Essential nature of God

[fred_conty]

As God said to Moses, when Moses asked God who to say that said to let his people go.
And God said to tell them “I am who am”.

But isn’t God all Good? all knowing? all powerful? all beauty? all…?

Dosen’t God speak? think? love?

He IS all of that in one pure act, not seperate acts, for he is simple, and one.
He IS the one pure act past,present,future, in the now, for he is “I am who am”.
He IS everything rolled into one act from the beginning and the same forever.

I AM WHO AM

 

[sw85]

Thanks to everyone who’s replied. I think I can understand JRKH’s answer the best. I do appreciate the other replies. They’ve just not clarified for me what is the ‘‘essential’’ nature of God. Surely if some one believes in God, they must KNOW what it is they believe in, therefor must KNOW it’s essential nature.
**
The mixture of answers seem to suggest this is different things to different people, which I don’t understand. Surely the ‘‘essential’’ nature is consistent and would be know consistently?**

Most didn’t answer how they knew what this was. I’m still interested to find out how you KNOW what you believe the essential nature of God is.

Sarah x

Are you familiar with all the abstract math surrounding the statement 2 + 2 = 4? No? Are you sure, then, that it’s so wise to commit yourself to the belief that 2 + 2 = 4?

This is an interesting post. Of everyone I’ve read so far here prodigalson2011 gets it the most right: God’s essence is existence. The philosophers call this actus purus and ipsum esse subsistens. He is unqualified being itself, meaning he possesses every possible perfection of being without limitation (more precisely he literally is every possible perfection of being).

This fact expresses itself logically in a lot of ways, such that we derive the traditional understanding of God as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, single, particular, personal, conscious, volitional, uncaused, all-creating, all-sustaining, irreducibly simple, etc. But why fish for answers here, surrounded by folks many of whom don’t know what they’re talking about? I certainly don’t have time to drop what I’m doing and write up a lengthy treatise summarizing 2500 years of natural theology for you, but then I don’t have to – that work’s already been done. Edward Feser’s *Aquinas *is a great place to start.

 

[sw85]

Oh my Gosh!

That’s me out of commission and my reading sorted for the next week

Thank you.

Sarah x

Feser’s book I mentioned above extracts the essentials of Aquinas on this issue and expresses it in a much clearer and simpler form, with all necessary context.

 

[jochoa]

I’ve devised four of them so far, all described in the book I’m publishing this month which no one will want to read.

The most interesting, and my personal favorite, involves the assumption that God actually obeys the laws of physics and therefore did not create energy, which according to those laws cannot be created. It proposes that while God cannot change any of the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, He can at least interfere with the Second Law. Through a series of choices, God discovered that the activities of conscious entities such as himself and the “angels” were affecting the universe’s entropy level. Creation was designed to deal with that problem.

But this is a complex theory better explained in the book than in a post. Another theory that might be easier to explain in this venue involves the notion that God did not create the component of man that we call the “soul,” which has always existed as a non-conscious entity that did nothing. God created the human body as a machine which forces the soul (which is an extremely stupid and limited entity) into a tiny measure of consciousness in hopes that it will be interested enough in the result to take personal responsibility for sustaining it in the future.

Yes, this is but part of the whole motivation theory, but it is certain to raise the same objections as when presented on CAF a few years back, so there seems little point is detailing it further. Thus the silly book.

Although your ideas are interesting, in regards to a selfish nature, the following are my perceptions:

In your first concept, I perceive it to be far more giving and selflessly motivated than selfishly motivated. Perhaps this is because I assume that by the time the creation of an additional universe is complete, the human creator will be dead. Unless according to your first theory, we can create a universe within a decade.

In the second theory, if the soul always existed: Will it not always exist? And why would it need to create an additional universe to sustain it in the future? Or are you saying that we need an additional universe to sustain the body?

 

[JDaniel]

I understand Aquinas argument that God’s essence and existence are the same. However, my contention is that essence and existence are the always the same for existing things. An individual human being has a certain essence- (s)he is whoever (s)he is. The fact that he is at all (existence), is not something simply added on to what/who he is. As I mentioned, something can’t BE without being something, and it can’t be SOMETHING without be-ing. If we say God IS IS-NESS, the question still remains, “What or who is God (what is God’s essence)?”

Qoeleth:

I don’t think that you do, with your forgiveness. Rather, I think you understand that essence and existence are inseparable and, therefore, dependent. On the contrary, I think essence and existence are correlative with all but God. With God, they are identical, in my opinion.

What is “existence” as opposed to “existing”? “Existence” is merely the “state of existing”- it is only a name for a mental concept. ‘Existence’ does not exist apart from existing things, and even then it exists only as a mental class.

Except with God.

