Board index ‹ God

[Dedicated]

What arguments, evidence, and logic support The Christian God??

[jimwalton]

Well, if I can assume from your statement that you accept the possibility of theism (at least for the sake of discussion). You bolded "Christian God," so that's what I presume you want to target. I'll skip the arguments, logic and evidences for theism and move to **The Christian God**.

If God were real, we have to expect that he/she wants to let people know he exists, either by making them capable of figuring it out or by showing himself to them. In either case, some kind of relationship with people is necessarily desired, and therefore some kind of communication is necessary. It would be difficult for people have knowledge of a God who is unknowable, or to have a relationship with a God who has not revealed himself. And if his nature were concealed, obscured, or distorted, an honest relationship would be impossible. Therefore we have to assume there is some way to know the truth about these matters, or the entire endeavor will not result in us having no knowledge of God. So we examine the claims of how God has revealed himself to arrive at which religion is telling the truth, if any. (It's impossible that they are all true since they contradict.)

Weighing and comparing the major religions of the world, there seem to be only two that really rise to the top: Christianity and Hinduism. Islam is just a cult, or distortion, of Christianity (Mohammad took Christianity and changed it, removing Jesus from deity, and putting Mohammad as its greatest prophet). Buddhism (and others like Jainism) is just a cult of Hinduism. Confucianism is really a philosophy of lifestyle, not a religion per se. When I weigh Christianity and Hinduism, Christianity seems to far outweigh Hinduism in its realistic portrayal of God, reality, evil, pain, salvation, life, and death.

Truth has to correspond to reality, and so at least on this fundamental level, correspondence to reality is what anyone would look for in "proving" any religion. But I'd also say, before we go on, that very little (if anything, when it comes right down to it, depending on your philosophical viewpoints) can be PROVEN. Most of the time we use adductive reasoning: inferring as wise as we can the most reasonable conclusion. In both of these areas (correspondence to reality and inferring a reasonable conclusion) I think Christianity has strength.

1. YHWH is the kind of God we would expect if a God truly exists, and Jesus is the kind of person we would expect to see if God visited the planet. Their beings conform to our highest reasonings of theology and philosophy. God must be all-knowing, all-powerful (without self-contradiction), completely other (transcendent) and yet completely engaged (immanent), loving but just, judging but merciful, maintaining standards and yet full of grace, never-changing but flexible to human situations, communicative, good but can crack a whip when that is called for, eternal, creator, able to work wonders, and yet knows how to play by his own rules at the same time. This is the God we would expect to see, and this is the God we see in the Bible. As far as Jesus, we would expect compassion, power, kindness but doesn't take guff from detractors, fearless, relational, words of authority and truth, knowledge of people and situations, knowledge of the past and future, sacrificial and not self-oriented, and full of patience but not a pushover, meek but not a doormat, assertive, humble, and yet confident. This is exactly what we see. It corresponds to reality.

2. The Bible presents a world that we see. It presents a world where evil is real (as opposed to Hinduism), and where God lets things take their course but intervenes to keep his plan of redemption on track. It portrays humanity as noble but hopelessly lost, moral but corruptible, both good and evil, torn between self and others, having a conscience, knowing purpose, aware of morality, acknowledging beauty, capable of creativity, but in some ways animalistic and capable of horrific behavior. We see all these things in real life.

3. The Bible portrays "religion" not as a way to earn a place in God's graces, but as God reaching out to us, to love his way into our hearts. To me this corresponds to reality, because if we have to earn our way, we are all in hopeless trouble. But if God would just reach out to us, invite us into the kingdom, pay any sacrifices himself, and make a way for us to find him, come to him, and be redeemed, this makes sense as the only possible way someone could ever find salvation, and this is what the Bible teaches.

4. A true religion must engage the whole of the human nature, not just the mind and not just the emotions. It can't possibly just be about swaying to the music, entranced and brainless, caught up in the rhythms, spells, notions and potions. By the same token, it can't possibly just be about deep philosophy, ironing out theological conundrums, connecting intellectually with the mysteries of the universe and transcending humanity to enter the divine. True religion engages the mind and can fulfill the most intellectual queries, but at the same time enjoy expression, joy, uplifting emotions and the pull of our hearts. True religion is for the scholar and the child, the nobleman and the commoner, the civilized and the barbarian, the slave and the free, the man and the woman, the scientist and the poet. Christianity conforms to these categories.

5. A true religion must make sense out of history. It doesn't function above it or without it, compete against it or necessarily endorse it. Christianity (in contrast to Hinduism and Buddhism) is a historical religion where God works in history and among history, accomplishing his purposes, involved in people's lives, bringing out the redemption of all creation.

6. A true religion must makes sense out of science. It doesn't function above it or without it, compete against it or necessarily endorse it. Christianity teaches principles of cause and effect, beauty, regularity, predictability, beauty, purpose, design, and a world in which science is possible.

