Arguments for the existence of a personal God

I’m familiar with the cosmological argument for an Uncaused Cause, but are there any good philosophical or logical arguments for the existence of a personal God?

In other words, is there any reason to believe this Uncaused Cause is personal?

Any argument for the legitimacy of religious experience is an argument for the existence of a personal God, granting theism. Beyond that, not that I’ve heard of. Here would be an example. alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2013 … ument.html

Back in the good old days everybody knew about either gods or The God.
They didn’t need to argue about it or convert anyone.
They knew that their ancestors had close encounters with the god stuff. They trusted their ancestors, too. In some cases people even worshiped their ancestors. But today the moderns consider their ancestors to be a bunch of supersticious fools. The records of the greatest experiences of mankind are tossed in the trash like they are worthless. The greatest experiences of mankind was when super beings manifested to humanity.

I think that the christian god basically avoids manifesting on earth now because of the earth’s rulers.
Really evil aliens and demons and shit rule the earth, and they go war nutty if anyone disrupts their show and control.
However, if the person is special, the christian god can manifest, or his angels can manifest, because of that person’s request.
That is how one part of magic works, evocation. It happens only because of this specific god and its specific creation.

If by “God” you mean the ground of all being, I don’t think that’s true.

Mormons believe in the “legitimacy of religious experience,” and they believe in a “God” who organized the universe (or at least this universe, or this part of the universe) from uncreated pre-existing material, according to uncreated pre-existing laws.

If they believe in any “ground of all being” it would have to be pantheistic and impersonal.

From what I’ve read of Neoplatonists, they also believed in something like this.

For them “The One” was the impersonal ground of all being, and the Nous (or Demiurge) was a godlike derivative being with personal attributes who organized the universe.

Are there any good philosophical arguments that if there is a ground of all being, it would have to be personal?

I think I recall something to the effect that if personality exists, the ground of existence would have to be personal, but I never really understood that argument (and I’m probably not stating it correctly.)

I’m pretty sure the Mormons believe in a personal God. Anyway, I’m using ‘personal God’ pretty loosely, I just mean a God that does things that individuals can experience as distinct from nature. Come to think of it, the EAAN is an argument for a personal God, more or less.

Even though energy seems eternal, the physical universe seems to have a beginning. Christians say that that beginning is sourced with an eternal supreme God. I could also make a claim that my gods or God created the universe. Then I’d say look at all the proof, look at the complexity and power and balance of nature. But, that wouldn’t make my opinions about God any more valid. Nature isn’t my own proof. Nature is free for all to see, but, it doesn’t prove much of anything.

The only reason Christians said there was a beginning and it was proof of their God is that they were the only ones interested enough in philosophy at the time to come up with the argument.  Feel free to use it if you like, absolutely. It's been a long time, it's basically open-source now. If you tried to claim that the cosmological argument was proof of your particular god(s) with those particular traits, you'd be making the same mistake as Christians do when they try that.  Philosophers (Christian philosophers included) basically don't make this mistake.

I hope not.

You’ve been at this for 7 years, you should know not.

It’s difficult to say what Mormons believe (because there’s a lot of room for private interpretation, and it’s very hard to pin down what is and isn’t official doctrine), but it’s safe to say that most Mormons don’t believe in a personal God whose the ground of all being.

What they believe in is a personal God who’s part of an infinite regress of Gods, and who didn’t create the basic stuff of the universe.

They believe He has a body made of this stuff, and procreated children according to pre-existing laws in co-operation with a female Deity who has a body made of this stuff, and that (thru Their eldest Son) He organized a whole lot of this stuff into our universe, but they (or at least most of them) don’t believe this personal God is the ground of all being.

I think most of them (if they were even willing to consider such a thing) would consider the ground of all being some impersonal something above the Gods.

What I asked was whether there are any good philosophical arguments to the effect that the ultimate cause of existence is a personal being.

Anyone?

Being a the ultimate cause of existence, and being a personal being are two very different qualities. I’m not sure there could be an argument that could prove they are both instantiated in the same being. The closest I can think of would be the EAAN, which shows that the being that created all intelligent life must be personal. But that doesn’t really get you past your issue with the Mormons.

What is the EAAN?

The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, designed by Alvin Plantinga.

If existence itself is the thought process of God then everything that exists belongs to God .There would not be a single thought generated by your mind that He would not be aware of…He would know you utterly.

Materialists have the mistaken idea that somehow a mind independent Universe is simpler than a mind dependent one.This assumption of simplicity is based on the idea that because we experience the concept that brains generate thought that it must be the case that brains are not thought dependent. Mostly they do no recognise that they have made a huge assumption…but I like to point it out to them from time to time. :smiley:

If by “personal” you mean “having a persona” or “being as an individual person is” (as opposed to being dear to ones heart, a deeply personal experience), then such an ontology can be logically proven beyond debate, although that would take more than a single post.

Every object in space is the memory of prior affects. Every person is the universe’s memory of that person’s sentience. The destruction of a person’s body is analogous to erasing a program off of a disk or out of the universe’s memory although residual artifacts might remain, just as they do on a disk.

Awareness is a subjective word for affected. Nothing can exist anywhere without affect and being affected. Thus the universe is literally made of affects or awareness. When such affects aggregate or gather, they form objects or memories; anentropic affectance, self sustaining recursive affect. From those memories varieties of behaviors form. From those behaviors, varieties of affects form. Those affects are awareness(es) between one aggregation to another.

Every person is merely an individual instance of that same construct. Taken as a whole, the entire universe is the same pattern as a person, affect and memory leading to behavior in response to awareness - a person.

And if you want to get a little more precise;
A “god” is a determiner of what can or cannot take place concerning a situation. The God is the determiner of ALL that can take place in all situations. What we call “the entire universe” and its situation (aka “Reality”) determines all that can take place. Thus, the universe and its situation, all of reality, being as a person, is God being as a person.

Brains being dependent on thoughts is a state of mutual inclusivity where the ontological argument works where dependence and independence cause a ground by differentiation into a personality, which , has attributes of perfection…perfection integrates imperfection, and pre differentiation as analogous.

You need to define what it means to be personal.

Does personal mean capable of understanding thought? Capable of identifying objects? Has desires? Has thoughts?