"The supreme fact naturally known to man is that the ultimate reality is a self-sufficient Being. We realize that there is some reality which is altogether uncaused, which exists of itself, having and requiring no antecedent whatsoever. The ultimate being has not become itself, or received existence as an event, it simply is, and never has been otherwise. It is in every respect independent of all else, because it embodies in itself all the fulness of which being is capable. That is to say, its existence is not an activity distinct from its ultimate being, but such being intrinsically involves its existence in its very nature. Its “nature” and “existence” are one single eternal fact. In all other things we are able to distinguish their particular natures from the fact of their existence, but in the original being there can be no composition of distinct principles, for all “composition” implies some power still more ultimate which provides the explanation for the compounding. The question of causal origin cannot possibly arise when once the meaning of ultimate subsistence is understood. This supreme Being, eternally self-sufficient, whose nature is to be, we call God. [SUP]1[/SUP]

“In contrast to this undifferentiated oneness essential to ultimate being, the universe and the minds of men are composite, for in them essence and existence are not one, but are two distinct (though inseparable) principles forming a composite unity as distinct from a simple unity. The distinction between “essence” and “existence” in the universe (whether considered in part or whole) is no invention of the human mind, but, like all other real distinctions, is objective in things themselves. Observation makes us aware that things not only have existence, but over and above existence they have each also a distinct fabric of a given kind which we call their nature or essence. Existence tells us that a thing is, while knowledge of its essence tells us what a thing is.”
[SUP]1[/SUP] "Cf. the declaration of Jehovah to Moses: “I am who am . . .” (Ex. iii 14)
(The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol 1, Ch 3, p. 79)

I understand the idea of God as “the form of existence”. But I don’t think it means anything substantial, in a post-Platonic age.

But, the Catholic Church seems to think differently, don’t you see.

God bless,
jd

 

[Gaber]

Quote:JD

Qoeleth:I understand the idea of God as “the form of existence”. But I don’t think it means anything substantial, in a post-Platonic age.

But, the Catholic Church seems to think differently, don’t you see.

God bless,
jd

Might be more useful to say “God is the Substance of existance,”

 

[JDaniel]

Quote:JD
Might be more useful to say “God is the Substance of existence,”

Gaber:

Don’t you think that that would betoken “pantheism?”

God bless,
jd

 

[Gaber]

Gaber:

Don’t you think that that would betoken “pantheism?”

God bless,
jd

No. Non dualim or panenthiesm might be a better label. But find the “off” switch for your discursive mind and discover for yourself.

 

[JDaniel]

No. Non dualim or panenthiesm might be a better label.

Gaber:

Which is what Yppop suggests in his thread, “God exists, but how?” and his responses in the thread, “Space?” So, your definition of “substance” would be more like, “intelligible matter,” and is substance only insofar as it is subject to quantity, as opposed to being some mere affinity of chemicals? (You may be right!)

But find the “off” switch for your discursive mind and discover for yourself.

You’ve lost me here.

God bless,
jd

 

[Gaber]

Gaber:

Which is what Yppop suggests in his thread, “God exists, but how?” and his responses in the thread, “Space?” So, your definition of “substance” would be more like, “intelligible matter,” and is substance only insofar as it is subject to quantity, as opposed to being some mere affinity of chemicals? (You may be right!)

Why pop that on me when I haven’t read his posts?

You’ve lost me here.

So rather than define, which is mental discursive stuff, why not employ one of the time honored ways of going beyond the usual necessary-for-human-functioning dualistic part of the mind, and go to the blank/awake side, and draw your own conclusions as to substance/Substance. Otherwise this is all hypothetical and we aren’t on the same page, even if intellectual assertions are fun to play with. But in the last analysis, it doesn’t “matter.”

 

[greylorn]

Although your ideas are interesting, in regards to a selfish nature, the following are my perceptions:

In your first concept, I perceive it to be far more giving and selflessly motivated than selfishly motivated. Perhaps this is because I assume that by the time the creation of an additional universe is complete, the human creator will be dead. Unless according to your first theory, we can create a universe within a decade.

i did not really flesh out the first theory— that was just a sketchy description. In its complete form you would better see the selfish side.

However, there is another problem with your comment. You seem to have thrown in some notions that are not mine, and which I certainly did not imply, that you seem to be attributing to me. Don’t do that anymore. It is bad form.

I did not say anything about an “additional universe,” and have no idea what you mean by “human creator will be dead.” Moreover, “we” do not create the universe.

In the second theory, if the soul always existed: Will it not always exist? And why would it need to create an additional universe to sustain it in the future? Or are you saying that we need an additional universe to sustain the body?

Once again you’ve thrown in some notion of an additional universe. Where did that come from? Certainly not from anything I’ve written. I’m not friendly to any kind of multiverse concept. Such ideas are the poor inventions of confused cosmologists who are desperately trying to make their horrid “Big Bang” theory work out mathematically.

The soul has pre-existed in a state of non-consciousness before being brought to consciousness in a human body. Very few souls will develop a sufficiently high level of consciousness to sustain it without a body, and will lapse once again into non-awareness. That would amount to the same thing as non-existence.

There are more interesting possibilities. A highly conscious soul might choose to enter the classical Buddhist state of “nirvana,” a state of extinguishedness commonly mistaken for Christianity’s heaven.

There also seems to be the possibility that a failed soul might be absorbed (i.e. ingested) by a more powerful soul. This is, in effect, the ultimate vision included in New Age Metaphysics, where we are all supposed to be pieces of a split-up God that will eventually become reabsorbed into the original.

