How is the idea of the Christian God better than the idea of a non-personal God?

[OBuscador]

I grew up in a Christian home, believed in the idea of a personal God until I was 15 years old, I already tried to talk to some Christians about it and everything they told me was this (God is personal because the Bible says this, that He is always with us, that he hears our prayers and petitions, that he helps us during our daily routine and etc), but that to me is the same as saying that the flying spaghetti monster is personal because the book or gospel of the flying spaghetti monster says this, that He is always with us!, who hears our prayers and etc; for me it's exactly the same thing, the only difference I see is the names of the characters, which is why I find the idea of a personal and individual God or any deity with a meaningless personality, and for thinking so, some evangelicals fundamentalist Christians of the internet said that I "deserved to burn forever in hell", "that if I did not repent my soul would pay dearly", "that I was an ignorant and alienated about God and Christ" and several other pejorative terms.

I have been browsing these forums for a few months and I know there are many intelligent Christians around here, for example: @ViaCrucis, @expos4ever, @KomatiiteBIF, @Quid est Veritas?, @Tom Farebrother, @2PhiloVoid, @Dirk1540, @zippy2006 and etc.

because for some theists (especially Christians) the idea of a personal god is more rational than the idea of a pantheistic god (or an impersonal god)??


I will try to be clear with these terms and organize the ideas, when I say personal and transcendent god is defined by some Christians that god is a god of personal order and invocatable although this god is not known in the way that physical object is known a god that even being immeasurable and immovable, has established commandments and promises to those who are faithful to him, a god who opens the possibility that one may enter into a mystical union with him, but even the mystics themselves who experience this spiritual experience or relationship can not explain with exactitude that "God is" because He is "an infinite being," some say that God is personal (they use atropormorphic language to express this) but he is not a human person, nor is he a super-being, but they also say that God is not a is not a thing but an indefinable god and as Quid est Veritas said! "ineffable".

when I say a impersonal god I mean about an pantheist god or a god who is the "All" and universality of the beings of the universe, a god that is not open to the personal relationship that an individual may have with a personal god, being that as I said, this god is "All" of this universe, that this god is the generative nature and everything that is in the natural world and that this same nature creates the beings that have ideas of all things (even of nature itself).

OP edited, hope this is what I wrote now make sense!

thoughts?

 

[HTacianas]

I grew up in a Christian home, believed in the idea of a personal God until I was 15 years old, I already tried to talk to some Christians about it and everything they told me was this (God is personal because the Bible says this, that He is always with us, that he hears our prayers and petitions, that he helps us during our daily routine and etc), but that to me is the same as saying that the flying spaghetti monster is personal because the book or gospel of the flying spaghetti monster says this, that He is always with us!, who hears our prayers and etc; for me it's exactly the same thing, the only difference I see is the names of the characters, which is why I find the idea of a personal and individual God or any deity with a meaningless personality, and for thinking so, some evangelicals fundamentalist Christians of the internet said that I "deserved to burn forever in hell", "that if I did not repent my soul would pay dearly", "that I was an ignorant and alienated about God and Christ" and several other pejorative terms.

I have been browsing these forums for a few months and I know there are many intelligent Christians around here, for example: @ViaCrucis, @expos4ever, @KomatiiteBIF, @Quid est Veritas?, @Tom Farebrother, @2PhiloVoid, @Dirk1540, @zippy2006 and etc.

So I ask how the idea of a personal God is better than the idea that there is no personal God and that matter and God are exactly the same thing?

thoughts?

I don't believe in the idea of a "personal god". If we had a personal god there would be no need for ministering angels who, according to christianity, are sent to minister to those who will inherit eternal life.

 

[Sabertooth]

So I ask how the idea of a personal God is better than the idea that there is no personal God and that matter and God are exactly the same thing?

thoughts?

How would you prefer Him [Her?] to be?

 

[royal priest]

HOPE

 

[TuxAme]

The idea of a personal God is greater, firstly, because it is reality (the truth is more perfect than falsehood). The universe is governed by a personal God, and is the superior notion for this reason.

Secondly, the personal God "theory", I'll call it, is superior to others because it suggests that the Creator of the universe is personally invested in us. He cares about us- at least enough to interact with us. He didn't create us to be unaware of Him- He wants to have a relationship with us, and He knows (and offers) the best possible way to live our lives.

