How does one arrive at the conclusion that there is/must be a personal God? I can understand and intuitively sense the presence of something outside myself, but the notion of a God with whom I can have a ‘personal relationship’ escapes me. A personal -vs- an impersonal God. One seems just as likely as the other.
I don’t believe that God as a Being that cares about you as an individual can be arrived at from natural theology alone, at least, not soundly. Making the decision between one and the other can only come rom examining the various schools of thought (i.e. religions) that espouse one or the other. Staring at the sky and asking ‘why’ will probably not get you there.
That said, it’s easy for me to believe ina personal God because as a Christian, I believe that God has acted in history.
Could you please explain how you decided that God has acted in history? Is it because the Bible told you so, or did you arrive at that conclusion some other way? Which came first, a personal God, or being a Christian?
The idea that somehow there is a distinguishing form of God is rediculous God’s ability and his power is limitless. There are 2 angels with each human being at every time one records good deeds and one records bad deeds. They even know every though we think good and bad. If you need anything from God, he already knew you would ask him for it. So to think that God isn’t personal or that God is some far off entity is hopelessly modern. The issue is only that people only view God through their own prejudices. God said “I am as my servent thinks of me.” Meaning that essentially if someone thinks that God doesn’t exist to them God doesn’t exist and God does not help or interfere in their life on THEIR behalf. But for someone who believes in God, he helps them in anything that would bring the closer to God. Not help in doing wrong but help in leading them to the righteous path. It is for the individual to choose the righteous path and adhere to it. But ultimatly God is all around us most choose to ignore God and instead pray to the new idols of modern society such as material possesions.
We all have beliefs that we got before we were old enough or smart enough to question them, and for me Christianity was one such belief- I was raised as such. So there is no answer to "which came first" for me- you'd have to ask someone to converted to Christianity from atheism.
However, I have examined my beliefs. From a starting point of Christianity, you have several places to go. First, I could have become an atheist. I relate to what you said about intuiting a 'presence outside myself', so for me that's not a live option inductively. It has just as many arguments against it as theism does, and not even the potential to prove it self correct, so it's unlikely that I'll become an atheist through deductive means, either.
So, I'm stuch with some sort of theism. The next big question is, "Does God act in History, or not?" If I take a religion that says God never acts in history- that is, nothing has ever happened that we can call "An act of God", then I have to ask myself, where did that religion get it's ideas about God, if He didn't communicate them? The only answer is "Some guy came up with them himself". Now, this [i]could[/i] be true of the "God in History" religions- but at least their claims, if taken seriously, do not lead to this conclusion [i]automaticallly[/i]. They assert that their ideas of God come from an actually authority on the topic- God.
By that reasoning, I feel that a "God in History" religion has a greater chance overall of being true than an ahistorical (what I would call 'mystical') religion, or atheism. Of the historical religions that I know of, Christianity seems to be most active in using western philosophy to evaluate it's claims, or at least in defending it's claims from western philosophy's criticisms. So, a Christian is what I am. Christianity teaches that God is personal- it seems likely to me that if God did any of the stuff Christians claim, then He most likely is, so I can accept that he is.
The closest I can come to an answer to your original question is: If I became convinced that God must not be concerned with me as an individual, then I would most likely still be a theist. If , though, I became convinced that God must never have acted in History, I'm sure I would become an atheist. So, the "God in history" claim seems more foundational than the "God loves Uccisore" claim.
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
-from Ambrose Bierce’s - The Devil’s Dictionary
My life/existence/reality (which is, no matter how distant, inexorably a part of your existence as well), as lived and perceived by my Brain, is my personal god. I can kill this god if it ceases to function in the manner I wish, but I don’t know who or what will replace it. I live my life to attain the most pleasure that is possible according to my circumstances. I don’t send ill will in others’ direction in fear that I will recieve an equal reaction that would hinder my goals. I don’t wish to put myself through a Hell on Earth when Heaven is accessible through effort. Heaven being pleasure as opposed to pain.
JT, would proving that God is a person be enough to prove He is a personal God? Would proving He is or has a mind be enough to prove He is a person? (“Person” – Boethius – “an individual substance of rational nature”)
Aristotle and Aquinas have arguments to show that God has/is a mind. Even his creations have minds, so He must have some kind of mind too. nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc1_44.htm
So, I would say it is provable that God is a personal God – even though i haven’t shown he talks to anyone yet which shows He’s “personal” to us.
I’m reasonably familiar with the Aristotelian arguments, and to a lesser degree, the works of Aquinas. So, let’s give them their arguments in full. No reservations, and it still doesn’t work. Even if we accept a Mind or Consciousness (God) that created mind (man), it does not follow that there is a ‘personal’ relationship involved at all.
For the sake of brevity let’s pretend we agree that we understand the christian concept of a personal relationship with God.
Let me propose an alternate view. That the creator did indeed create that which is man. That the created was given an awareness of creator and intuitive awe and reverence toward the creator. Moreover, contained in the ‘sentience’ given man, was the understanding of good and evil and the capacity to choose. All that man needs for life has been given him.
The creator gave awareness but not perfect knowing since perfect knowing would to be as the creator. The creator did not create an infinite self. He created a finite being. He created man.
Having given man all that life requires, what further is needed? Is this not enough?
I can understand WANTING a personal relationship with that which is creator (in the christian sense), but I still find nothing to suggest either scenario is more likely.
I could just hear Aquinas saying then that a personal relationship with God would be fitting for man’s end. Everything acts for an end, and the end for a rational being would be to know (fullfillment of the mind), love (response of the will), and serve God.
A comforting and noble sentiment, but we don’t ‘know’ that everything acts for an end. Moreover, we don’t know what is the end for a rational being. This brief moment of sentient life may not be the end of us. Further, it does not follow that a creator would necessarily allow us to ‘know’ anything. To be aware is not the same as knowing.
Okay, let’s go back to Arisotle’s works. We observe in nature that things act for an end. I would add that we, as agents, know in ourselves we act for an end. (As Plato said, “When I stand, I stand for the good; when I walk, I walk for the good.”)
Further, (Nichmachean Ethics) we observe in nature that things tend to achieve the fullness of their form as an end. The fullness of form for a rational being (as rational) would be knowledge – especially of the highest things, God being the highest. Happiness (achieving our end) is knowing God.
I say, if we only think we know things, human life is futile. But, i think if God has created our natures, it doesn’t make much sense for him to frustrate them by not letting us fulfill them.
This sentence sounded like a non-sequitur: “This brief moment of sentient life may not be the end of us.” According to some, if we are minds, it isn’t.
I’m sure there are lots of objections you can make to these arguments. In Aristotle we trust.
the classical arguement for external causation cannot, in fairness, be asked as to why it was needed to be constructed. it is in the question that the answer is founded; as the moderns pointed out, man cannot escape from interposing his conception of reality on what might legitimately be called reality. a personal god cannot help but be comstructed, until a more sophisticated intellectual grasp can form. religions that lack such personal gods (i.e. eastern religions) recognize this by having beginners into the religion adopt personal gods and then move off of them as they are ready. sometimes it takes many lives to get to this stage.