, if he was a pie in the sky.

Those who understand God to be “impersonal” are sometimes mistaken for atheists, while they are the farthest thing from that. The arrival at the understanding of God as impersonal and the infinitude of fullness that goes with that is arrived at by arduous work or by grace, and as an experience is not even remotely the kind of dynamic you seem to flippantly present without having, I;m sure, considered or studied the reasons and experiences that lead to that conclusion.

 

[redneck22]

I think The Kalam Cosmological argument sums it up well, from Wiki:

"William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2.The universe began to exist.

3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

4.This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe"

 

[Whadyamean]

I think The Kalam Cosmological argument sums it up well, from Wiki:

"William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2.The universe began to exist.

3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

4.This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe"

Well, yes, it sums it up for classical theists. However, it presumes that the Universe began as a discreet and sole entity, a perception against which there now seems to be some mathematical, at least, evidence. As is most often the case, if there is an unexplained perception, the first thing that happens among the trepidacious is to attribute it to God or a god. While this may in some sense be true, and while there is an excellent experiential recommendation stemming from one Eastern philosophy, (So deemed because only now are Western, Christian, and other proponents are rarely recognized) few take the trouble to try it and know for themselves that there is a third alternative to classical theism or
atheism.

 

[greylorn]

If God exists; why would He be a personal God?

You ask good questions.

While there are plentiful reasons to accept the idea that we live in a created universe, there are no empirical justifications for the notions which humans have invented about the creators’ properties.

There is no reason to believe in a personal God except that we want to believe in a personal God, which is easier than taking responsibility for the course of our own consciousness.

There is no reason either to believe that the term God refers to a singular entity. The list of human-invented theological attributes goes on, and on.

Your question opens a Pandoriam bpx. Good work!

 

[Whadyamean]

You ask good questions.

While there are plentiful reasons to accept the idea that we live in a created universe, there are no empirical justifications for the notions which humans have invented about the creators’ properties.

There is no reason to believe in a personal God except that we want to believe in a personal God, which is easier than taking responsibility for the course of our own consciousness.

There is no reason either to believe that the term God refers to a singular entity. The list of human-invented theological attributes goes on, and on.

Your question opens a Pandoriam bpx. Good work!

Agreed. It is fascinating to note that while many religious ideas have been supplanted by scientific observations, not one scientific dynamic has been replaced by a religious idea s a predictor of results.

What comes to mind is the “Cargo Cult” phenomenon of WWII. Aborigines who had never seen an airplane saw air fields being built and then “silver birds” landing an disgorging cargo and passengers. So they leveled land and built wicker airplanes hoping to attract “cargo.”

It is not that there isn’t something that is rightly named “God.” But what that is is a mystery beyond mind. It had to be spoken of to “aborigines” by those who had mystical insight in familiar (read “familial”) terms to establish at least a ground story of understanding and practice that could be utilized and then seen through at different levels of maturity and insight. That happened in many traditions in many ways. It is why the parables of Jesus have at least three levels of interpretation. It is also the reason for Mark 4:33-34, I believe it is. It is why many religions have a public and a hidden face.

 

[greylorn]

I think The Kalam Cosmological argument sums it up well, from Wiki:

"William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2.The universe began to exist.

3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

4.This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe"

I keep wondering why so many CAF people think so highly of W. Craig. This argument is specious on two different levels.

Item 2. What is the basis for this assertion? Last I checked, it is a theory held in two different froms by disparate belief systems. Cosmologists think that it began with the big bang. Lots of religionists believe that God created it. So here in the middle of his “argument” we find an unspecified theory masquerading as a statement of fact. That is sloppy and incompetent.

If Craig’s authority to make this statement derives from the Bible, he has simply built his conclusion into his argument. Tacky.

If he makes it based upon Big Bang theory, methinks he has some work to do before warping it into his conclusion, which is just a simpleminded statement of dogma that does not follow from the “logic.”

There was a thread I recall seeing which asked why no one wants to debate Craig. If this is his style, I can easily understand why. Debating with him seems as much fun as swimming through mud. One would need to be continually mindful of semantic trickery, detracting from any logical process.