And that leads into number three. An impersonal God- by definition- wouldn't be too worried about us at all. They wouldn't particularly care how we treat each other and wouldn't seek to change our behaviors. They wouldn't offer us a better way to live- they'd create us and forget about us, and as far as we could know, evil would go unpunished if not reproved in life, and good wouldn't be rewarded unless done in our lifetime.

 

[Doug Melven]

So I ask how the idea of a personal God is better than the idea that there is no personal God and that matter and God are exactly the same thing?

All hose people that told you to repent/burn etc.. did not have a clue about what a real relationship with God is about.

I would say that the best way to get to know God is through His Word and spending time with Him in prayer.
Proverbs 2:1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
2:2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
2:3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
2:4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
2:5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.....

If you would do the things found in the first 4 verses, verse 5 will result. Not just knowing about God, but you will know God Himself and you will also have the answer to your question.

To me, trying to answer your question is like a married person trying to explain the benefits of marriage to a person who is dead set on being single.

 

[Dirk1540]

I grew up in a Christian home, believed in the idea of a personal God until I was 15 years old, I already tried to talk to some Christians about it and everything they told me was this (God is personal because the Bible says this, that He is always with us, that he hears our prayers and petitions, that he helps us during our daily routine and etc), but that to me is the same as saying that the flying spaghetti monster is personal because the book or gospel of the flying spaghetti monster says this, that He is always with us!, who hears our prayers and etc; for me it's exactly the same thing, the only difference I see is the names of the characters, which is why I find the idea of a personal and individual God or any deity with a meaningless personality, and for thinking so, some evangelicals fundamentalist Christians of the internet said that I "deserved to burn forever in hell", "that if I did not repent my soul would pay dearly", "that I was an ignorant and alienated about God and Christ" and several other pejorative terms.

I have been browsing these forums for a few months and I know there are many intelligent Christians around here, for example: @ViaCrucis, @expos4ever, @KomatiiteBIF, @Quid est Veritas?, @Tom Farebrother, @2PhiloVoid, @Dirk1540, @zippy2006 and etc.

So I ask how the idea of a personal God is better than the idea that there is no personal God and that matter and God are exactly the same thing?

thoughts?

Wow you mentioned me with some brilliant members, thanks so much for overrating me lol.

Well as @2PhiloVoid says a lot, what does it for each person (as far as an argument making sense or not) is a matter of personal taste, or as he words it ‘Epistemological Relativism’

As for me, I believe in a personal God due to a series of questions that I ask myself where one conclusion makes a lot more sense to me than it’s opposite. But I first want to define God more basically as ‘The Ever Existing Somethingness’ (as opposed to ‘God’ being attached to any religious dogmas).

I believe in an ever existent somethingness, and I believe it because it never made any sense to me that once upon a time there was nothingness...then for no apparent reason somethingness just popped out of it.

Another thing that has always made more sense to me than it’s opposite is that since we see coherence & intelligence everywhere that we look (microscopically even a pile of dirt has incredible organization), that coherence & intelligence has always existed. It doesn’t make any sense to me that once upon a time there was an incoherent 10 trillion square mile dust cloud of formless ‘Blah’...and then one day for no apparent reason it just started spinning together into super impressive coherence, and it started making sense...even to a degree that impresses mathematicians.

So I simply don’t logically understand how there ever could have been a non-existence, or how there ever could have been a non-coherence (strangely popping out of incoherence) IF both things exist now. However, I can understand incoherence or non-existence existing IF that’s also what we had today (of course that means that I wouldn’t be around to understand it or talk about it in CF lol). Anyway, I refer to this ever existent super coherence as ‘The Source.’ And this would be identical to people saying ‘God’

My next personal brain teaser is wrapping my head around the concept that I could possibly contain attributes that the eternal ‘Source’ of literal existence would actually lack?? Atheists will tell us that Earth itself is a meaningless spec of dust inside of an enormous universe. And even a smaller spec (inside of that spec of dust) would be the humans that live on that spec called Earth. Yet I’m supposed to believe that ME, a guy who can’t even figure out how to do his taxes right, contains higher cognitive attributes such as the comprehension of the concepts of love, hate, jealousy, sympathy, altruism, evil, etc...yet LITERAL EXISTENCE (that which I call The Source/God) lacks these attributes and doesn’t understand them at all?? That makes no sense to me...how did ‘It’ then endow me with these understandings?? (If in the beginning such understandings didn’t even exist).