7. Christianity teaches purpose, significance in humanity, forgiveness for wrongs, life out of death, hope for the hopeless, redemption, fairness, love, beauty, a God who is there, knowledge, conscience, renewal, and meaning. I think it addresses all of these (#s 1-7) with far greater satisfaction than other religions to such a great extent that I consider Christianity to be true.

8. Jesus is the biggest evidence for the Christian God: unhumanly wise, kind, perfect in every perceivable way, and of course there's the resurrection, the evidence for which would have to be examined separated.

[Dedicated]

Thanks for this reply. I did read and will reread this entire post so I can make detailed replies to each point but I dont want to get caught in a gish gallop so I will need to focus on the first point which seems required before the rest can follow.

> If God were real, we have to expect that he/she wants to let people know he exists.

What makes you think we have to expect God wants us to know it exists? What if Gods desires independence for mortals?

[jimwalton]

> What makes you think we have to expect God wants us to know it exists?

We can expect that a real God would want His creation to know He exists because deism (the theology that God created and then steps back into the shadows) is incompatible with the natural world. Even creation itself communicates (at least gives hints) that God exists: regularity, order, predictability, beauty, glory, purpose, personality, and especially life. If God did not wish to be known, He would have to create a universe and world contradictory to His nature, which then also would not include life. Otherwise, someone might be able to infer His existence from what they saw in nature, which would mean that God had indeed communicated something of himself to His creature.

> What if Gods desires independence for mortals?

The problem with this position is contingent on the previous one. Since it makes sense that a true God would want to be known, since nature itself reflects at least something of the nature of God, it also makes sense that a true God would want to desire some kind of a relationship with people, since we are personal and value relationships. If God is personal, and made us personal, and created us to value relationships, it would be contradictory for him to eschew relationships.

[Dedicated]

> If God did not wish to be known, He would have to create a universe and world contradictory to His nature, which then also would not include life. Otherwise, someone might be able to infer His existence from what they saw in nature, which would mean that God had indeed communicated something of himself to His creature

You assume too much. You're describing this like it has to be all or nothing. It's entirely possible that God wanted his creation to be known and it's reflection of God but nothing else.

> God would want to be known, since nature itself reflects at least something of the nature of God,

That part I can agree with and follows from reason.

> it also makes sense that a true God would want to desire some kind of a relationship with people, God would want to desire some kind of a relationship with people, since we are personal and value relationships

That part is not certain. God also created many things which are not personal and do not value relationships, like inanimate objects and simple organisms.

I see no reason to assume God wants to interact with us during our lives, maybe God would want to wait until the afterlife to interact with us, if at all

[jimwalton]

I appreciate this discussion, and your attitude as we talk. Thank you.

> You assume too much. You're describing this like it has to be all or nothing.

Here's the way my mind is working. If God really doesn't exist, then He's impossible. There's truly nothing there and cannot be. If God really does exist, the He's necessary. I mean, then we have a creator and a sublime divine being. There's no middle ground.

But the point is the Christian God. If God is necessary, then it does have to be all or nothing. Let me try to put it this way: If God is just some kind of a cosmic being, just some kind of a blank, immanent whatever—a power who created with some hints to what he was like (as would be necessary), then non-personality would be ultimate reality. But if there's no personality in reality, then one cannot explain where our personality as humans is even possible. There's no foundation for it. Ultimate reality is a bare immanence about which little can be said except "exists; powerful." That can describe a tornado or an earthquake, but not a human being. There has to be something more.

But I'm going to go further. If this immanent "thing" could create something other than itself, then there is such a thing as subject/object relationship and such a thing as particularity, which means there is also diversity and distinction that is basic to reality. Hopefully I'm writing this in a way that you can follow, or that makes sense. So if there is necessarily subject/object relationships, particularity, diversity, and distinction, then "bare powerful immanence" is impossible. It means God had a will (necessary to will nature into being), and He had desire (necessary to motivate the will), which means that He also is necessarily personal, and therefore relational. Only conscious, personal beings have a will.

> That part is not certain. God also created many things which are not personal and do not value relationships, like inanimate objects and simple organisms.

True. Because God is personal doesn't mean everything has to be. And if God had stopped creating before there were sentient, relational, personal beings, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But since we exist, and we are all three of those, then what Christianity tells us about God actually makes sense: A true God who was sentient, willful, personal, purposeful, (and presumably moral) would desire some kind of relationship with at least something in His creation. Most of creation, the Bible tells us, is to declare His glory, but some of creation, the Bible tells us, is for relationship. This squares with what we observe in the world around us.

