Is God a Muslim or a Christian? Can Monotheistic Religions Lead to God?

By Jospin Uwaci

In the sea of religions, many people ask which religions are right or what religion God belongs to? I attempt to answer the question of whether monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) can lead to God and deliver salvation. The answer to this question equally applies to polytheistic religions. To atheists, this book proves the probability of God existing. In this book, you will discover the path of salvation that God has determined for humankind.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Jospin Uwaci
• Release date: Sep 21, 2017
• ISBN: 9780473394011

Jospin Uwaci

Jospin Uwaci is a writer, preacher and motivational speaker. He is originally from the Democratic Republic of Congo. He pastored ‘God is Good Church’ in Arua-Uganda before migrating to New Zealand in 2010. He currently lives in Auckland New Zealand with his wife Benedicte. Jospin is passionate about preaching the Gospel and enlightening the Body of Christ with prophetic revelations about the future of Christian believers and the entire humanity. He ministers through prophetic delivery with signs, wonders, and miracles.

Book preview

Introduction

Whether you consider the word religion taboo or not, it is admissible that we are all born with a vacuum in our heart that needs filling; it is a hunger that makes us want something bigger and more powerful than ourselves, than anyone or anything we know. The source of power sought to satisfy spiritual hunger is God to some people, gods to other people, or material and immaterial earthly things such as wealth, fame, and exploits to the rest.

We are living in a culture where many people do not want to be told what to do because they were raised with the notion of freedom. As a result, a persuasion to embrace religious beliefs can be intrusive and offensive. The purpose of this book is to evidentially answer the question of whether religions, especially monotheistic religions, can ensure salvation. At the end of every chapter on the monotheistic religions discussed, you should be able to draw a conclusion answering whether religion can lead you to your desired final destiny.

As human beings, we all at some point face the question of our life origin and destiny. While you may view your parents and yourself as life givers, if you run the lineage thread through your parents and forefathers to the very first humans, you will soon realize that life did not originate from human beings in the first place. Can religion define human origins and lead people to their life destiny? God, being the Creator of the sustaining breath of life, has responsibility over humankind. We owe him our very life. Consequently, God has the final say over how humans can reach him.

In a world that would rather keep silent in the name of intercultural competence, friendliness, and social cohesion, instead of declaring the delicate truth, tolerance must expand the freedom to respectfully express thorny views on the topic of religion. Given the eternal consequences of avoiding or watering down the offensive truth in the discussion of religion, the respectful exercise of tolerance and patience should be the best strategy in discussing the truth pertaining to religion and a relationship with God.

Although I primarily discuss monotheistic religions, namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the concluding remarks apply to polytheistic religions and atheism as well. To those who doubt the existence of God, the first quarter of this book establishes the probability of God’s existence. Unless God exists, religions and relationship with God become irrelevant. I explore the attributes of God, the projection of his love, and his willingness to save humanity. If you struggle with accepting that God exists, this reading could be an eye opener and a destiny changer for you.

Chapter 1

Does God Exist?

The question of God’s existence is so controversial that it has been asked many times and has met various attempts to answer it from different perspectives. Theologians and philosophers have not grown weary of revisiting the question in their quest for a satisfactory answer. While faith simply answers with a yes, it is worth considering various arguments leading to the answer to this question. One most common argument in favor of God’s existence is the law of cause and effect. Considering the universe, most of the early thinkers argued that the universe having a beginning must have a cause for its existence. Also, the magnitude of the universe and the force that prevents destructive chaos and sustains existence denotes the handicraft of a free, intelligent, personal being. Many thinkers agree that on a blank page, x exists only if something caused its existence. It is hard to imagine the existence of something without assuming it had a beginning.

Moreover, for something to exist, it must come from somewhere or something else. A finished product such as a computer was in a state of various raw materials before it was manufactured. When a car is imported from the United States of America (USA) to New Zealand, it disappears from the USA as it is moved to New Zealand. For the car to exist before being exported from the USA, it must be manufactured. However, the question of whether the universe existed somewhere in a different form before having a beginning as its current form is insignificant. The fact that it exists signifies it is an effect to a cause. Should we believe in the first uncaused cause that resulted in effect? If there is such a thing as an uncaused first cause, then the entire law of cause and effect would be breached, thus unreliable in the attempt to establish the origin of the universe and humans. However, science would emphatically respond that for every effect there is a cause. The cause may not be known or understood yet, but for every effect, there is a cause.