I can even drop it down to a lower level...even dogs would contain higher cognitive attributes that the source of literal existence lacks. Dogs comprehend being loved or hated by their owner, they too comprehend self sacrifice such as getting hurt to protect their owner, etc. Comprehension itself is an attribute. It makes more sense to me that not only does The Source contain all of the attributes that I contain, but that it also contains MORE (cognitive) attributes than I contain, not less...not to mention comprehending more than a dog.

So ‘Logically’ my conclusion CAN still be Deism!! Logically I can wrap my head around the concept of ‘The Source’ simply not caring about us...but logically it doesn’t make any sense to me that that Source wouldn’t be capable of comprehending ‘Caring’ about us (if we can comprehend it, us being measly specs of dust on a measly spec of dust called Earth that was a product of that Source). And for the record I was a deist for awhile. Why I moved from deism to a belief that God cares about us is another loaded question lol

 

[zippy2006]

I grew up in a Christian home, believed in the idea of a personal God until I was 15 years old, I already tried to talk to some Christians about it and everything they told me was this (God is personal because the Bible says this, that He is always with us, that he hears our prayers and petitions, that he helps us during our daily routine and etc), but that to me is the same as saying that the flying spaghetti monster is personal because the book or gospel of the flying spaghetti monster says this, that He is always with us!, who hears our prayers and etc; for me it's exactly the same thing, the only difference I see is the names of the characters, which is why I find the idea of a personal and individual God or any deity with a meaningless personality, and for thinking so, some evangelicals fundamentalist Christians of the internet said that I "deserved to burn forever in hell", "that if I did not repent my soul would pay dearly", "that I was an ignorant and alienated about God and Christ" and several other pejorative terms.

I have been browsing these forums for a few months and I know there are many intelligent Christians around here, for example: @ViaCrucis, @expos4ever, @KomatiiteBIF, @Quid est Veritas?, @Tom Farebrother, @2PhiloVoid, @Dirk1540, @zippy2006 and etc.

So I ask how the idea of a personal God is better than the idea that there is no personal God and that matter and God are exactly the same thing?

thoughts?

I'll try to find time to reply in more detail but for now I merely want to point to a recent conversation with @Silmarien that touched on this topic of theism and pantheism. I will just point to a post where I quoted C.S. Lewis on that topic which falls in the middle of our conversation.

(I assume that when you say "matter and God are exactly the same thing" you are referring to some form of materialistic Pantheism, and that by "personal" you mean that God has some form of personhood and agency; correct me if I'm wrong there.)

 

[Oncedeceived]

I grew up in a Christian home, believed in the idea of a personal God until I was 15 years old, I already tried to talk to some Christians about it and everything they told me was this (God is personal because the Bible says this, that He is always with us, that he hears our prayers and petitions, that he helps us during our daily routine and etc), but that to me is the same as saying that the flying spaghetti monster is personal because the book or gospel of the flying spaghetti monster says this, that He is always with us!, who hears our prayers and etc; for me it's exactly the same thing, the only difference I see is the names of the characters, which is why I find the idea of a personal and individual God or any deity with a meaningless personality, and for thinking so, some evangelicals fundamentalist Christians of the internet said that I "deserved to burn forever in hell", "that if I did not repent my soul would pay dearly", "that I was an ignorant and alienated about God and Christ" and several other pejorative terms.

I have been browsing these forums for a few months and I know there are many intelligent Christians around here, for example: @ViaCrucis, @expos4ever, @KomatiiteBIF, @Quid est Veritas?, @Tom Farebrother, @2PhiloVoid, @Dirk1540, @zippy2006 and etc.

So I ask how the idea of a personal God is better than the idea that there is no personal God and that matter and God are exactly the same thing?

thoughts?

I have to question the Christians that you spoke to about God being personal. God isn't personal due to the Bible saying He is; He is personal because He indwells within each and every Christian and loves each person. It is a relationship that uses many avenues of communication and interaction. I feel sorry for any Christian who doesn't desire that type of relationship with Him.

 

[Silmarien]

So I ask how the idea of a personal God is better than the idea that there is no personal God and that matter and God are exactly the same thing?

I'll be away for the next couple of weeks so won't be responding for a while (and if I do, someone please yell at me), but a couple of initial questions:

What do you mean by a personal God?

What do you mean by a non-personal God?

What does it mean that God and matter are the same thing? I live on the border between theism and pan(en)theism myself, so you might find the exchange Zippy posted useful, but the form of pantheism that I have in mind is very different than a sort of naturalistic pantheism whereby we just rename the universe God.