> I see no reason to assume God wants to interact with us during our lives, maybe God would want to wait until the afterlife to interact with us, if at all

To cover some of the ground of this post, since God (tracing my thoughts) is necessarily personal (volitional—creation is impossible without it), and there are subject/object relationships between things, along with diversity and particularity, then there is also legitimate knowledge (subject/object relationality is necessary for knowledge) along with things that we see in life: love, for instance, and morality/ethics. It seems to me that it's necessary that God is not a blank, powerful immanence and nothing more. He is volitional, personal, moral, and relational. If that is the case, and it seems to me that it's necessarily so, it would go against His nature to abstain from interaction with us, to refuse to make Himself known, and to leave us to our devices to struggle through life without knowledge, love, or morality. It would be a contradiction in terms. But since we see all these things, we have reason to assume God would want to interact with us during our lives.

[Dedicated]

Hey, I'm not sure exactly where to start responding because I think a lot of this information is just beyond the realm of human knowledge.

> If God is just some kind of a cosmic being then non-personality would be ultimate reality.

What does ultimate reality mean? Like non-personality encompasses personality? Maybe so.

> But if there's no personality in reality, then one cannot explain where our personality as humans is even possible

Being inexplicable doesn't necessarily make something impossible.

> "exists; powerful." That can describe a tornado or an earthquake, but not a human being. There has to be something more.

Why?

> If this immanent "thing" could create something other than itself, then there is such a thing as subject/object relationship and such a thing as particularity

We don't really know if the universe is other than god or if they are intertwined.

> It means God had a will (necessary to will nature into being), and He had desire (necessary to motivate the will), which means that He also is necessarily personal, and therefore relational. Only conscious, personal beings have a will.

We don't know if god had a choice to create the universe, it's possible that it's a necessity.

[jimwalton]

> I think a lot of this information is just beyond the realm of human knowledge.

I agree in a sense. According to the Bible (the Christian God), the only way we could ever know any of this stuff is if it were revealed to us. Otherwise we'd be completely in the dark about it all. That's the point of the Bible: to reveal God to us, to show us what otherwise would be completely beyond the realm of human knowledge.

> What does ultimate reality mean? Like non-personality encompasses personality? Maybe so.

Ultimate reality is what we discover to be the essential structure of things. For instance, the universe seems to be built on various ultimate realities like math, and carbon. These (and others) fundamentals seemingly regulate (or at least participate in) all of what happens in this fantastic universe of ours.

So what I was saying is that if non-personality is a fundamental of our universe (we are an agglomeration of impersonal chemicals and god is an immanent, impersonal power and nothing else), then there is no possibility that humanity (and much animal life) can have or exhibit personality. It's not in the system. It's like wondering how long it will take a traffic light to recognize your car. That will never happen—its not possible within the parameters of the makeup of a traffic light.

> Being inexplicable doesn't necessarily make something impossible.

Of course it doesn't. That wasn't my point. What I was saying is that without the possibility of personality in the system, personality is an impossibility, and therefore it's impossible to explain how humans (and animal life) exhibit personality. It's like claiming that we can put various pieces of metal together, and if we do this often enough, those metal pieces will exhibit, oh, consciousness, or something like that. It's impossible. So if you have consciousness (probably a poor example, but you get my drift), putting various pieces of metal together cannot be the explanation of it.

> "That can describe a tornado or an earthquake, but not a human being. There has to be something more." Why?

Because disjuncted power cannot explain personality, just as a traffic light cannot exhibit recognition and two pieces of metal can't explain consciousness. There has to be something more. Since creation itself requires subject/object relationship, non-personal power cannot be the full explanation of how we are personal beings.

> We don't really know if the universe is other than god or if they are intertwined.

To me it can't be that they're intertwined. It's what I've been explaining. If God and nature are one (a Hindu idea), then all is a non-differentiated singularity, which is not what we see. If God and nature are one, there is no subject-object relationship, no particularity, but instead only a blank unity. In such a view of God there can be no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. Indeed, without an absolute personality, there is no diversity or distinction basic to reality at all; ultimate reality is a bare unity about which nothing may be said. It inevitably leads us to a denial of absolute personality, and it's impossible that there is volition (which requires subject/objectivity). If the universe is the emanation of divine being (a Hindu idea), and what call the universe is merely the extension of god, then all of these things (volition, knowledge, love, morality, personality) are impossible.

> We don't know if god had a choice to create the universe, it's possible that it's a necessity.

How so? If God is personal and relational, volition is part of the package (being a necessary function of self-awareness. Any being that is self-aware is also necessarily self-directed, and any being that is self-directed has volition).

[Waterback]

I say this with respect from one human to another, but this is a very convoluted explanation for the existence of a god, which you said is supposed to be fundamental and obvious and self apparent. You take a lot of liberty in the assumptions in your basic arguments.

[jimwalton]

Well, let's talk about it. First of all, this is not an argument for theism, but the second post in a thread about the Christian God in particular, this post mostly answering specific questions (not trying to re-give the clear explanation I gave in the first post). Second, I don't recall saying that God was obvious and self-apparent. Third, I didn't think I was taking libertarian assumptions, but let's talk about it. I thought my flow of thought was fundamentally sound (I wouldn't otherwise subscribe to it). So let's discuss what you want to discuss.