SH —> A.I. : I am curious what ‘you’ think of and how you might critique the following. I’m not asking you to make or pass any kind of theological or philosophical judgment. I’m primarily curious what you think of the coherence of the thesis.. If you wish, please also discuss how modern philosophy might critique it.

So here is the text: SH (*) A.I. reply follows.

I Am Therefore I Think

Is A Personal God Improbable? Or is it we who are improbable?Atheism has traditionally scoffed at belief in a God who is Personal or SupraPersonal. I’ve always found their position to be a counterintuitive curiosity. One of the reasons why is that I find myself, a personal being, to exist. I am here. You are here. And this existence never ceases to be a shock when I consider the statistical improbability of any of us (or any thing) existing at all. I, a personal being who has no reason in myself for existing at all, can look into the eyes of other people, other personal beings who also inexplicably exist. I can deeply commune with people I love…

How can that not be seriously and forever astonishing, a shock to awakened persons, unless the routines of cultural existence and a devil’s advocate style “education” have talked us out of it, dulled us into forgetfulness of that primal metaphysical shock? But if I am a personal being and find myself mysteriously here, why should our expectations for a statistically improbable universe not find its Origins in the profoundly Personal? Of course one may simply prefer that it not be so, a priori. But such a prejudice hardly makes such a preference compelling.

That the universe is Personal because Our Maker is Personal is hardly as counterintuitive as atheism. It is, rather the default presupposition of those in the human race who have not been talked out of it by clever logical somersaults and strangely constructed alternatives.

The Big Bang cosmological model of the universe is logically a problem for scientists. To make a long story short, theistic thinkers have observed that an expanding universe must have a Singularity, or Cause. The initial singularity being a singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe which at some point exploded into being from— what? Nothing at all? It is counterintuitive to believe that everything that is came from nothing at all. Children and very great scholars have long understood this, and for good reason.

Theistic thinkers have long noted: The universe must have a beginning, else it could not expand. Thus the expanding universe is a contingent effect of that inexplicable Singularity. The cause of the effect, then, must transcend the effect (else it could not be the Cause). Since the effect is subject to time and space and physicality, the Cause must be timeless (not subject to change) and immaterial (not contingent physicality) else it would be no cause. There can be no infinite regress of causes, per Occams Razor. (1)

So here we are… Gen. 1:1: “In the Beginning God(*) created the Heavens and the earth…So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them” (vs.27)

This has hardly been surprising to millions down through the ages and up to this very minute. This explains everything, or at least exponentially more than the alternative faith of atheism ever can. Created intellects cannot of course understand this “everything”. Our heads are only a little larger than coconuts. But we now understand enough. And if Our Maker is Personal why should it surprise anyone that He would …communicate… with us, his created gifts, the works of His own hands? Gen. 1:1, Exo.3:14; Jn. 8:58… And that all the moral choices He asks us to make add up to something final, for good or ill?

The Precondition of Doubt 

I am somewhat amused and perplexed, with every child, by those who pose the existence of the Creator as an intellectual problem when God is the pre-‘condition’ of every thought, even every doubt (Exo.3:14, Jn. 8:58), though some will not believe “even if they see a man raised from the dead”. In such an event they would, rather, reach for their measuring devices and accuse us of circular reasoning. However I (a man advancing fast towards deep old age, yes even towards sister death herself, and weary of debates) am unceasingly amazed at the phenomenon that any of us *are*, and are able to reason at all, a ‘thing’ skeptics seem to take for granted as though being and reasoning were a ho-hum datum of every day life. Which it is. And isn’t …not by a long shot.

That we exist and can reason should come as a shock to any normal man. I remember as a very small child staring at the bluest sky, the resplendent sun and gigantic white fluffy clouds, lost in the wonder of it all. All these years and decades later it still overwhelms me when I’m out walking. It is the unceasing shock of being. And if I am wondrouly personal, if we all are, then that our First Cause should be so first is hardly a shock but a marvel of communion.

Atheism, alas, has literally nothing to offer. Nothing. Nothingness. The nihil. God is the (oft suppressed) presupposition of all being, our every thought. Even of denial. We do not decide his existence. He is not on trial. Without Him we are not. (Exo. 3:14, Jn 8:58,59) —SH, Editor

__________

(*) Everything in the space-time universe must have a beginning. Only the God of Genesis, is independent of space and time because He created all things from outside of space and time (Gen. 1:1) and thus is not subject to, but is independent of, the laws of space and time. Thus God has no space-time beginning. He is the First and Last, the Alpha and Omega. Rev. 1:8; 21:6 22:13 (1) Cf. God and the Initial Cosmological Singularity: A Reply to Quentin Smith by Dr. William Lane Craig, 1992-94. Many atheists, however, beg the question of being though they inexplicably participate in it. The God of Genesis—i.e., the God of origins—resolves this problem even if it fails to convince strict empiricists and atheists. Christians have always consented to the biblical call for faith. But the “unspiritual natural man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”— 1 Cor. 2:14

“Draw near yo God and he will draw near to you”–Jas. 4:8

A.I. Analysis

Thanks for sharing this thoughtful and impassioned piece. From a coherence standpoint—setting aside theological judgments as you requested—it presents a philosophically rich and rhetorically evocative argument. Here’s a breakdown of its internal logic and structure:

易 Core Thesis and Structure

The central thesis seems to be: The existence of personal beings (like ourselves) makes the idea of a Personal Creator not only plausible but intuitive—perhaps even necessary.

