QUOTE:

. . .

Fourth, God did not tell us that He is one except by telling us Who He is. "Who He is" is what requires monotheism, not simply the inconvenience of rival gods. God's being is such that there can be no other. This is the metaphysics of Sinai.

In the metaphysics of Sinai, the fact that "God is" is identical with "Who God is." God is Who is, Ho On. The Quis is the same as the Qualis. The fact of God is inseparable from the "Who" of God. His being is identical with His existence. This is not some "superior being" speaking to lesser beings. This is Someone who is Being.

It is not human thought, then, that discovers this identification between God's being and His existence, but the pronouncement of the One who responded to Moses' request, "Who shall I say sent me?"

It is not as though the mind of man already knew there was a single God and Moses was simply trying to clarify a point or two on the question. On the contrary, monotheism itself came forth from the self-identifying "I" who, by intruding Himself into man's history, forced Himself upon man's reflection. Authentic metaphysics was born of that intrusion.

It seems to me that this is not what we have today, when monotheism, separated from the historical revelation of Exodus, is pretty often just another form of idolatry, the confession of a god who just happens to be one rather than several. Indeed, such a god may as well be several, because there is nothing about him that requires him to be just one. He is no improvement over the gods of Egypt.

http://www.allsaintsorthodox.org/Ponderings/Pondering_2006_03_05.html

1.  Both the Ontological Argument and the Cosmological Argument have their origins ONLY at Sinai.

2.  And that reasoning is found explicitly in Holy Scripture itself.

3.  NO pagan thought of them.

CHECK OUT BOTH OF THESE TWO HOMILIES!

Post Edited (TGB) : 12/4/2006 10:14:57 AM (GMT-6)

http://www.allsaintsorthodox.org/Ponderings/Pondering_2006_03_05.html 

 

Put in its simplest form, the argument runs something like this: If He Who must exist can exist, He does exist. This is called the Ontological Argument, which reasons from the idea of God to the existence of God.

Leaving aside the question of its validity, the striking fact about this argument is that it never occurred to anyone outside of the data of biblical revelation. Some pagan thinkers adopted it afterwards (the recently lamented Charles Hartshorne being a notable example), but it was Bible-believers, significantly, who thought of the argument first. Nor is there is any reason to believe it would have entered anyone's mind except for that voice on Sinai.

. . .

God as the cause of all that is not God. This approach to God is more developed in Holy Scripture, which teaches in many places that He is the Maker of all things.

This thesis, too, provided an argument for God's existence, an inductive, a posteriori case known as the Cosmological Argument. This line of reasoning, which is found explicitly in Holy Scripture itself, endeavors to discover an explanation (or efficient cause) for the existence of those things that do, in fact, exist. The existence of these non-necessary things (things that don't have to exist) is sought in some Maker that caused them to exist, and this Maker we call God. We find this argument briefly elaborated in Wisdom 13 and Romans 1.

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 12/4/2006 12:27:22 PM (GMT-6)

Leaving aside the question of its validity, the striking fact about this argument is that it never occurred to anyone outside of the data of biblical revelation. Some pagan thinkers adopted it afterwards (the recently lamented Charles Hartshorne being a notable example), but it was Bible-believers, significantly, who thought of the argument first. Nor is there is any reason to believe it would have entered anyone's mind except for that voice on Sinai.

Jeff: The reason why it would not enter anyone's mind is because it is not logically valid. It is circular unless children have planted in their minds the specific concept of God that the ontological argument requires. But there is no compelling reason to believe this is the case. Most people think of God as the creator of the world (or even less than that), pure and simple. Attributes of God are then inferred from that fact. That is exactly what Rom. 1 says. We don't know attributes of God independent of what is entailed in the relation He holds to the universe--namely, the creator thereof. If God was known as being as being in Himself, but was not the creator of this universe, what more could we know of Him?

This thesis, too, provided an argument for God's existence, an inductive, a posteriori case known as the Cosmological Argument. This line of reasoning, which is found explicitly in Holy Scripture itself, endeavors to discover an explanation (or efficient cause) for the existence of those things that do, in fact, exist. The existence of these non-necessary things (things that don't have to exist) is sought in some Maker that caused them to exist, and this Maker we call God. We find this argument briefly elaborated in Wisdom 13 and Romans 1.

I find it easier to think of God as a person in the most analogous way possible. We posit what we must to account for His necessary existence, His lack of growth/development, etc. and call it a day. Scripture isn't much help about these things and positing mystery is no help either. Maybe I'm too easy to please.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 12/4/2006 4:09:23 PM (GMT-6)