 

[greylorn]

Agreed. It is fascinating to note that while many religious ideas have been supplanted by scientific observations, not one scientific dynamic has been replaced by a religious idea s a predictor of results.

While this is probably true to the best of your knowledge, you will no doubt be pleased to learn that it is not actually correct. My soon to be published book replaces several scientific paradigms with better ideas derived from a unique creation theory.

Your subsequent statement which implies that an understanding of God is beyond mind is a tiresome and absurd opinion which seems to be derived from the crab-bucket theory of intelligence. Your ignorance and inability to understand limits you and you alone, so kindly keep your claws off those who have more capable and imaginative minds which do not care to join the affirmation-of-ignorance celebration going on in your bucket.

 

[Whadyamean]

While this is probably true to the best of your knowledge, you will no doubt be pleased to learn that it is not actually correct. My soon to be published book replaces several scientific paradigms with better ideas derived from a unique creation theory.

Your subsequent statement which implies that an understanding of God is beyond mind is a tiresome and absurd opinion which seems to be derived from the crab-bucket theory of intelligence. Your ignorance and inability to understand limits you and you alone, so kindly keep your claws off those who have more capable and imaginative minds which do not care to join the affirmation-of-ignorance celebration going on in your bucket.

Sorry not to be complete, but yes, both religious and scientific ideas are trumped by something that might be called “Knowledge by Identity.” Let me know when your book is published, if my meager income can afford it, I;d buy it for no other reason that to support someone who can think. You seem to do a pretty good job in that department. Nonetheless, I’m not familiar with the “crab bucket” theory. Sounds like fun. Or, oh, do you mean the lobsters pulling down the ones who are trying to get over the edge? I’m guessing yes, we just heard it from different directions. Actually, I was “out” and dove back in. Figured I could be more irritating that way and see what happened.

 

[tonyrey]

I do like your explanation as a "closest analogy. "But it doesn’t seem to me that you are using the word “impersonal” in the sense it is philosophically meant, as in the higher Teachings of the world. There are many contemporary authors who can set us straight on this. I agree for a number of reasons with the impersonal way of understanding Deity. That is why the symbol for God is often the Sun disk, which shines equally on all, allowing each his story to unfold and yet utterly dependent on the Power from “above.”

And Deity is “ALL,” we being “made” in that image and likeness. “And in His Light we shall see Light.” To me that refers to the light of awareness, as is pointed now to by many interpretations. So it is our ability to be aware and all that implies, including our non material gifts, that constitute that “image and likeness” because it cannot be the materiality of the body.

All the words we use to describe God are necessarily inadequate because they are based on our limited insight, knowledge and experience. That is why Love is the least misleading term because it is mysterious and it goes beyond reason yet we know there is nothing more valuable. Without love we have no reason for living. We may have no one to love us but if we are filled with love for others we have all that we need!

 

[redneck22]

Item 2. What is the basis for this assertion? Last I checked, it is a theory held in two different froms by disparate belief systems. Cosmologists think that it began with the big bang. Lots of religionists believe that God created it. So here in the middle of his “argument” we find an unspecified theory masquerading as a statement of fact. That is sloppy and incompetent.

Most cosmologists agree that time began to exist at the formation of the universe, do you have an alternate “theory” on the beginning of the universe?

If Craig’s authority to make this statement derives from the Bible, he has simply built his conclusion into his argument. Tacky.

He didn’t make any conclusion at the beginning of the argument

If he makes it based upon Big Bang theory, methinks he has some work to do before warping it into his conclusion, which is just a simpleminded statement of dogma that does not follow from the “logic.”

If it is that “simple” then show us the refutation. Keeping in mind the original question “If God exists; why would He be a personal God?”

There was a thread I recall seeing which asked why no one wants to debate Craig. If this is his style, I can easily understand why. Debating with him seems as much fun as swimming through mud. One would need to be continually mindful of semantic trickery, detracting from any logical process.

There is no semantic trickery, I think the ones who have debated Craig sum it up well, like Sam Harris who said “William Lane Craig is the only apologist that can put the fear of God into this fellow atheists”

 

[greylorn]

Sorry not to be complete, but yes, both religious and scientific ideas are trumped by something that might be called “Knowledge by Identity.”

