Proof for a personal God

[HelenRose]

It takes eyes to see the universe, so it must have taken eyes to create it?

Nice little come-back. Sharp and clear.

I don’t believe that you are quite as confused as you claim to be.

I use my intelligence to try to comprehend this infinite beauty of the universe. I ask questions as to why is it so beautiful, so complex and so very dear to me.

My intelligence rebels at the the concept that it is nothing but dust and the beauty of the universe is not the handiwork of an intelligence far greater than anything our little imaginations can conjure up.

But then again I may be wrong. There may be no purpose. It may have been that the complex laws of nature that were put in place with such precision to create the universe, is a product of chance.

That is a mistake that I am willing to make. I lose nothing with such a mistake. I still get to marvel at the wonderful “laws of nature” and wonder at the beautiful “natural laws” that define the human soul. I have the very best of both as I gaze at the cold winter stars of my Western Colorado skies.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But the argument was “intelligence was begotten by other intelligence”, not that intelligence could be produced by sufficient alternative resources.

But let’s go with your argument. Are you saying that the resources of the entire universe were insufficient to produce the intelligence of an ant, or just not quite enough to produce human intelligence?

Here we do run into a problem that is very difficult to resolve. The universe is intelligible, but does that mean the intelligibility that “informs” and shapes physical reality is 1) inherent in physical reality or 2) did that intelligibility derive from a prior forming intelligence?

It may be that the intelligence of an ant is only possible in a material universe because of the informed structure of the universe provided by the forming intelligence that brought the universe into being to begin with.

Slow down there partner. The big bang theory doesn’t say the universe came from nothing, even though that’s what many are taught. The guy who originated the theory, Father George Lemaître, said:

We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations. - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

(I’ve quoted that so often I’ve got it on speed-dial ).

Also, there’s good reason to believe that the aggregate energy of the entire universe is exactly zero, which puts a different complexion on what omnipotent might mean.

I would certainly agree with Father Lemaître that the explanation has a metaphysical and not physical character because the physical is ruled out by default, since it couldn’t pre-exist itself in order to explain itself.

I never claimed the universe came from “nothing.” I did say that matter, space, time and energy began at the Big Bang, so whatever it was that brought the universe into existence could not have been material, spacial or temporal, but it certainly wasn’t nothing. Whatever, “it” was had to be immaterial, non-spatial and eternal. It also had to have the will and power to bring matter, space, time and energy into existence. Nothing does not have the power to do that. Nothing is not a sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe, but an omniscient, omnipotent, immaterial, eternal will that is not causally dependent on anything else is a logically sufficient explanation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If God is not Personal, why would God create persons with powers He lacks?

 

[onenow1]

If God is not Personal, why would God create persons with powers He lacks?

God must be personal did He not choose Mary and Joseph, Etc.

Merry Christmas
onenow1

 

[inocente]

I don’t believe that you are quite as confused as you claim to be.

Busted.

*I use my intelligence to try to comprehend this infinite beauty of the universe. I ask questions as to why is it so beautiful, so complex and so very dear to me.

My intelligence rebels at the the concept that it is nothing but dust and the beauty of the universe is not the handiwork of an intelligence far greater than anything our little imaginations can conjure up.

But then again I may be wrong. There may be no purpose. It may have been that the complex laws of nature that were put in place with such precision to create the universe, is a product of chance. *

I agree about the beauty but have never found any of the abstract arguments for God convincing. Christ yes, but not the eyes-in-the-sky type of god. Paul makes a little joke about it “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen.” - Rom 1.

That is a mistake that I am willing to make. I lose nothing with such a mistake. I still get to marvel at the wonderful “laws of nature” and wonder at the beautiful “natural laws” that define the human soul. I have the very best of both as I gaze at the cold winter stars of my Western Colorado skies.

We’re amongst mountains here too. Imho a big problem with the modern world is most people live in cities with light pollution and so never get to see a really long way.

 

[inocente]

Here we do run into a problem that is very difficult to resolve. The universe is intelligible, but does that mean the intelligibility that “informs” and shapes physical reality is 1) inherent in physical reality or 2) did that intelligibility derive from a prior forming intelligence?

I think if we presume intelligence was necessary then we’ve made a circular argument. Also, we can see a face in a cloud even while knowing the cloud is the product of blind forces and not intelligently designed, so I’m uneasy at how easy it is for us to fool ourselves in these areas.

*I would certainly agree with Father Lemaître that the explanation has a metaphysical and not physical character because the physical is ruled out by default, since it couldn’t pre-exist itself in order to explain itself.