For me, the line between a personal and non-personal God is agency. When we say that God is the source of reality, do we simply mean that it is in the nature of reality to be infinitely creative (pantheism), or is Creation an intentional choice on the part of God (theism)?

I actually find the idea of a personal God difficult and intimidating despite leaning towards theism, so I'm not really sure how we're qualifying "better" and "worse" here.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I concur with those who ask for clarification of terms, first and foremost. Especially the value determination of something being 'better', as @Silmarien mentioned.

To investigate the question though, we are assuming a bit here, aren't we? You are assuming that the Material exists, or could exist, in some extra-personal sense. Do we not though, conceive of everything through our person? That we 'see' something only occurs when consciously aware thereof. While hypothetically the eye picks up light from various objects, we only see what our consciousness, our personhood, lights upon. From the notion that there is something beyond what we are consciously aware of, we assume that we are in fact observing something with a reality external to our observation thereof - but is this necessarily valid? It is how much anthropic principle you would apply.
So we humans can only know of something, or affirm it, if we or intersubjectively by abstraction, could become aware of it. So only by awareness by someone, did we actually bring something into actuality. The concept of a 'continent' didn't exist until articulated, and the Americas did not exist to Europeans until perceived, seen, and thought of.

So you are assuming something never placed in relation to a conscious awareness could exist. On what do you base this claim? Deductive reasoning from human experience certainly doesn't support this, as something in a sense only exists once perceived.
Or do you assume things become existent once perceived, but did not exist prior to it? Or are we dealing with potentialities? That Schrodinger's Cat is both alive and dead until the box is opened?

For us to blithely assume that our observable world reflects something that exists extra-personally to ourselves, requires many metaphysical assumptioms. Based on human experience though, the unobserved is in some sense also the non-existent.
God as the Ground of Being, I AM that I AM, that which fundamentally exists, requires that it be observed perhaps. A personal God as in a Being, makes far more sense from the grounds of human perception and experience, than essentially claiming non-existence becomes existent, as lesser creatures become aware. This is fundamentally related to what @Dirk1540 was saying.

CS Lewis is a good source here. In Pilgrim's Regress, John falls in with a bunch of Idealists. The principle of a holistic everything as God, however belies how a portion thereof stands in relation to the whole. An 'I' as part and parcell of a pantheistic entity, is still in some sense separate, and thus still implies an extraneous Him. It is a matter of perspective, perhaps.
If we construct what we deem 'Reality' by conscious thought, that Reality, by nature, remains dependant on Consciousness. As we cannot affirm our experience beyond our conscious experience, we are stuck with conceiving everything necessarily from an aspect of Mind. It is not coincidence that Neoplatonism, Buddhism, Confucianism, right down to modern Quantum Physics and Relativity Theory, require a fairly stubborn idea of Consciousness being required to bring Actuality and determinability. This is why Existence itself, even in Pantheistic systems, becomes linked to aspects of a Mind - in essence therefore hard to distinguish from an ineffable Person.

 

[Godistruth1]

I grew up in a Christian home, believed in the idea of a personal God until I was 15 years old, I already tried to talk to some Christians about it and everything they told me was this (God is personal because the Bible says this, that He is always with us, that he hears our prayers and petitions, that he helps us during our daily routine and etc), but that to me is the same as saying that the flying spaghetti monster is personal because the book or gospel of the flying spaghetti monster says this, that He is always with us!, who hears our prayers and etc; for me it's exactly the same thing, the only difference I see is the names of the characters, which is why I find the idea of a personal and individual God or any deity with a meaningless personality, and for thinking so, some evangelicals fundamentalist Christians of the internet said that I "deserved to burn forever in hell", "that if I did not repent my soul would pay dearly", "that I was an ignorant and alienated about God and Christ" and several other pejorative terms.

I have been browsing these forums for a few months and I know there are many intelligent Christians around here, for example: @ViaCrucis, @expos4ever, @KomatiiteBIF, @Quid est Veritas?, @Tom Farebrother, @2PhiloVoid, @Dirk1540, @zippy2006 and etc.

So I ask how the idea of a personal God is better than the idea that there is no personal God and that matter and God are exactly the same thing?

thoughts?

I don't know what having a personal God means but what's important is to know how much God cares for us and wants us to follow the right path.

