What are some true positive assertions and relevant implications I can make about God?

There were 2 things that inspired me to write this. First has been my shift away from organized religion. The major problem that I have with organized religion is that it makes people overly judgmental, accept principles without any logical rationale, believe in things blindly and can make them close-minded. A mentality, that I’ve been a victim of, for the majority of my life. As a result of my upbringing, I never thought to question anything about God’s existence or God’s divine attributes. While the issue of believing in God was never a contentious issue for me, the question of “What does God mean?” has never even crossed my mind, till I took philosophy of religion. I’ve been wondering what truths can I predicate about God with the presuppositions that I have. Having said that, my limited and inadequate knowledge, is basically derived from Christianity just because that’s all I’ve ever been exposed to. Second, the problem of evil, made me question how humans can be judgmental of what God’s attributes are like. We tend to judge things from their essence, where Mark for instance, is a rational animal. But how can we make judgments about God’s attributes when we don’t even know what God’s essence is? I don’t think its fair to make claims of God’s attributes because its not well grounded as we lack evidence. But with the help of my presuppositions, experiences and by the way of remotion, I intend to flesh out some possibilities of God’s divine attributes that are logically consistent with my beliefs.

Initially I had titled this essay as, “is it possible to say true things about God?” I realized I had to rephrase it, when I thought about one of my presuppositions being that God exists. An automatic positive assertion that comes with this claim is God is alive. I’ve never heard of anyone believing in a non-living God. So my study has led to an examination of what do I accept and believe about the living God. Also what are some of the implications of accepting these beliefs? I will go on first to assert my presuppositions, then by the way of remotion I shall discuss what God is not and subsequently form arguments for how God is omniscient, omnipresent, just, omnipotent, possesses human attributes, loves purely, communicates through the numinous experience and is singular. Then I shall conclude and pray that you interpreted my work as making some sense rather than nonsense.

I would like to establish the presuppositions that I have made in writing this paper as the presuppositions you start with could cause different conclusion formations. (5) I believe and accept the first 3 ways of Thomas Aquinas’ proof of God’s existence. The first and second argument are similar and work like this,
P1 some things are in motion,
P2 if anything is in motion, it is moved by another mover
P3 If there is another mover then there is a first mover since it is impossible to regress to infinity in the order of movers and things moved.
C therefore there must have been a first non moved mover and this first mover is God (4) Phrases such as “What goes around comes around,” or “You get what you give,” which I think originates from Karma, is a fundamental principle of our universe. (2) Everything happens for a reason. To some extent, I think that this is almost the same as saying every effect has a cause. (7) Humans have freewill. (6) The numinous experience exists. (1) God exists. (8) Humans have a purpose on earth.
As a result of reading some of the Summa Contra Gentiles, I managed to learn about a number of predications a theist can make about what God is not. I want to explain some of the things that Thomas Aquinas has stated that I accept as well as the kind of implications it has to me on my understanding of God’s essence. While the “knowledge will not be perfect, we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not.”

I have always been fascinated by time and how we never seem to have enough of it. As I’ve gotten older, time seems to slip by faster and my needs seem to increase as to what I would like to do with my time. Aquinas proposes the nature of God’s eternity as a result of being the first cause and mover. “God is absolutely without motion and is consequently not measured by time. There is no before and after in Him; Since God is absolutely immutable, He is eternal, lacking all beginning or end.” This has been a very interesting argument for me to accept as it implies that God is not subject to time. Hence God does not age and has an infinite existence. God also does not have needs like us humans do. God does not need to complete activities or to make decisions. Granting that God is the first mover and is capable of making decisions, God has already made all the decisions and actions that God has wanted to. Therefore, God knows what God is going to do and is therefore omniscient. Another interesting point to note here is that we humans experience things in the present where “one instant is superseded by some new thought and another” and “each succeeding now is different from the one before.” God however differs by the fact that “God’s thought do not change.” Therefore since God’s thoughts do not change, God has thought of everything that God will be influential upon and is therefore omniscient of all the decisions that God will make.

