>>593962
>If we accept that there is a creator, […] then how do we come to the conclusion that it is a PERSONAL god?
I think one of the simplest ways this conclusion is often put across is that if there's a creator then it's by definition personal, by the fact that creation is an act of the will, and requires a concious decision to be made that whatever creates will undertake the act of creation. A non-personal entity (like a rock, or any piece of non-personal or non-sentient matter or even a non-material non-sentient reality) can't make decisions, it cannot have a will to act, therefore eliminating the possibility of an impersonal creator.
>and that is a big IF,
*sensible chuckle* It's really not
As for the Christian God, one place to start would be the reliability of the new testament as factual, historical eyewitness accounts of what actually happened, including the ressurection of Jesus and the simple elimination of all other possibilities of what happened to the body/what the apostles and the other 500 people saw and the likelihood of other theories (Roman/Phasisee meddling) being eliminated by simple reasoning. There's lots online both summarising and going into detail on this so look it up.