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

[OBuscador]

@Quid est Veritas? and @Freodin later I will answer you, now I will need to leave! Sorry for not replying quickly, it's because I'm sending messages through a cell phone!

 

[Sanoy]

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!

A person can be the grounding of moral behavior. Matter doesn't have any behavior in the strict sense. Mindless matter can't love but a person can. I guess I'm confused about the question, it sounds like 'which would you rather have a friend or a rock?' And I know you're not asking that. So do you mean something like 'why is the Christian God better than the Deistic god?'.

 

[Silmarien]

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!

You still need to explain what you mean by a God who is not distinct from matter.

Are you attributing divine properties to matter itself? Does matter actually have a will of its own? Do you view the universe as necessarily existing and in some sense aware?

Pantheism is an interesting option, but simply saying that the universe is divine doesn't mean anything. You will need to explain how your position is distinct from atheism, otherwise we're not dealing with a non-personal conception of the divine at all. We're dealing with an atheistic physical reality by another name.

 

[joinfree]

….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…...

It is not secret, that FSM is fiction: it has the author among atheists. So, it is not real. Welcome to Reality.

 

[OBuscador]

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.

Thank you Quid est Veritas? Well, I actually think that the explanation of that matter was responsible for the matter itself (the immanent energy, which I called the non-personal God in the topic) is no less coherent than saying that an omnipotent deity created or which is responsible or controls in a certain way everything that happens in our universe, I can not imagine that everything that is material was created by a non-material and "personal" entity or the "I Am", that according to many theists who say that consciousness can not come into existence through non-consciousness that intelligence and knowledge exist because it was the work of an omniscient being, consciousness could not have been created by a bioenergy or any other energy of the universe? Does that mean I killed that cat in the box? But do people know that such a cat is in the box or not? How do you know if such a cat exists? I think there may be a moment in the future when scientists will discover a form or theory that explains how the theory of creation will completely eliminate the idea "This is a mystery that can only be explained with personal God", or "a being personnel of intelligence and purpose did this or that "that creation is a gift from God to men." @Freodin, certainly knows how to explain more coherently and with much more precision than I do that we do not need a personal God in this universe.

I think that saying monotheistic God is fundamentally existing is no different from saying that "fundamental fluctuations of the quantum nature are fundamentally existing" or that "quantum vacuum energy is fundamentally existent" to me these are smaller loopholes than saying "this exists or happens why did a monotheistic God say or create "

I need to figure out what C.S. Lewis says. Does pantheism also convey a transcendental idea that something may be hovering over our universe? In fact I think that something that is not part of the natural world, or say that there is some spirit hovering the universe or that there is a conscious and ineffable being ceases to be a pantheistic idea.

 

[OBuscador]

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?

I think maybe it would be better to call it cosmic energy instead of non-personal God, I call it an impersonal god because he does not answer prayers, does not help us in difficult times), I call the cosmos of God because it is something fantastic, incredible, astonishing, and likely to have some "consciousness."

 

[jayem]

Interesting thread. Speaking as a non-theist, the reasons given for belief in a personal god, who cares about us, boil down to 2 cognitive phenomena:
1) Incredulity that a complex cosmos containing intelligent life could have arisen by purely natural processes.
2) A caring supreme being, whom we would recognize as morally good is more psychologically comfortable than a detached, uninvolved diety.

To me, neither of these assumptions make for compelling arguments. #1 is the argument from ignorance. #2 is wishful thinking. They both reflect how we see the world. They say much more about how the human brain works, than about the characteristics of any cosmic creative and sustaining entity or entities. If any such entities actally exist.

 

[OBuscador]

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.

Besides being a person full of doubts, I am also contradictory.


Please guys, I'm sorry for my inconsistencies!

 

[OBuscador]

You still need to explain what you mean by a God who is not distinct from matter.

Are you attributing divine properties to matter itself? Does matter actually have a will of its own? Do you view the universe as necessarily existing and in some sense aware?

Pantheism is an interesting option, but simply saying that the universe is divine doesn't mean anything. You will need to explain how your position is distinct from atheism, otherwise we're not dealing with a non-personal conception of the divine at all. We're dealing with an atheistic physical reality by another name.