I never claimed the universe came from “nothing.” I did say that matter, space, time and energy began at the Big Bang, so whatever it was that brought the universe into existence could not have been material, spacial or temporal, but it certainly wasn’t nothing*. Whatever, “it” was had to be immaterial, non-spatial and eternal. It also had to have the will and power to bring matter, space, time and energy into existence. Nothing does not have the power to do that. Nothing is not a sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe, but an omniscient, omnipotent, immaterial, eternal will that is not causally dependent on anything else is a logically sufficient explanation.

Although it is called creation ex nihilo.

The big bang theory says the universe was once very small, and in that state the laws of physics we know of break down. Because they break down, we don’t know what went on. We can surmise an immaterial agent but equally a big crunch, or some preexisting multiverse, or any of several other speculations.

Somewhere on that page I linked about Lemaître, he says that his theory shows God cannot be an interventionist, because the one place we’d expect to find evidence of a Creator is at the beginning, but even there God is perfectly hidden.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Somewhere on that page I linked about Lemaître, he says that his theory shows God cannot be an interventionist, because the one place we’d expect to find evidence of a Creator is at the beginning, but even there God is perfectly hidden.

The fine tuning and coordination of the cosmological constants were unknown at the time. Perhaps knowing what is clearer today would change his mind on the evidence present at the beginning. It did with people like Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies and others.

The BGV Theorem largely puts to rest a “big crunch” scenario as not possible given an inflationary Big Bang.

 

[HelenRose]

If we apply your logic to the universe, it would mean the universe couldn’t come from nothing but had to be begotten by another universe.

Einstein’s parents were not as intelligent as him, and in the same way his grandparents could have been still less intelligent and so on back through the generations to dumber than dumberer.

How do you know that Einstein’s parents were not as intelligent as he was? At what point were they given an IQ test? You are making an assumption without any varifiable proof.

 

[inocente]

The fine tuning and coordination of the cosmological constants were unknown at the time. Perhaps knowing what is clearer today would change his mind on the evidence present at the beginning. It did with people like Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies and others.

The BGV Theorem largely puts to rest a “big crunch” scenario as not possible given an inflationary Big Bang.

A fine-tuned universe is a speculation, not an accepted theory, and creationists also seem to have taken over the BGV theorem - the first two pages of hits were all creationist.

So Lemaître’s (and Isaiah’s) conclusion of a hidden non-interventionist god still stands.

 

[inocente]

How do you know that Einstein’s parents were not as intelligent as he was? At what point were they given an IQ test? You are making an assumption without any varifiable proof.

I don’t know, I was putting forward a hypothetical. I missed out the word “Suppose” before the words “Einstein’s parents”. Please insert it to correct my mistake.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A fine-tuned universe is a speculation, not an accepted theory, and creationists also seem to have taken over the BGV theorem - the first two pages of hits were all creationist.

So Lemaître’s (and Isaiah’s) conclusion of a hidden non-interventionist god still stands.

How is the life and teaching of Christ not an intervention? How is the virgin birth not? How are Isaiah’s or Jeremiah’s prophecies non-interventionist? How is parting the Red Sea or collapsing the walls of Jericho not?

For that matter, the conversion of Paul? If Paul were, indeed, making a “little joke” about the works of God being clearly visible, then that would have been a case of the “Supreme” irony being on him since it was a visible “light” intervening from heaven that lead to his conversion.

I think you and I have very different concepts of what the word intervention means. You seem to imply great fire and loud noise. For me, intervention can be quite subtle, even indetectible, in fact, happening all the time. It is only with the completely stone blind, like Pharaoh, that God has to resort to the kind of intervention you are claiming he doesn’t use, despite the fact that the Biblical record claims that he did, many times.

 

[HelenRose]

I don’t know, I was putting forward a hypothetical. I missed out the word “Suppose” before the words “Einstein’s parents”. Please insert it to correct my mistake.

Thank you.

I really should not insert myself in this discussion. When I read the comments, I realize that people are in the most part are really searching and trying to figure out what all of creation means to them. I recognize that I have a simplistic mind.

I have a basic understanding of logic. My first understanding is that those who engage in the subject of logic must agree on a founding position.

The position that I think is going on here is that we can all agree that we exist. However, the question that the OP presented is “Proof of a personal God” Did this statement imply then that the basic premise is “there is a God but does this God relate to us personally?”

Or is the underlining argument “Does God Exist”?

It is so difficult to engage in these discussions because the primary argument changes as the discussion continues.

If I were to propose a basic argument it would run something like this. Assuming that God exists, is it possible to prove that God is a personal God?

Then the rules must be laid out. Can logic be used as proof?

For there to be a discussion on whether or not there is a “personal God” we must first begin with “Does God Exist?”

 

[Angela77]

Thank you.

I really should not insert myself in this discussion. When I read the comments, I realize that people are in the most part are really searching and trying to figure out what all of creation means to them. I recognize that I have a simplistic mind.