Although proving the existence of the universe is a settled matter, it is still interesting to ask whether the universe had a beginning. If existence has a beginning, the existing universe should also have a beginning. And if it began, then there should be a cause that initiated its existence.

Scientific studies that attempt to date the universe from the Big Bang perspective go no further than trying to substantiate the explosion. When the matter is left to non-scientific philosophers, still the universe does not escape the imagination of having a beginning because it exists. However, the counter-argument could bring the possibility of the infinite existence of the universe with infinite past events that humans are unaware of. But this argument would not hold because events themselves have their beginnings since they are also effects to causes. Should establishing the beginning of the universe warrant the existence of God? What if the cause of its existence is something else? And what would that "something else" be?

If the origin of the universe is attributed to a personal being, then we need to examine the composition of a personal being. If personal beings were made of materials, then a personal being would be disqualified from being the originator of the universe because such a material personal being would also be part of the universe. Counting a material personal being as a source of the universe would be like saying the universe originated from the universe. And if the universe produced a universe, then the question of origin is unresolved. This also excludes the notion of the beginning of something; of the universe in this case, becoming the effect of a material cause. However, if we definitely established that personal beings are all material, then the conclusion would dawn on us that the universe did not originate from a personal being.

From a scientific perspective, physical effects result from physical causes. However, for the physical effect to happen, the physical cause has first to exist. The physical cause creating effect is an event in itself that needs to have been started somewhere by something. The law of physical causes resulting in a physical effect does not explain the origin and beginning of the universe. Both the philosophical and scientific considerations leave us with the option that there should be a being far greater, all-knowing and all-powerful to deliver something so grand, complex, and mesmerizing as the universe. Further, the continued sustenance of the universe warrants the possibility of the existence of an almighty being who must not only have the power to cause the beginning of the universe, but also to sustain it. The mighty being is God the Creator.

Another crucial question that arises is whether the universe exists out of prestige or necessity. The grandeur and complexity of the universe and its awe-inspiring sustenance stimulates the conviction that it exists out of necessity. The almighty Maker of the universe, that is, God himself, must have determined the necessity. God is the ultimate reason for the existence of the universe, which is not found in the universe or anywhere else.

What if the existence of the universe was taken for granted? What if the universe was an unintelligible brute fact? The complexity of the universe, with the organized cyclic changes in seasons, the intelligently orchestrated journey of planets in their orbits, the sustenance of the biodiversity on planet Earth, and so on, compel us to believe that the universe does not exist as an unintelligent brute fact.

One may ask, why is there a universe instead of nothing at all? Is something better than nothing or would nothing be better than something in this case? Does nothing really exist? What does it look like? The concept of nothing complicates the matter even further because, unlike the existence of something that is definable, namable, and in most cases visible, nothing as absence would not raise the question of origin. While nothing may come from nothing, something must come from something and ultimately from someone. However, even if nothing is considered to be the absence of something, the absence of one thing does not mean the absence of everything else. Suppose I am looking for a rim of papers in a stack of drawers. If I don’t find the papers, I would say there is nothing at all. But nothing here would simply mean there is no paper. In the room, however, there would be tables, chairs, and other things. Imagine the universe did not exist; what would be such a state of nonexistence or nothingness? Would that nothingness be better than something? Talking from a necessity and purpose perspective, between nothing and something, what would have a purpose? It is rational to conclude that something would have a purpose assigned to it because the purpose of nothing would be nothing. Scientifically speaking, the principle of sufficient reason, although not fully testable empirically, states that there must be an explanation accounting for every true fact or statement. Since the universe exists; there must be explanations for its existence. God created the universe as evidence of his might and placed humans on the planet Earth to worship him as they fulfill their life purpose.

God and Creation

The study of world religions commands two broad classifications of beliefs in God and in some form of higher power: monotheism and polytheism. While monotheists (Jews, Muslims, and Christians) believe that there is only one true God, they have conflicting views about what God really means and who He is. Monotheistic belief is based on classical theism, which posits the existence of God the Creator of all things; the visible and invisible things.

Classical Theism

Classical theism was highly supported by famous authors of the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian beliefs such as Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), Avicenna (980-1037), and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) respectively. All these thinkers believe that God created the universe from ex nihilo, meaning from nothing, as translated from Latin. The notion of classical theism emphasizes that God needs nothing prior to the creation of all things. This notion of creation is totally different from that of manufacturing. A manufacturer needs raw materials to mold into the desired product. God needs nothing to produce the tangible as well as the intangible; giving the tangible the shape and strength needed to effectively serve its purpose.