What I call a cosmic force or an energy scattered throughout the universe and that is not beyond the universe is what I call "god", I do not believe that god is an anthropomorphic and personal being (that speaks, judges, arbitrates, saves, punishes and is considered the creator of everything being that this does not happen) why I say that this type, therefore I affirm that this non personal God, that this One is the Whole and the Whole is the One therefore and that the universe is a species of "consciousness," the only difference from this with atheism is that I call the universe and the nature of an god ("impersonal god");

 

[OBuscador]

Interesting thread. Speaking as a non-theist, the reasons given for belief in a personal god, who cares about us, boil down to 2 cognitive phenomena:
1) Incredulity that a complex cosmos containing intelligent life could have arisen by purely natural processes.
2) A caring supreme being, whom we would recognize as morally good is more psychologically comfortable than a detached, uninvolved diety.

To me, neither of these assumptions make for compelling arguments. #1 is the argument from ignorance. #2 is wishful thinking. They both reflect how we see the world. They say much more about how the human brain works, than about the characteristics of any cosmic creative and sustaining entity or entities. If any such entities actally exist.

Thanks for the reply Jayem, you expressed this idea much better than I could express it, in fact I also do not think that simply "my impersonal god" is better than the personal god of theism in general, but at least in my This impersonal god, cosmic energy or cosmic consciousness makes more sense than a god who is said to answer prayers, to work miracles, to relate to an individual, to use men to write many contradictory ideas in sacred books, and to threaten those who do not believe or think differently with a place of eternal torture.

 

[Dirk1540]

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"?

I believe that there is a complex flavor/recipe to the type of belief that God wants from us, a recipe of belief that only has intellectual satisfaction as one of its ingredients...but if you increase the ratio of intellectual proofs that exist in the world it would drown out other factors/tastes to this recipe of ‘Belief’ (that God craves most).

If Biblical signs & wonders were more indisputable, whether we favor such a change in reality or not, things would definitely be different. Many would feel compelled to believe/follow that were not believers before. For millions of people, it may result in that feeling that you get when you haven’t done anything wrong but the car behind you is a cop. Things like driving responsibly out of respect for other people’s safety, or simply having a respect for the law, they could be drowned out by being compelled to drive perfectly because a cop is behind you.

There is this strong ingredient of faith in that Biblical recipe of belief. I admit to not understanding this mixture, and I admit that I have shaken my fist at God before and told God that it’s absurd that He doesn’t dilute the faith ingredient a bit and add a couple more pinches of proof into the recipe of belief. However (I have a rich history of back & forth belief in my life) I’m the same guy who many times in my life had become fed up with rules of religion, and I wanted to let my hair down...and I purposely leaned on my intellectual objections as a means to throw God off to the side for awhile, and do so free of guilt. I was an intellectual mixed bag, I had both pro-Christian intellectual reasoning and anti-Christian intellectual reasoning.

I also think that a lot of people are supposed to intellectually wrestle with this puzzle. Perhaps you ‘Own’ your beliefs much more intimately if you wrestled with them a lot, and maybe they don’t mean much to you if they come easy.

But again, I don’t admit to understanding the mixture because clearly there are many people who found their beliefs with ease. Maybe certain people do better with the wrestling match, and others don’t require it. I actually used to wish for an evil experience, a supernatural occurrence of any kind because I know myself and I know that such an experience (even an evil one) would be slam dunk proof of the spiritual/Biblical world (I’m just speaking in terms of how my brain is wired). I know a few people who have a ghost or a UFO story, I’ve read about other such stories, I have none. Was I never given one because it would drown out my intellectual wrestling match with God, so that I then would have taken my belief in God lighter than I do today?? I have no definitive answer to that but my opinion is that the answer is yes.

To steal a favorite point from Silmarien, I’m not allowed to change an ought into an is. I can shake a fist at God that there ought to be a stronger proof to faith ratio in the recipe, but I can’t ignore that Biblical theology teaches this strange God love affair with this concept called ‘Faith’ (a word that I had a deep hatred for, because all I wanted was proof).

And I’m not allowed to argue against a belief system by misrepresenting what it teaches, it teaches the need for faith and spiritual discernment...and and it then speaks of bread crumbs of proof such as general revelation and historical Jesus studies, seeing God act in history via the Jews, etc. I totally agree that it’s obvious that those proof breadcrumbs aren’t enough for a lot of people. But I can’t make the demand that there ought to be more proof...and still be arguing against Biblical theology. I would instead be arguing that Biblical theology is just a sham.