I have a basic understanding of logic. My first understanding is that those who engage in the subject of logic must agree on a founding position.

The position that I think is going on here is that we can all agree that we exist. However, the question that the OP presented is “Proof of a personal God” Did this statement imply then that the basic premise is “there is a God but does this God relate to us personally?”

Or is the underlining argument “Does God Exist”?

It is so difficult to engage in these discussions because the primary argument changes as the discussion continues.

If I were to propose a basic argument it would run something like this. Assuming that God exists, is it possible to prove that God is a personal God?

Then the rules must be laid out. Can logic be used as proof?

For there to be a discussion on whether or not there is a “personal God” we must first begin with “Does God Exist?”

My original intent in starting this thread was to from the point that God exists. I got this far with a person with whom I was debating in real life. It was the personal God part I was interested in knowing how to explain, but then the thread sorta got hijacked.

 

[inocente]

I think you and I have very different concepts of what the word intervention means. You seem to imply great fire and loud noise. For me, intervention can be quite subtle, even indetectible, in fact, happening all the time. It is only with the completely stone blind, like Pharaoh, that God has to resort to the kind of intervention you are claiming he doesn’t use, despite the fact that the Biblical record claims that he did, many times.

Imho there are a lot of people who believe the universe runs itself and every so often God intervenes - God lets nature do its thing unless He wants a different outcome. So these people feel a need to prove God intervenes explicitly, because otherwise, to them nature could be all there is.

Paul’s view is very different, for him God works through all things all the time (God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made - Romans 1). God is implicit in everything and therefore, as Lemaître says, “omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden”. This means all the people trying to prove the existence of God are bound to fail - For we live by faith, not by sight.

 

[inocente]

I really should not insert myself in this discussion. When I read the comments, I realize that people are in the most part are really searching and trying to figure out what all of creation means to them. I recognize that I have a simplistic mind.

I have a basic understanding of logic. My first understanding is that those who engage in the subject of logic must agree on a founding position.

The position that I think is going on here is that we can all agree that we exist. However, the question that the OP presented is “Proof of a personal God” Did this statement imply then that the basic premise is “there is a God but does this God relate to us personally?”

Or is the underlining argument “Does God Exist”?

It is so difficult to engage in these discussions because the primary argument changes as the discussion continues.

If I were to propose a basic argument it would run something like this. Assuming that God exists, is it possible to prove that God is a personal God?

Then the rules must be laid out. Can logic be used as proof?

For there to be a discussion on whether or not there is a “personal God” we must first begin with “Does God Exist?”

From post #34 you’ll see that to me there’s no way to prove God exists, and even trying involves starting out with a wrong idea of God.

So with that out of the way, proving God is personal is easy - isn’t it a dead giveaway that Christ is a person and Christ is God?

Or probably I’m over-simplistic.

Your question “Can logic be used as proof?”. Paul’s answer is emphatically NO, no mere philosopher can explain the cross - 1 Corinthians 1:18-31. “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.”

Hallelujah, yes?

 

[inocente]

My original intent in starting this thread was to from the point that God exists. I got this far with a person with whom I was debating in real life. It was the personal God part I was interested in knowing how to explain, but then the thread sorta got hijacked.

On behalf of hijackers everywhere

See my answer to Helen, post #35 - does that work or no?

 

[HelenRose]

From post #34 you’ll see that to me there’s no way to prove God exists, and even trying involves starting out with a wrong idea of God.

So with that out of the way, proving God is personal is easy - isn’t it a dead giveaway that Christ is a person and Christ is God?

Or probably I’m over-simplistic.

Your question “Can logic be used as proof?”. Paul’s answer is emphatically NO, no mere philosopher can explain the cross - 1 Corinthians 1:18-31. “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.”

Hallelujah, yes?

I thought that this was your intent. It is so hard to keep on track. I have tried in vain to read the philosophical writings of Pope John Paul II and have come to the conclusion that I am not cut out to be a philosopher. But I take a great deal of comfort knowing that if your question was asked of Blessed Pope John Paul II, he would make short work of arguments suggesting that God is not a personal God.

 

[inocente]

I thought that this was your intent. It is so hard to keep on track. I have tried in vain to read the philosophical writings of Pope John Paul II and have come to the conclusion that I am not cut out to be a philosopher. But I take a great deal of comfort knowing that if your question was asked of Blessed Pope John Paul II, he would make short work of arguments suggesting that God is not a personal God.

One time in Rome we went to St Peters and the Square was filled with nuns from all over the world - don’t remember what the occasion was. We were talking to some when a figure appeared in the distance and they all went wild - it was JPII. But I remember it for all those nuns excitedly jumping around and cheering.