I’m certain that there are many other possibilities.

 

[jochoa]

Creation was designed to deal with that problem.

Another theory that might be easier to explain in this venue involves the notion that God did not create the component of man that we call the “soul,” which has always existed as a non-conscious entity that did nothing.

However, there is another problem with your comment. You seem to have thrown in some notions that are not mine, and which I certainly did not imply, that you seem to be attributing to me. Don’t do that anymore. It is bad form.

I did not say anything about an “additional universe,” and have no idea what you mean by “human creator will be dead.” Moreover, “we” do not create the universe.

Once again you’ve thrown in some notion of an additional universe. Where did that come from?

My apologies for the assumption. Please consider the following questions:
What are you theorizing God created?
Is our soul the same as God’s, or how about the angels’ souls?

Regarding human creator: Since I am one of the dumb souls, and given that you seem to be one of the highly developed souls: the list of requirements to create a universe appeared as doable by one of the highly developed souls to me, since it does not require infinite power, ability, or intelligence. And since I know nothing about entropy, advanced mathematics and “psychic” skills, I figured surely someone that is far more advanced than me, might have these abilities. Therefore, creating a universe seemed doable by a human soul.

 

[Shlomo]

What is the fundamental, basic, essential nature of God?

The most fundamental nature is being not subject to time

And how do you know?

I know that because human knowledge hopelessly fails vis à vis question: “And what was before it?”.

 

[fhansen]

The most fundamental nature is being not subject to time

I know that because human knowledge hopelessly fails vis à vis question: “And what was before it?”.

Yes, plus one time I didn’t have a watch and I asked God what time it was…no answer was forthcoming.

 

[greylorn]

My apologies for the assumption. Please consider the following questions:
What are you theorizing God created?
Is our soul the same as God’s, or how about the angels’ souls?

Regarding human creator: Since I am one of the dumb souls, and given that you seem to be one of the highly developed souls: the list of requirements to create a universe appeared as doable by one of the highly developed souls to me, since it does not require infinite power, ability, or intelligence. And since I know nothing about entropy, advanced mathematics and “psychic” skills, I figured surely someone that is far more advanced than me, might have these abilities. Therefore, creating a universe seemed doable by a human soul.

You have done some very good thinking on these subjects.

When you actually learn about entropy, physics, and math, and develop your psychic abilities in the meantime, your mind will blossom, opening to nifty ideas like a flower. You are already on the right track, IMO, and you might want to put on your flak-jacked if you go much further with such ideas.

My concept of “soul” is different from Christian beliefs, especially regarding its intimate relationship with physics principles. Also, I do not attribute its creation to any God. To avoid confusion, in my book I use beon as a unique word for it. Here, I’ve taken to putting “soul” in quotes.

My description of creation includes “soul-stuff” and energy existing independently of one another. In this scheme, all beons, or “souls” are made of the same stuff. However, this does not make them the same, no more than being made from eukaryotic cells makes elephants and butterflies, or brains and livers the same. Consider the vast differences at every level between different humans who share pretty much the same genomes.

I propose that the differences between God and ourselves is vast, but perhaps the difference between God and Angels is not so great. My book will explain that in logical detail. As to Who created what? —mostly guesswork. It is easier to declare what is not created— energy and “souls.”

My guesswork runs along these lines. God created consciousness, which was the hard part, and explains why He is God. He probably created matter, which IMO is the next most difficult part of creation. Its formation into larger structures such as galaxies may well have been the work of Big, Powerful, Angels. The development of biological life forms, ours included, is clearly the result of an engineering process in which both management and the team members have dissented throughout.

 

[atheistgirl]

As the OP I’ve not responded to any individual posts yet, but I thought I’d better stop by and say I AM reading them, with great interest.

Sarah x

 

[greylorn]

As the OP I’ve not responded to any individual posts yet, but I thought I’d better stop by and say I AM reading them, with great interest.

Sarah x

Yep. Just like a girl to fire up a squabble then retire to the safety of the sidelines and watch the participants with great interest. Gutless.

 

[atheistgirl]

Yep. Just like a girl to fire up a squabble then retire to the safety of the sidelines and watch the participants with great interest. Gutless.

Huh???

Gutless???

I was firing up the barBQ and getting the beers out of the fridge for you boys for half time



Seems to me, unless you can know the essense, the essential nature of something, you can’t go on to define it. If you can’t properly define it, how can you even begin to prove it exists.

Cold Bud with that burger???

Sarah x

 

[fhansen]

Yep. Just like a girl to fire up a squabble then retire to the safety of the sidelines and watch the participants with great interest. Gutless.

I’m still trying to decide if that was supposed to sound gutsy, funny, or just plain ignorant, which is how it came off.

 

[atheistgirl]

I’m still trying to decide if that was supposed to sound gutsy, funny, or just plain ignorant, which is how it came off.

I wasn’t sure, so I opted to take the funny option.

If I’m wrong, wait til you see what I’m gonna put in his burger

Sarah x