Finally, I am only one person with one lens to view reality. There are many different people who could chime in on their interpretation of why God might be more hidden then we would like. I’m just giving my theory from my viewpoint.

I won’t pretend that I ‘Get it.’ But I will say that I have reasons (that would derail this thread) that make the theory of an impersonal God that is equivalent to nature less plausible to me than a theory of a personal God that on the surface looks heavily hidden.

 

[Dirk1540]

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)

You still need to explain what you mean by a God who is not distinct from matter.

Are you attributing divine properties to matter itself? Does matter actually have a will of its own? Do you view the universe as necessarily existing and in some sense aware?

Pantheism is an interesting option, but simply saying that the universe is divine doesn't mean anything. You will need to explain how your position is distinct from atheism, otherwise we're not dealing with a non-personal conception of the divine at all. We're dealing with an atheistic physical reality by another name.

Hey!! Get Lost!!!!!

 

[HTacianas]

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 think we need to first agree to a definition of "personal god". It seems we define it in different ways.

To me "personal god" means that God Himself fellows me around and involves Himself in my daily life. While God is certainly involved in my life, He is not my personal god. I view my relationship with God to be the relationship between a subject and a king, God being that king while I am His subject.

I do not doubt the working of the Holy Spirit in any person's life, and I do not doubt the atoning work of Christ that has allowed me, by the grace of God, to enter into that kingdom.

 

[OBuscador]

A person can be the grounding of moral behavior. Matter doesn't have any behavior in the strict sense. Mindless matter can't love but a person can. I guess I'm confused about the question, it sounds like 'which would you rather have a friend or a rock?' And I know you're not asking that. So do you mean something like 'why is the Christian God better than the Deistic god?'.

Hello Sanoy, thnks for reply. Mind is also matter, love and other emotions are chemical reactions of the brain. In fact with this question I do not want to prove that the "impersonal god" is better than a personal god even though I have more preferences for the idea of believing that the universe is all there is and that the idea of a personal and transcendent god is no better or superior than a "pantheistic god" (that is the Cosmos), I say this because some theists have told me that their particular "God" is above others or that there is no other true deity outside theirs.

 

[OBuscador]

I think we need to first agree to a definition of "personal god". It seems we define it in different ways.

To me "personal god" means that God Himself fellows me around and involves Himself in my daily life. While God is certainly involved in my life, He is not my personal god. I view my relationship with God to be the relationship between a subject and a king, God being that king while I am His subject.

I do not doubt the working of the Holy Spirit in any person's life, and I do not doubt the atoning work of Christ that has allowed me, by the grace of God, to enter into that kingdom.

In fact I agree with his definition of personal god, when I say a personal god I define it as follows: a being who relates to his creatures, who is compassionate, loving, considerate, has an intentions for his creation, or possesses emotions atropomorphic), I did not say that that god was exclusive to a person only.

 

[zippy2006]

So I ask how the idea of a personal God is better than the idea of the cosmic energy (that I call non-personal God).

In fact with this question I do not want to prove that the "impersonal god" is better than a personal god even though I have more preferences for the idea of believing that the universe is all there is and that the idea of a personal and transcendent god is no better or superior than a "pantheistic god" (that is the Cosmos)...

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.

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

I was hoping that the better/worse question would work itself out naturally, but I don't think it has. What do you mean by "better" and "worse"? You seem to include the idea of superiority, but that isn't altogether helpful in resolving the value question.

Silmarien's point is important. Many of us Christians, including C. S. Lewis, might personally prefer pantheism in various ways. For us theism isn't necessarily better than pantheism in the sense of prima facie ideal or superior from a human vantage point. Lewis actually addresses this in some detail in the quote I already gave you. Here is the specific part about the appeal of pantheism:

Men are reluctant to pass over from the notion of an abstract and negative deity to the living God. I do not wonder. Here lies the deepest tap-root of Pantheism and of the objection to traditional imagery. It was hated not, at bottom, because it pictured Him as a man but because it pictured Him as a king, or even as warrior. The Pantheist’s God does nothing, demands nothing. He is there if you wish for Him, like a book on a shelf. He will not pursue you. There is no danger that at any time heaven and earth should flee away at His glance. If He were the truth, then we could really say that all the Christian images of kingship were a historical accident of which our religion ought to be cleansed. It is with a shock that we discover them to be indispensable. [...]