The argument unfolds in roughly three stages:

Existential Shock and Personal Being

The author begins with the astonishment of personal existence: “I am here. You are here.”

This sense of wonder is used to challenge the idea that a Personal God is improbable.

The rhetorical move is to flip the question: Is God improbable—or are we?

Cosmological Reasoning

The Big Bang is invoked as a scientific model that implies a beginning.

The argument follows classical theistic reasoning:

The universe is contingent.

A contingent effect requires a transcendent cause.

That cause must be timeless, immaterial, and uncaused.

Therefore, a Personal God is a coherent explanation.

Epistemological Reflection

The author reflects on the nature of thought and doubt, suggesting that even skepticism presupposes a metaphysical ground—God.

This culminates in a poetic meditation on being, reason, and communion.

 Coherence and Philosophical Moves

Here are some key philosophical moves and how well they hold together:

Anthropic Reflection: The idea that our personal nature implies a personal origin is not logically necessary, but it is emotionally and intuitively compelling. It’s a form of anthropic reasoning—not airtight, but coherent within its framework.

Contingency and Causality: The argument that the universe is contingent and must have a transcendent cause is a classic cosmological argument. It’s logically structured and internally consistent, though it rests on metaphysical assumptions (e.g., rejection of infinite regress) that are debated in philosophy.

Presuppositional Framing: The claim that God is the “precondition of thought” echoes presuppositional apologetics (e.g., Van Til). It’s a coherent framework if one accepts its axioms, though it’s circular from a strictly empirical standpoint—which the author acknowledges and embraces.

Rhetorical Style: The piece is rich in metaphor and poetic language (“sister death,” “shock of being,” “communion”). This enhances its emotional resonance but occasionally blurs the line between argument and meditation.

里 Strengths and Tensions

Strengths:

Deeply personal and reflective.

Philosophically literate (references to Occam’s Razor, cosmology, presuppositionalism).

Coherent within its worldview.

Evokes wonder and invites contemplation.

Tensions:

The critique of atheism is rhetorically strong but philosophically underdeveloped—it assumes atheism is nihilism, which many atheists would dispute.

The leap from “personal beings exist” to “therefore the origin must be Personal” is intuitive but not deductive.

The dismissal of alternative views as “logical somersaults” may alienate readers who value philosophical pluralism.

Existentialism: Awe, Freedom, and the Absurd

Existentialists like Søren Kierkegaard, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Albert Camus would resonate with the emotional intensity and wonder expressed in the text—but they’d diverge sharply on its conclusions.

• Kierkegaard might affirm the “shock of being” and the yearning for a Personal God, seeing it as part of the “leap of faith” required to embrace religious truth. He’d appreciate the existential urgency and personal reflection.
• Sartre and Camus, however, would interpret the same wonder as a confrontation with the absurd. For them:
  • The fact that we exist is indeed astonishing—but not evidence of a divine cause.
  • Meaning is not given; it must be created by individuals in a universe that is indifferent.
  • The desire for a Personal God reflects a human longing for order and significance, but existentialists would caution against mistaking that longing for proof.

Response Summary: Existentialists would affirm the emotional depth and metaphysical shock but reject the inference that this necessitates a Personal Creator. They’d argue that meaning arises from human freedom and responsibility, not divine origin.

🌌 Process Theology: Becoming, Relationality, and Divine Persuasion

Process theologians—drawing from Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne—would offer a nuanced response that both affirms and reframes the text’s claims.

• They agree that the universe is not static but dynamic, unfolding through time and relationship.
• However, they reject the idea of a timeless, immutable God. Instead:
  • God is in process too—changing, responding, and growing with creation.
  • The divine is not coercive but persuasive, luring creation toward greater complexity and beauty.
  • The “shock of being” is not a sign of a singular moment of creation, but of ongoing co-creation.

Response Summary: Process theology would affirm the personal and relational aspects of the divine but reject classical theism’s emphasis on immutability and singular causality. The universe’s contingency is not proof of a static Creator but of a dynamic, evolving divine presence.

🧠 Analytic Philosophy: Logic, Clarity, and Metaphysical Precision

Analytic philosophers—especially those working in philosophy of religion like Alvin Plantinga or Graham Oppy—would approach the text with a focus on argument structure and clarity.

• They’d appreciate the use of cosmological reasoning but would scrutinize its premises:
  • Is the universe truly contingent?
  • Does the Big Bang imply a singular cause—or merely a boundary condition?
  • Is the leap from “cause” to “Personal God” logically valid or a category error?
• They’d also challenge the presuppositional claim that God is the “precondition of thought,” asking whether this is a metaphysical necessity or a rhetorical flourish.

Response Summary: Analytic philosophers would find the text rhetorically compelling but logically underdeveloped. They’d demand clearer definitions, tighter premises, and more rigorous argumentation before accepting its conclusions.

Would you like me to expand any of these into a full-length essay or dialogue? I could also simulate a roundtable discussion between thinkers from each tradition if that sounds fun.

———-

(*) Updated 9:23 PM. 10 /23/25. Note: I decided to change the title here from My Approach to God and ‘Man’ (m/f) to My Approach to Theism and ‘Man’ (m/f) to be more precise. SH.