This significantly dumbs down what "God"* means, as he needn't even be a mind; merely an eternal depth of transcendent organization.+ I assert that [C]onsciousness is not describable by math or science; and [G]oodness is not usually described even by philosophy or by religion. These [C][G] are necessary to embody the implied "ultimate mindful transcendent good personal power" loaded into the modern term "God"*. So math DOES show the mere transcendent aspect of God's internal organization, as expressed in his creation; it fails to name him, or even to imply he's a he. That's all.
+ a presence without necessary personhood, effectiveness without necessary design (though this one is a koan), transcendent data without necessary self-awareness
My favorite cosmological-type argument is along this vein (Kalaam), and even it fails to infer personality. There's a reason, I think. Historical and testimonial evidence matters, too, and the further/higher aspects of God - beyond the systematic experimentable perfections - are granted as gifts in the histories, as God acted among us... leading to a literal invite to "come and join the court, as re-adopted family"; which invite grows up right from God's well-established fatherliness.
Yeah, beautifully put - I think asking for “proof” of the personal God is akin to asking “what happened before the Big Bang” - it’s an obvious desire we all logically seek to understand, but based on our limited understanding of physics and metaphysics it may take a form we can’t currently comprehend. At least, I have trouble picturing a means by which to demonstrate a personal God to someone asking for proof. People could start performing miracles and an observer could still conceive of a universe with impersonal divinity which could be put to work through some mechanism (i.e. “magic”) - just as an example scenario - it’s almost like the “personal God” starts within us and is projected out into the world, once we open our minds to the possibility, we see the evidence all around us...
This significantly dumbs down what "God"* means, as he needn't even be a mind; merely an eternal depth of transcendent organization.+ I assert that [C]onsciousness is not describable by math or science; and [G]oodness is not usually described even by philosophy or by religion. These [C][G] are necessary to embody the implied "ultimate mindful transcendent good personal power" loaded into the modern term "God"*. So math DOES show the mere transcendent aspect of God's internal organization, as expressed in his creation; it fails to name him, or even to imply he's a he. That's all.
+ a presence without necessary personhood, effectiveness without necessary design (though this one is a koan), transcendent data without necessary self-awareness
* the All-Thing, possessing:
the ability to be everywhere he wants
the power to accomplish whatever his goals
the every knowledge he desires
WANTS/GOALS/DESIRES that drive these
Ultimate goodness that roots these W/G/D
All without needing any help
All without precedent or peer
Baby steps...
Interesting post!
My favorite cosmological-type argument is along this vein (Kalaam), and even it fails to infer personality. There's a reason, I think. Historical and testimonial evidence matters, too, and the further/higher aspects of God - beyond the systematic experimentable perfections - are granted as gifts in the histories, as God acted among us... leading to a literal invite to "come and join the court, as re-adopted family"; which invite grows up right from God's well-established fatherliness.
Yeah, beautifully put - I think asking for “proof” of the personal God is akin to asking “what happened before the Big Bang” - it’s an obvious desire we all logically seek to understand, but based on our limited understanding of physics and metaphysics it may take a form we can’t currently comprehend. At least, I have trouble picturing a means by which to demonstrate a personal God to someone asking for proof. People could start performing miracles and an observer could still conceive of a universe with impersonal divinity which could be put to work through some mechanism (i.e. “magic”) - just as an example scenario - it’s almost like the “personal God” starts within us and is projected out into the world, once we open our minds to the possibility, we see the evidence all around us...
I hope even part of that ramble made sense lol
You're thinking. It's enough.