“The being whose substance has an admixture of potency is liable not to be by as much as it has potency; for that which can be, can not-be. But God being everlasting in His substance cannot not-be. God has no admixture of potency but is pure act.” There is no passive potency in God. Aquinas has a very interesting and intelligent succession of arguments where accepting certain conclusions opens up doors to accepting more conclusions. “Whatever matter is, it is in potency.” Therefore there is no matter in God. These 2 arguments together have a number of very interesting implications. For instance, if God is not material, God does not require food like we humans do to sustain Himself. He is therefore self-sustaining and not contingent on anything material. Therefore God cannot have a body for having a body encompasses possessing matter or being in some form of potency. God can’t have any composition either, for having parts means that God is contingent on parts for God’s existence. But God is not contingent. Also having composition means that the “composite is potentially dissoluble.” But as mentioned earlier, there is no potency in God. Therefore from showing that God has no parts, body or matter, God can be omnipresent and has to be invisible to our naked eye. God can reside everywhere at all times. God could have an infinite number of ears and eyes listening and watching over everything. God’s ears and eyes would be of a different kind of sensory system superior to that of the human sensory system. But the functioning of God’s sensory system cannot be conceived by the human intellect in this life.

Did you ever find it strange how consistent Karma can be (refer to my presupposition for my definition of Karma here)? For instance, if you insult someone in a condescending and derogatory manner, it comes back to you in a manner that’s unpredictable and of the same harshness or worse. If you are kind and generous to another person, the act of benevolence is returned to you in an equally unpredictable manner. It’s difficult to pinpoint which action causes which action of reciprocity. Also there are certain other elements that can come into play here such as being contrite and being greedy. If you are condescending to another human being and feel sorry for your act, apologizing to the human can act as an amulet to ward off the unpredictable pending insult due to you. If you are generous to another individual and expect that individual to return the favor to you, that expectation is a form of greed, which corrupts the intention of your generosity and the favor does not get returned. I have noticed from experience and from observation that these principles are universal for all humans. Therefore, there must be someone who is always watching what we are doing all the time and someone who is able to listen to what our mind and heart says. This being must also be able to make interventions into our world to ensure that the principles of Karma are consistent. Only an omnipresent and omniscient being, can ensure that the principles of Karma are consistent. Therefore, God must be listening, watching and intervening in everything you are doing. Therefore God is just. God “gives you exactly what you deserve.” Now I’m going to carry on this argument a little further. My presupposition of freewill suggests to me that maybe God doesn’t choose our decisions for us, but responds in kind when we make our decisions. Since God is omniscient, God already knows what decisions we will make and knows how He will intervene. Therefore, since everything happens for a reason, God must be the cause of everything happening. God is omnipotent.

Thomas Aquinas suggests that we exhibit characteristics of God but in a less excellent way. “"Whatever good we attribute to creatures, pre-exists in God," and in a more excellent and higher way.” I find it interesting how this comment suggests that there is evidence within me that is present within God. Intuitively it makes sense because creations have characteristics in it that’s inherent within the creator. A simple example would be, whenever you write emails, articles etc, giving your own opinion is in some sense giving the reader some insight as to what your attributes are like. Therefore me being a product of God’s creation (since God must be the cause of everything happening), there must be some attributes in me that are present in God. There are attributes of creation that pre-exist in God.

I think its fair to say that we have freewill and we can choose to believe in God or to not believe in God. Elaborating upon a point that Brian had suggested in class, imagine if God showed Himself to us in the sky. The search for truth would be over as to whether God exists or not. Then imagine if someone was to tell you that you must love God and do good things in the world or else you'll go to hell. Think about the purity of your actions from that moment onwards. I will define purity here as any of the following, clear and true; without any discordant quality; untainted with evil. Every time you were to do something good or out of love, you would do it because you would be thinking that this action has a means to my end. If I do this good deed I will go to the kingdom of God but if I don't I might go to hell. All your actions in life from then on would be dictated by the knowledge that God exists and wants you to do certain things. However lets say you don't know that God exists and you then do good things. Which case of doing goodness is nobler now? Just to illustrate my point a little clearer, imagine that there’s a hungry man at the side of the road and he asks people passing by for food. 2 strangers walk by the hungry man at different times. One is named Tom who is a theist and is conscientious that God is watching all the good and bad things Tom is doing. The second stranger is Andy who is an atheist who does not believe in God at all. Tom gives food to the hungry man because he knows God would have wanted him to have done that. Andy gives food to the hungry man because he feels sorry for him and feeds him out of sympathy. I think Andy's deed is nobler and is of a purer good than that of Tom. I think freewill is closely related to the purity of our intentions. Having freewill permits experiences, which are of pure intentions. God having given us freewill and not revealing Himself to us allows us to make a conscience decision as to whether or not we purely want to love God back. I am capable of loving others with pure love. Since there are attributes in us that pre-exist in God, God loves purely.