-C.S. Lewis, Miracles, 149-50​

 

[HTacianas]

In fact I agree with his definition of personal god, when I say a personal god I define it as follows: a being who relates to his creatures, who is compassionate, loving, considerate, has an intentions for his creation, or possesses emotions atropomorphic), I did not say that that god was exclusive to a person only.

Then we agree. Oftentimes you hear the protestant idea of "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" which is a belief I do not hold to. I have no doubt that God possesses emotion and certainly cares about His creation.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, when I say a personal God I mean a god with personality and characteristics!

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).

In fact I agree with his definition of personal god, when I say a personal god I define it as follows: a being who relates to his creatures, who is compassionate, loving, considerate, has an intentions for his creation, or possesses emotions atropomorphic), I did not say that that god was exclusive to a person only.

Here too we seem to have a problem of terminology that has persisted throughout the thread. Let's just list all of the different attributes you have defined as part of being 'personal':

• Having personality
• Having characteristics
• Having behavior
• Executing plans
• Relating to creatures
• Being compassionate
• Being loving
• Being considerate
• Having intentions for creation
• Possessing emotions

See, when you ask whether a personal God is better than an impersonal God, there are three basic terms that need to be understood and/or explained:

1. Personal God
2. Better
3. Impersonal God

You have received questions about each of these terms. My post just above asked about 'better'. This post asks about 'personal God.'

To simplify things I would say that the list of attributes can be divided into two categories: theism and Christianity, where Christianity is a subset of theism. I think it would help a lot if you would try to get really precise about what you mean by 'personal.' Even better would be a post that delves into precisely how you understand terms 1, 2, and 3 for the purposes of this thread. I hope this doesn't come off as pedantic, but after two pages of posts my understanding of your question is still muddy. Obrigado!

 

[OBuscador]

I was hoping that the better/worse question would work itself out naturally, but I don't think it has. What do you mean by "better" and "worse"? You seem to include the idea of superiority, but that isn't altogether helpful in resolving the value question.

Actually I do not want to convey the idea that a vision is "better", I'm sorry if my OP does understand this idea, but that's a sincere question, because I've already been told that theism is higher than thoughts non-theists, that is why I asked the question in this tone, but I do not want to show superiodinity of a particular vision, but I see that many Christians, I do not say those of that forum (I can not say this because I am new here) but the Christians I've talked to have always said that their visions and beliefs were the only true and authentic beliefs (something I find presumptuous) and that nonbelievers or people of other philosophical beliefs and systems are anathema, heathen, and so on.

 

[zippy2006]

Actually I do not want to convey the idea that a vision is "better", I'm sorry if my OP does understand this idea, but that's a sincere question, because I've already been told that theism is higher than thoughts non-theists, that is why I asked the question in this tone, but I do not want to show superiodinity of a particular vision, but I see that many Christians, I do not say those of that forum (I can not say this because I am new here) but the Christians I've talked to have always said that their visions and beliefs were the only true and authentic beliefs (something I find presumptuous) and that nonbelievers or people of other philosophical beliefs and systems are anathema, heathen, and so on.

Sure, that makes sense, and I'm not worried that you're claiming superiority.

You asked the question, "Why is a personal God better than a non-personal God?" Some of us want to understand what you mean by "better." Let's take some examples and focus on one definition of 'personal' you gave, "executing plans." Maybe John abhors the idea that a higher being is executing plans that may interfere with his life. For John a personal God is not better than an impersonal God (because John considers a God who executes plans to be a threat to his own autonomy). On the other hand, consider Jane who is excited and intrigued by the idea of a higher power who executes plans, possibly guiding her life and leading her towards fulfillment. For Jane a personal God is better than an impersonal God (because Jane values the idea of divine providence).

John and Jane have different ideas of what it means to be 'better.' John thinks that something is better if it doesn't interfere with his own freedom and Jane thinks that something is better if it is able to guide her towards fulfillment. What is your idea of 'better'? What considerations do you, personally, take into account in determining whether one conception of God is better or worse than another conception?