Classical theism believers also consider the creative work of God as a continued activity that manifests up to now in believers. They portray the only true God as a God who initiates and sustains the universe and humankind. Whether the things in existence had a beginning in the creation process, were manufactured by humans, or came into existence as a result of the developments of the created materials and force, their existence and sustenance are attributed to God. This disposition makes everything, except God himself, dependent on God.

Classical theists believe that God is omnipresent not by being physically present in every place, but by projecting his presence in the existence of everything created that is found everywhere. After all, they view the only true God as being immaterial because, unlike what He created, He was not created. And nothing created is capable of changing or modifying God in any way. When classical theists describe God as impassible, they mean He is intrinsically unalterable by the activities of creatures: human beings, animals, and objects.

Most classical theists also believe that God inhabits outside time dimensionality. Many philosophers tend to agree that time and the ability to change go together because things that change with time eventually prove their temporality. Since God is unchangeable, He must be timeless, and therefore eternal. Classical theism teaches that everything in existence has a beginning and end, and is thus bound to time limitation; while God, who is not subject to the activities of creatures, has no beginning and end. Consequently, God is singularly incomparable to anything that humans are acquainted with. However, God displays a nature that is reflected in humankind to some degree. For instance, classical theists acknowledge that while we know that God knows everything, acts in love, and wills and determines the course of events; there is so much we do not know about God although we also love, will, and determine things to a limited degree. Classical theism holds God responsible for anything good that exists in the universe and that humans particularly enjoy on planet Earth, whether tangible or intangible. In contemplating the goodness of God, Saint Augustine (354-430) said that piety begins with holding God in the highest esteem, believing that He is omnipotent and cannot change in any respect, and that He is the Creator of all good things being himself most excellent, ruling with supreme justice.

The peculiar distinction of God in the existence of all things distances God from humans in terms of characteristics and ability. Humans have physical bodies that change and die with the passing of time in the time-bound universe, while God is incorporeal and unchangeable in an eternal state, outside time dimensionality. Whereas many philosophers agree that the constitutive elements of humans are beyond the physical bodies, it is arguable that for mankind to exist in the universe, his spirit and soul need to inhabit the physical body. Humans belong to a class of human beings, cows and buffalos belong to the animal kingdom, Jupiter and Pluto belong to the planet class; God is not an individual who belongs to a class of any kind.

God defying classification to a particular class led some philosophers to the conclusion that God is simple. This is not to mean that He is stupid or unintelligent, but that He is divinely simple. The teaching of divine simplicity can be traced back to the early thinkers such as Athanasius (296-373), Avicenna and Averroes (1126-98), and the Catholic Church councils such as Lateran IV (1215) and Vatican I (1869-70). Many contemporary writers have also aligned with the ancient writers on the subject of the divine simplicity. In justifying divine simplicity, Saint Augustine wrote:

The reason why a nature is called simple is that it cannot lose any attribute it possesses, that there is no difference between that it is and what it has, as there is for example between a vessel and the liquid it contains, a body and its color, the atmosphere and its light or heat, the soul and its wisdom. None of these is what it contains; the vessel is neither the liquid, nor the body the color, nor the atmosphere the light or heat, nor is the soul the same as its wisdom.

St Augustine’s reflection explains that God is simple because He is unchangeable, cannot lose the attributes He possesses, and has no difference between what He is and what He has (God being love) in contrast to anything such as exemplified by the human body, a vessel, or the atmosphere, which can all change. God is the very life which He lives; He is the very wisdom by which He is wise; He is the very goodness by which He is good. There are no parts in Him; He is so much one that there is nothing dissimilar in himself; He is unity itself. Many contemporary students of divine simplicity argue that while different words are used to describe God’s nature and characteristics, such as God being love, good, just, wise; He is not different from his attributes. God is simple because his essence and existence are inseparable.

Moreover, God’s divine simplicity rests on his perfection, timelessness, and immutability. If God created everything while being uncreated, He must be immutable, thus divinely simple. If God were mutable, meaning changeable, He would be part of the changing universe and the things it contains. As a result, God would not account for it in the process of changing.

The notion of God’s divine simplicity based on his immutability is tested in a number of ways. First, believing that God cannot change may provoke the thought that God cannot be affected by anything. A possible answer to this query is