So how am I so sure about the existence of God? When I was about 15, I happened to go and attend a friend’s worship service in a small hall in the colony I lived in Oman. I had a profound mystical experience where I might not have seen the essence of God but I do believe God spoke to me. I didn’t understand the experience very well at the time when it happened. It occurred while the congregation was singing hymns praising Jesus. I felt my whole body start to glow, time seemed to stop and I don’t remember clearly what the voice said to me but it confirmed something about the existence of Jesus being real and loving me. During this intellectual apprehension, I remember that I couldn’t stop smiling and I couldn’t open my eyes during this “divine illumination.” Aquinas seems to capture this experience of mine in his book Suma Theologica, “Now since the natural power of the created intellect does not avail to enable it to see the essence of God, it is necessary that the power of understanding should be added by divine grace. Now this increase of the intellectual powers is called the illumination of the intellect, as we also call the intelligible object itself by the name of light of illumination.” I can’t say that I was able to adequately comprehend the experience, but I feel blessed that I had it. I also acknowledge that it was supernatural and credit it to a source that is holy and divine. I notice now that during this experience, there was no material being involved in my imagination and it was because of this experience, I am able today to irrationally confirm, “whether it is” even if I can’t reason “what it is.”

It was only last year in December that I remembered this experience and it inspired me to take this course. There were 2 very important things that I learnt about this experience. One is that God is real. The other is that God chose to speak to me in the presence of music. This has taught me that through the channel of music, I can communicate to God. Also it was here that I was introduced to the numinous experience. “Rudolph Otto identifies and explores the non-rational mystery behind religion and the religious experience ("non-rational" should not be confused with "irrational"); he called this mystery, which is the basic element in all religions, the numinous. He uses the related word "numen" to refer to deity or God.” I just want to make a mention that outside of the “divine illumination” experience, I have had a series of recurring numinous experiences which have been of a much lesser profundity. I would categorize the “divine illumination” experience as “mysterium fascinosum,” (The numinous fascinates or draws us to it with a force that is nearly irresistible. Otto calls the alluring quality of the numinous the mysterium fascinosum. At its most intense, this fascination becomes "exuberant" and transforms into the mystical "moment" or direct, complete contact with the numen, a state which few people experience). Rudolf Otto further goes on to explain how “every individual has the potential to perceive or experience the numinous. The numinous state of mind or the feeling of the numinous must be evoked in us or brought into consciousness; it cannot be taught.” Just in layman terms let me try to explain the numinous experience. Have you ever heard words of a song, or read a phrase from a book or a movie that has moved you in such a way that your skin starts to feel like its having goosebumps but not exactly? That in my limited understanding, is a degree of the numinous experience. Apparently people who are artistically inclined have a better ability to receive the numinous experience.
Since there is no rational explanation for the numinous experience, it can be defined as a supernatural experience originating from something that is completely other. I postulate that the something completely other is God. Feelings can evoke thoughts and imagination, which can be a form of communication that takes place within the intellect. The numinous experience that is triggered by feelings produces thoughts and imagination. God communicates to us through the numinous experience.

I have had trouble reconciling the fact that if you don’t pray to the Christian God, you will go to hell. You can be a good, pious human being and still you will go to hell because not praying to the Christian God is praying to an idol. Praying to an idol is worshiping a false God. Now lets assume there is a thing called the numinous experience and it can be experienced across all religions. I’m going to postulate that an experience of divine revelation involves some sort of an experience with the numinous. Here is my final argument to say that there is truly only one God and that all religions pray to the same God.
P1: Numinous experiences of divine revelation occur across all religions
P2: If it can be proved that there are different profundities of numinous experiences, then there can be multiple sources disseminating the numinous experience.
P3: It cannot be proved that there are different profundities of numinous experiences.
C: There is only one source that disseminates the numinous experience (and this one source is the one God that all religions pray to)
For a while, I thought that I was an agnostic. But after writing this, I’m certain I’m a theist. This paper has helped me give significance to my understanding of what God is. It has helped me to re-evaluate my relationship with God in a more meaningful manner and opened new doors into how I can and how I do conceive God. I understand now that there is no necessity for me to determine what God’s essence is because it is beyond my capabilities to attempt to do so in this life. I will only get to know more of God’s essence if God chooses to reveal His essence to me by divine grace. This article has also helped me to ask 2 new important questions through which I imagine my next focus of readings will be upon. One is what does God want me to do while I walk His earth? I am not interested in the question of what is the purpose of life but what is my purpose in life. John Coltrane said “the main thing a musician would like to do is give a picture to the listener of the many wonderful things he knows of and senses in the universe.” As an aspiring musician, I think this may possibly be my purpose in life. To tell the world, of the many wonderful things I know of God and hopefully along the way impart a numinous experience. The other question is do we have an afterlife?