The Muslim Perspective
Because.
Why?
Christian View
The Christian Perspective
God.
(John 1:3; Acts 17:24-25; Colossians 1:16-18; Genesis 1:1; Malachi 3:18; Revelation 21:6, 22:13; Psalm 135:6; Isaiah 48:11)
Since God knows that He alone is the reason, and since He is perfectly rational (indeed, He is the original rationality and the foundation and source of all derived rationality), when He conceives of His reason (which is always), His conception is the very image of Himself. This conception of Himself is the divine, eternal, personal reason for all things.
Nevertheless, the image is distinct from that which it is the image of, demonstrating that divinty is in fact shared between God and God's own reason, which is the very image of God.
This image, this reason (or logos), is Christ (Hebrews 1:3; John 1:1, 14:9).
God is the reason. He is His own reason. And therefore, He is clearly not unitarian.
This is one way we know that Islam is false: the god of Islam is unaware that his own reason is himself. This makes him irrational, and an irrational god cannot provide a justified reason for anything, making rational thought impossible if Islam (or any other unitarian religion) were true.
However, Islam is not true, and as a result, we have an alternative to being condemned for our crimes against God, namely, forgiveness through Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos or Reason of God, the Image of God. Jesus provided Himself as a substitution for us, taking the penalty we deserve so that we can be forgiven for our crimes against our Creator, and if we place our lives in His hands, we will be saved (James 4:8; 1 John 4:10; Romans 10:9, 10:13; John 1:12).
Comments
When English words are used to describe something, the standard is generally the English dictionary.
https://www.google.com/search?q=rational+definition
God has a reason for all that He does. His reason is Himself. He Himself is a sufficient reason (the only possible sufficient reason). Therefore the English word "rational" suits Him. If He were not rational, then, since He is the cause (and the justification) of everything that happens, none of our conclusions could possibly be rational. If He caused us, without reason, to come to a conclusion, we would come to the conclusion, ultimately, without reason.
For us to be rational (per the dictionary definition, ie, having a reason), God must be rational.
And the Christian God is.
Given that no God would be under any obligation to explain themselves to you, where do you get off declaring that they are or are not rational?
I do not believe that what we perceive to be rational or irrational would be of any consequence to a being responsible for all time and space. If we seek to explore this mystery which is the Divine, we should do so with great humility and be careful to avoid tripping over our own hubris.
You're erroneously equating "a reason" (a cause, explanation or justification for an action or event) with "reasoning" (the power of the mind to think, understand and form judgements logically).
The non-sequitur is obvious.
A person may have a cause, justification or explanation for an action but this does not of necessity entail that such a cause, explanation or justification is rational.
The question can be phrased thusly - is X rational because god says it is, or does god do X because it is ratinoal?
Which is no explanation at all.
"You're erroneously equating 'a reason' with 'reasoning'."
Nope. I simply pointed out that reasoning requires a reason, and you appear to agree.
"A person may have a cause, justification or explanation for an action but this does not of necessity entail that such a cause, explanation or justification is rational."
Correct. That was my exact point above regarding unitarianism. The god of unitarianism explicitly denies that he is his own reason, making whatever his claimed reason is insufficient, and his justification therefore irrational. As I just said, you appear to agree with me.
[continued]
"But this does not change the problem or answer the question."
Actually, it does answer the question.
"One might then reasonably ask 'Where does god's nature come from? Did god create it himself?'"
Actually, one cannot reasonably ask those questions. They are based on a premise or presupposition of no reason.
"the rationality contained in god's nature is inherent in some way (in which case god is not truly the author of rationality)."
I accept your assertion. I have modified my answer above to account for it. But it really does nothing to change the basic assertions I have made.
[continued]
"presuppositionalism basically boils down to 'God did it'. Which is no explanation at all."
It is only no explanation if one adheres to atheism, which allows for no possible explanation for anything at all, period. Otherwise, "God did it" is not only an explanation, it is the only possible correct ultimate explanation. It is true that there are many people who irrationally mock that explanation, the only explanation that allows for rational explanations at all, thereby making fools of themselves.
God bless.
Let's say X believes herself to be a hedgehog. Is there a "reason" (or cause?)for this? Yes, she is deluded. Is her "reason" flawed? Yes it is.
You continually assert that reasoning requires a reason. You have not demonstrated that this is necessarily so. You merely assert it over and over.
Your point regarding unitarianism is also flawed and doesn't answer the question. One might reasonably ask on what basis which, if any, of the alleged trinity can be said to be rational.
"God did it" is a meaningless sentence unless you can explain how he did it.
God cannot be both innately and inherently rational and also the standard by which we determine his own rationality. What you're saying is that we can know that god is rational by comparing him to himself.
As I said, viciously circular, question begging and tautologous.
God the father is god (A=B)
Jesus is god (C=B)
The holy spirit is god (D=B)
Therefore by the transitive property, A=B=C=D, and it is clear that god the father is Jesus, both of whom are in turn ALSO the holy spirit.
However, you insist that Jesus is distinct from god the father, in other words A=not A, hence violating one of the basic laws of logic.
The word "is" in your Trinitarian formula is not equative. I explain this in detail here in my conversation with Herbert, a Roman Catholic:
http://www.godcontention.org/compare-religions/are-our-sins-gods-fault#cmt1189
Timothy is tall, but Timothyness and Tallness are not the same thing.
http://presuppositions.org/philosophy/unitarianism
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/articles/disprove.html
What it boils down to is the claim that the existence and rationality universe has to be accounted for.
In the first place, why it has to be accounted for is never stated or explained.
In the second place, the claim that the universe is rational, and therefore requires a rational creator, is question begging and violates Occam's Razor.
In the third place, theists cannot account for god's alleged rationality without question begging.
Perhaps, using another name of God, maybe Love?
Love is the reason.
The reason there was a cross
The reason we have free will
The reason we feel fulfilled by accomplished relationships, the way we were initially meant to live in the Garden