Let me know when your book is published, if my meager income can afford it, I;d buy it for no other reason that to support someone who can think. You seem to do a pretty good job in that department. Nonetheless, I’m not familiar with the “crab bucket” theory. Sounds like fun. Or, oh, do you mean the lobsters pulling down the ones who are trying to get over the edge? I’m guessing yes, we just heard it from different directions. Actually, I was “out” and dove back in. Figured I could be more irritating that way and see what happened.

Your “yes” is right-on. The idea of diving back into the bucket is a curious strategy, as is your style. Tickling a crab perched on the edge of the bucket, getting it to laugh and maybe fall back in, is a classier approach than grabbing and yanking.

Now, kindly tell me what you mean by the phrase, "* “Knowledge by Identity.”*

 

[Neaster84]

Why wouldn’t He? His love is His to give.

That’s like asking a parent, “If you are a parent, why get to know your children?”

There is an inexplicable connection that runs deep in the veins of all who live that bears the imprint of God. Foolish are we to rely on logic for that which can only be best understood by faith (and even then still remains a mystery).

 

[greylorn]

Well, yes, it sums it up for classical theists. However, it presumes that the Universe began as a discreet and sole entity, a perception against which there now seems to be some mathematical, at least, evidence. As is most often the case, if there is an unexplained perception, the first thing that happens among the trepidacious is to attribute it to God or a god. While this may in some sense be true, and while there is an excellent experiential recommendation stemming from one Eastern philosophy, (So deemed because only now are Western, Christian, and other proponents are rarely recognized) few take the trouble to try it and know for themselves that there is a third alternative to classical theism or
atheism.

Only a third alternative? You’ve not been reading nearly enough Hindu and Buddhist theology or New Age religion, and clearly do not live in California.

Now can we have a little conversation about your “excellent experiential recommendation stemming from one Eastern philosophy?”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Re: If God exists; why would He be a personal God?

Why should He not be a personal God? If God exists and created us persons, why wouldn’t there be some aspect of “person” in Him? Why would a “non-person” create a “person”? By accident? That’s back to atheistic evolution.

 

[Whadyamean]

Re: If God exists; why would He be a personal God?

Why should He not be a personal God? If God exists and created us persons, why wouldn’t there be some aspect of “person” in Him? Why would a “non-person” create a “person”? By accident? That’s back to atheistic evolution.

Why should God not be an impersonal God? Since God IS (we say God is All) wouldn’t there be some aspect of Deity that is Self expressive as an act of discovery of possibility? ALL possibility? It is a big Universe, and from the beginning of time we have been finding reasons to grow away from both tiny versions of ourselves as well as tiny versions of God. At least many make that attempt. A non-person as Principle (one of the Names of God in Christian Science, along with Mind, Soul, and Spirit among others,) Being as Principle Consciousness, could in the course of Self discovery explore the possibilities of Consciousness individuated and attaching to localized forms. We could call this awareness. The individualization compared to ALL could then feel separation and call it a Fall, or sin, and see through the illusory separation and wake up. That would be called salvation or enlightenment. One who remains alive after realizing this illusion of separation might say “I and the Father are One,” or some similar statement like “Atman and Brahman are One.” There are many. One of my favorites is “I have not been deceived!”

And how can any evolution, including as described by Darwin, be without
God??? Certainly Darwin’s religious contemporaries approved of his work, which idea actually wasn’t new. He only collected and codified the material leading to a workable theory. One of his contemporaries actually included the spiritual realms in his exposition, but wasn’t therefor popular. Go figure.
atheism.about.com/b/2010/10/18/darwin-religious-contemporaries.htm
and
nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7272/full/462411b.html

 

[Curious_Seed]

Why would God be personal, if He exists?

There is no reason for God to be personal.

Praise our Lord, though, that He is.

 

[Whadyamean]

Why would God be personal, if He exists?

There is no reason for God to be personal.

Praise our Lord, though, that He is.

And you know (not believe) this how?

 

[Curious_Seed]

And you know (not believe) this how?

I read the Bible.

If you knew me, you would know the Father; if you have seen me, you have seen the Father.