 

[OBuscador]

I don't believe in the idea of a "personal god". If we had a personal god there would be no need for ministering angels who, according to christianity, are sent to minister to those who will inherit eternal life.

Thank you for responding HTacianas, so you think God is an impersonal force just because there are ministering angels? I think by adhering to this thought you automatically go against what traditional Christianity teaches, I am not a Christian, but if a Christian denies the concept of a personal god, he automatically denies that Jesus was the incarnate and personal manifestation of God, also denies that the Holy Spirit intercedes for the faithful and also denies that idea of Genesis that men are made of the image and likeness of that same god.

 

[Freodin]

I have seen people struggle to give a precise definition of "God", but I always felt that "personal" (as in "is a person") was a fixed component of such a definition.

What would a "non-personal God" be... and why would one use the term "God" to label it?

 

[Freodin]

Thank you for responding HTacianas, so you think God is an impersonal force just because there are ministering angels? I think by adhering to this thought you automatically go against what traditional Christianity teaches, I am not a Christian, but if a Christian denies the concept of a personal god, he automatically denies that Jesus was the incarnate and personal manifestation of God, also denies that the Holy Spirit intercedes for the faithful and also denies that idea of Genesis that men are made of the image and likeness of that same god.

I guess he got a little confused with the different usages of the term "personal". You should make it clear if you mean it in the "is a person" or "is there for you personally" way.

 

[OBuscador]

How would you prefer Him [Her?] to be?

...I would like that him/her were indeed a righteous god and that he gave some evidence of his existence, I never encountered such a personal God on pages of religious books, I also do not believe that religious or mystical experiences (such as hearing voices and having visions ) prove that there is a personal God.

 

[Sabertooth]

...I would like that him/her were indeed a righteous god and that he gave some evidence of his existence, I never encountered such a personal God on pages of religious books, I also do not believe that religious or mystical experiences (such as hearing voices and having visions ) prove that there is a personal God.

And how could you confirm that your ideal "God" aligns to the real One?

 

[OBuscador]

I can even drop it down to a lower level...even dogs would contain higher cognitive attributes that the source of literal existence lacks. Dogs comprehend being loved or hated by their owner, they too comprehend self sacrifice such as getting hurt to protect their owner, etc. Comprehension itself is an attribute. It makes more sense to me that not only does The Source contain all of the attributes that I contain, but that it also contains MORE (cognitive) attributes than I contain, not less...not to mention comprehending more than a dog.

Dirk, then you think that this personal source/God has all the attributes we have and still has more attributes of knowledge than we do, so why did not he use a more effective and persuasive way of convincing us of his existence and his "good intentions"?

 

[OBuscador]

I'll try to find time to reply in more detail but for now I merely want to point to a recent conversation with @Silmarien that touched on this topic of theism and pantheism. I will just point to a post where I quoted C.S. Lewis on that topic which falls in the middle of our conversation.

(I assume that when you say "matter and God are exactly the same thing" you are referring to some form of materialistic Pantheism, and that by "personal" you mean that God has some form of personhood and agency; correct me if I'm wrong there.)

Thank you Zippy, I'll take a look! Actually pantheism (at least for me) involves everything related to matter! Yes, when I say a personal God I mean a god with personality and characteristics!

 

[OBuscador]

I'll be away for the next couple of weeks so won't be responding for a while (and if I do, someone please yell at me), but a couple of initial questions:

What do you mean by a personal God?

What do you mean by a non-personal God?

What does it mean that God and matter are the same thing? I live on the border between theism and pan(en)theism myself, so you might find the exchange Zippy posted useful, but the form of pantheism that I have in mind is very different than a sort of naturalistic pantheism whereby we just rename the universe God.

For me, the line between a personal and non-personal God is agency. When we say that God is the source of reality, do we simply mean that it is in the nature of reality to be infinitely creative (pantheism), or is Creation an intentional choice on the part of God (theism)?

I actually find the idea of a personal God difficult and intimidating despite leaning towards theism, so I'm not really sure how we're qualifying "better" and "worse" here.

Silmarien, when I say personal god, I mean a god of characteristics, behavior, a being who executes plans (although I define a personal god in this way I do not believe such a god exists).

For me, a non personal God is one who does not
is distinct from matter!
When I say god and matter are the same thing I mean that God and the cosmos are the same, for me it makes more sense to say that the "nature of reality is infinitely creative".

In fact I do not think the reality of a personal God can say much!