Timothy R. Butler<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.faithtree.social/@littlehillschurch" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>littlehillschurch</span></a></span> Hello again <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mas.to/@Gustodon" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>Gustodon</span></a></span>. To answer your question, several things could be said. I'll try to take the approach I think might be most helpful to your inquiry, but I'm always happy to have a good exploration of <a href="https://mastodon.faithtree.social/tags/faith" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>faith</span></a> and <a href="https://mastodon.faithtree.social/tags/doubt" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>doubt</span></a> and such. I'm starting out with an oversimplified philosophical approach for the bones of conversation.</p><p>1.) As philosophers over time have asserted, it is good and reasonable to look for a <a href="https://mastodon.faithtree.social/tags/FirstCause" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>FirstCause</span></a>, etc. I deeply appreciate <a href="https://mastodon.faithtree.social/tags/ThomasAquinas" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ThomasAquinas</span></a>'s Five Ways.</p><p>2.) The question then is what sort of "<a href="https://mastodon.faithtree.social/tags/God" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>God</span></a>" fits the deity of #1. I think only a few of the things/people/entities people have worshipped or do worship could even possibly fit #1. (E.g. Zeus could not, because "he" was not first, etc.)</p><p>3.) Of that much reduced set, I believe a mix of historical points speak well of the God of the <a href="https://mastodon.faithtree.social/tags/Bible" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Bible</span></a>. This point could be expanded a lot.</p><p>4.) Archetypally, I believe the Bible speaks to things our psyche expects in the most complete way of the available options. C.S. Lewis wrote well on this following, as I do, some of the observations of Carl Jung.</p><p>5.) Evidentially, the Bible describes our world's fallen, broken condition in a way that conforms to objective observation. I've often said if I didn't think there was a God, I'd be a Theravada Buddhist. But because I affirm the things above, Christianity speaks to the same sort of "suffering" but with the hope of a solution beyond cessation of existence because of the existence of a personally relatable First Cause.</p><p>---</p><p>That's the rational answer. The personal answer is different, but coherently related. I believe I've encountered the living God and He is the one who has enabled me to believe, not the reverse.</p>