5

Classical arguments for God's existence, like ontological, cosmological, teleological, etc., only derive the existence of something very abstract, greatest entity, first cause, etc., which is then "magically" identified with some familiar God (Christian, Islamic, etc.). But these specific Gods are described acting as persons, not just some abstractions, in Christianity we even have one God in three Divine Persons, including "father" and "son". English Oxford Dictionary defines "personality" as "the quality or fact of being a person as distinct from a thing or animal", and it seems that the idea of personal God is integral to the classical theology.

So what are, if any, arguments for the existence of God with a personality? Where does the idea of 'personality' fit into the cosmological argument, for example?

  • 2
    As this question stands it is pretty vague. Could you elaborate more on what you mean by "personality"? The last part of the second sentence also makes little sense. Are you anticipating the answer to the question being "no"? It is very hard to tell what exactly it is you're asking. – Not_Here Mar 27 '17 at 8:02
  • hm i googled it, and it seems that the various arguments for god are best made for a personality via the idea of perfection -- a perfect thing would be a person. funny ;-) – anon Mar 27 '17 at 11:07
  • 1
    @PeterJ not sure what your point is, i am kinda being an ass, but "(in Trinitarian doctrine) each of the three persons of the Trinity" emphasis mine. also, is this is what is meant by a "personal" God, or is that about our relation to Him? – anon Mar 27 '17 at 15:01
  • 1
    @anon: the Latin "persona" is used in Christian credal formulations as a translation of the Greek "hypostasis". Most western Christian theology tends to hold that the "three" persons are "persons" in a different sense from the everyday English meaning. In particular, in Latin, "persona" refers primarily to the mask worn by an actor; in Greek a "hypostasis" is something that "subsists within". Neither of these senses have much to do with "personality" per se. – ig0774 Mar 27 '17 at 19:38
  • 1
    The cosmological argument doesn't explicitly argue for a personal God, but you can infer it. God is eternal, and He had the free will to chose to create the universe. Free will is a unique attribute of personality. That's the thought, as I understand it anyway. – user18800 Mar 27 '17 at 22:54
2

Following arguments I find good for personal God:

Argument from Religious experience

If personal God exist, we expect that God would reveal their existence to people. But now one question arise which is:

Why wouldn't God make their existence obvious to everyone?

But God may have perfect reason for hiding their existence from some people. If God has reveal to everyone, then some people may becomes envy of God, strongly dislike God or just don't want God. And some people may blame God for any unfortunate events, and may all scientific community try to find ways to use God like genie for variety of purpose. But God may know subconscious mind of one, and hides their existence of someone who don't want God or for whom their existence not good.

Other question would arise:

Why wouldn't God reveal to everyone in same form, in same way?

But God may have reason to not reveal to devotees in same form.

Suppose if some remember God in form of Lord Krishna, and if God reveal them in form of Jesus, devotee may request God to give their appearance in form in which he pray to them.

And third, as per principle of credulity, we shouldn't reject any experience unless we have good reason to. But if we want to reject all religious experience of all people, we may need positive evidence of non-existence of God. And millions of people who think they have experienced God are credible, honest people, who shows no signs of delusion, and many of them have been passed psychological test from experts in which they don't found any delusional effect. Therefore, experience of God shouldn't reject as lie or delusion.

Evidence from fine tuning

Fine tuning can be evidence for personal God because if God creates life and humans, it shows their intentionality, which can be because of personality.

In academic paper, Man Ho Chan argues from mathematical analysis and systematic comparison of different hypothesis and shows that data strongly prefer theistic explanation.

From paper:

To conclude, after a comprehensive study of the fine-tuning arguments, the fine-tuning phenomena strongly support the theistic worldview.

Source: https://repository.hkbu.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1447&context=etd_oa

Law of logic

Anderson and Welty argues that Law of logic itself suggest God who is personal in nature.

From paper,

Thus, if there are laws of logic, there must also be a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being. The laws of logic imply the existence of God.

Source: https://www.proginosko.com/docs/The_Lord_of_Non-Contradiction.pdf

Other author defends conclusion against some common problems, and he concludes:

So, there is a necessarily existent person. But since LNC is a nonphysical object, like A&W’s logical laws, such a person is spiritual in nature. So, there is a necessarily existent, spiritual person.

Source: https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/157717/NAVARRO-THESIS-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Joshua Rasmussen further gives some new arguments for some premise in paper, and argues that propositions doesn't exist in brain, on paper or anywhere; which is important for argument.

Source: http://www.academia.edu/download/3406588/PropositionsAPA2.doc

He also present argument for if there is necessary truth, it should necessarily exist, which helps to step towards argument for necessary existent being.

Source: http://www.joshualrasmussen.com/articles/existence.pdf

He also argues that necessary existent being is God:

See: http://www.academia.edu/download/3406590/Rasmussen-From-a-necessary-being-to-god.pdf

If further reading, I strongly recommend book of author, in which step by step wonderfully argues that God exist.

Read: "How Reason Can Lead to God"

| improve this answer | |
1

Here is my hypothesis:

A personal God can only exist in the form of the human consciousness. Human consciousness, while being part of the human individuality, is not to be identified to it. Somehow, it is always both inside and outside the human individual that it individualizes as "that" human individual. And it is exactly this duality of place of the human consciousness that can make it be a personal God: as long as you believe in yourself (in the individuality of your self), you actually believe in a kind of personal God, who is both you (inside you) and your individuality-giving creator (outside you).

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    The question's terminology is a bit confusing, but it isn't about a god that is "personal" to someone. Rather, it's about how it can be shown of a divine entity that it has a personality, that it is personal in the sense that it possesses personhood as opposed to being "just" a thing or some other entity. – commando Mar 29 '17 at 4:26
-1

I would argue that the God that created personality must have as much if not more of all the qualities of a person in order to accomplish such a feat.

The personality of God stares you in the face every time you look into the face of another human being. The very fact that you can have a conversation with someone is a result of the creative power of a God that already knows how to communicate. Have you ever laughed at a good, clean joke? Humour ultimately subsists in the mind of God who thought of it all in the first place.

Yet for the Christian, the ultimate proof of God's personality stems from the fact that this God has condescended to actually speak face-to-face with human beings like us. Even to take on human flesh and dwell among us. You want proof of a personal God? How about a divine person, fully God and fully human who was born of a woman, lived on this earth and died a real death. When you encounter Jesus in the Bible there is more than sufficient evidence that these are the words of a real human being, yet also the words of someone far greater than ourselves, someone divine.

I agree that the cosmological argument and its brethren are only hints at best. That is why God has filled in the blanks for us in actual historical revelation.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.