Is God Personal, or Not?

The other day I ran into a fella who said he was in an odd theological category.  He explained that his closest sympathies lay with those who imagine God as an impersonal force.  Kinda like... well... the Force.

This would include Taoists who contemplate “the Tao”.  Or Hindus who believe in the impersonal “Brahman”.  Or even the ancient Greek concept of the “Logos”. These ideologies propose the Ultimate Explanation of Existence (UEE) is an eternal, non-personal principle of existence.

This belief would be incompatible with classical theism, which holds that God is inherently personal and rational.  So today I want to go over four arguments which point us toward Theism.

An ‘I’ from an ‘It’?

The first reason comes from a bit of personal introspection.

I know that I am a distinct individual endowed with consciousness, memory, intentionality, free-will, and rationality.  These are the hallmark capacities of what we call “personhood*".  A non-personal being would not have these traits or even the potential for these traits.

So now I’m left asking myself… how did I come to be?  How would my capacities of consciousness, rationality, and intentionality come to exist if the UEE has none of these?  This question becomes very difficult to answer in the absence of a personal Creator who made me in His image.

Moral Duties:

The second reason comes from reflecting on the nature of morality.

Moral theory breaks down into two areas – “moral epistemology” and “moral ontology”.   The distinction between the two is incredibly important.  (And almost never understood)

Moral Epistemology pertains to how we learn about the standards of morality and our duties.  This can be done in a variety of ways.

Moral Ontology is a more fundamental question.  It asks why there are moral truths and duties at all.  Why do moral facts exist and where to my obligations come from?

If the UEE is not personal, you could maybe – MAYBE – still have a working theory of how this impersonal essence establishes truths about right and wrong.  But how does that standard turn to me and say, “You must act in accordance with my essence!”

It cannot.  Without a lawgiver there can be no laws.

And yet, I know from the experience of my own conscience that moral obligations really do exist.  I know I am morally obligated to care for my children, and to not cheat on my wife.  This awareness points me back to a personal Creator.

No Coincidences?

A non-personal, non-rational essence would not be capable of communication, deliberation, or goal-oriented behavior.  Those all fall under the purview of persons.

Therefore, if I was to deny the personhood of the UEE, I would also have to disbelieve every claim of communication with God, every experience of providence, and every single miracle… ever.

But denying all of those things would mean denying my own experiences!  Plus, this would also mean ignoring the granddaddy of all providential events:  The Fine-Tuning of the Universe.

Modern physics has led us to realize we live in a very improbable universe.  If the various physical constants which comprise the laws of physics or the initial conditions of the Big Bang had been any different … the result would have been a universe which was uninhabitable by any conceivable form of life.  The odds of a life-permitting universe could be compared to trying to find a marked grain of sand somewhere on the planet earth.

(For more on that, see my longer explanation here)

After a small bit of arguing, one quickly arrives at the conclusion that the universe was purposefully designed to be habitable.  However, that means the universe would have to be the creation of some intentional, rational agent. Namely, a personal Creator.
   

Cause and Effect:

The final objection is – in my mind – the most powerful and the most complicated. So I'm going to break this down carefully.


1: The UEE has no beginning:

First, if the UEE was itself produced by something, then THAT would be the ultimate explanation.  So whether it is personal or not, the UEE would itself have to be uncreated.  That means it has always been around.  It is eternal, with no beginning.


2: Non-Personal agents produce effects by nature, not choice:

Next let’s think about some other non-personal creative causes.  Picture how the sun produces light and heat or how a magnet produces a magnetic field.  That’s what it looks like when a non-personal agent produces effects.  It’s not through some act of deliberation – (that would imply personhood) - it just does so by nature.

3: The Causes and Effects would be coterminous:

Now, suppose you were to ask:  “How long have the sun’s light and heat been around?”

The answer would be: “As long as the sun has been around.”

Because the sun produces the effect by its nature, the cause and effect are coterminous.


4: A universe from a non-personal UEE would have no beginning:

In the same way you could ask: “How long has the universe been around?”

If the UEE is non-personal, the answer would have to be: “As long as the non-personal UEE has been around.”

Now recall how the UEE has no beginning.  It has always been around.  This forces us to conclude the universe has always been around.  And indeed, Toaists and Hindus do propose an eternal universe in one form or another.


5: But... it does.

However, the best of science and philosophy tell us the universe had a beginning, roughly 13.9 billion years ago.  There have been proposed cosmological models which attempt to preserve the eternality of the universe (like the bouncing model) but they have all failed.

(For a longer treatment of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, see my treatment here)

So we summarize the argument like this:

Premise 1: If the UEE was non-personal, the universe would be eternal.
Premise 2: The universe is not eternal.
Therefore:  The UEE is not non-personal.

Now It’s Personal:

The idea that God is a non-personal force or principle is a very old one - and it is understandable conclusion when one considers two things:

1: It is obvious that our existence cries out for some metaphysical explanation
2: The true nature of God remains hidden and mysterious.

So I have nothing but respect for the ancient concept of the Logos, the Tao, and the Brahman.  Still, there are deficiencies in those theories which are resolved when we realize God is a real agent.  Our experience of selfhood, morality, providence, and creation all point to a Creator who can deliberate, intend, and act.

And perhaps most importantly, one who can know your name and love you.


---------

*A human baby has the capacity for these things, even if they haven't developed yet.